Letters to the Editor
-
Glad to see this posted
I'm there with you on the "don't laugh" part. I've always thought of it as a 9.6 on the "Duh!" scale. First:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_basics.html
Which I don't think is the page you're referencing as the terms, although afaik are the same, are not identical. The results are still similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics
Also talks about how EROEI tends towards 10-30, depending on location, and I believe not too far from a typical fossil fuel plant. My solar install paid itself off energy-wise last November. I'd had it in for a little over two years in my terribly sunny climate and actually out-produced what the installer predicted.
The related costs of the manufacturing emissions is trickier, but still something we can track down. I will say, though, that in my conversations with anti-solar folks that while they question this part - assuming they "trust" me on the payback question - there is never a mention of the *huge* dumping of dangerous materials coal powered plants produce (and this without comment about the startup costs of said plant). I just finished up "Big Coal" by Jeff Goodell, and the next time someone passes over the non-CO2 emissions of most coal plants, it will be a tremendous accomplishment for me to not slap them silly.
(Which is not to say CO2 is no big deal, but geeeez... methyl mercury is harsh!)