Re:Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased...
by davrosthedalek on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @05:50AM
(#14040918)
..except for maintenance.
Does anybody have up-to-date numbers how long hydro/solar/wind have to run to recoup the energy used in production? For a while, Solar was essentially "let's import energy from Asia in the form of pretty sand", but I think this has changed.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased...
by bildung on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @07:36AM
(#14041300)
> For a while, Solar was essentially "let's import energy from Asia in the form of pretty sand", but I think this has changed.
Considering the fact that efficient pv panels need less than 4% of their lifetime output for production (if in service 25 years (most panels last up to 40 years)), that must have been the late 70s or so.
You were probably remembering that 2010 study talking about the rapidly growing solar industry as a whole becoming net producers of energy, e.g. current industry energy input is now lower than current running PV output (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/april/pv-net-energy-04021...). But that doesn't say much about net energy production per panel over the panel's lifetime, e.g. if the PV industry would disappear this very moment, existing PV installations would still produce energy for decades.
Re:Nuclear plant shutdowns tied to coal pollution, decreased...
by davrosthedalek on Wednesday April 05, 2017 @04:39PM
(#14045411)
The numbers I heard had a 50% replacement/failure rate or so after 10 years. However, that might have been related to the roof installations in Germany.