Solar PV ERoEI

[David B. Benson]

According to

Good news for rooftop solar, not for home batteries
Mark Golden
2019 Apr 09
Phys.org

solar PV has an ERoEI of up to 27 provided the local utility will buy the excess power for a good price.

I doubt that the utility can afford to be so generous, having to find some market for mid-day excess power.

[Roger Clifton]

The renewables spin appears to have a march on us when they say that PV provides "electricity" at 20 $/MWh. It sounds good, but is misleading. I wonder if we can deny them the use of the word "electricity" in the sense of electricity on demand – which it is not. Perhaps when such a phrase is quoted at us, we can rephrase it in reply: "raw electricity at 20 $/MWh". Qualification is then necessary: including backup, on-demand electricity from PV requires separate costing.

The raw electricity that PV provides is useless to the consumer at large. We need to assert that PV needs "backup" or "infill" by gas turbines. In saying this, I realise that gas turbines are not the only backup, certainly not where hydro is capable of such short stop-start generation. Similarly, while PV remains a negligible contribution to the grid, it creates negligible noise in the supply, easily made up by the angular momentum of the much bigger generators on the grid. However the rhetorical assertion, "PV needs gas" is increasingly true as an increasing proportion of renewables soaks up flexibility. In a hypothetical world where renewables saturate all flexibility for its backup, each extra PV generator must be matched up with a single stage gas turbine. That ultimate case should be the one we should quote when calculating the EROEI difference between raw electricity and electricity on demand.

[engineerpoet]

Apr 11, 2019 2:04:07 GMT 9.5 Roger Clifton said:

The renewables spin appears to have a march on us when they say that PV provides "electricity" at 20 $/MWh. It sounds good, but is misleading.

It's ALL misleading.  The entire campaign for "renewables" has been based on deceit from day 1.  The whole point was to demonize nuclear energy using false claims of danger, and sell a romantically-promoted replacement that replaced nothing.

I wonder if we can deny them the use of the word "electricity" in the sense of electricity on demand – which it is not. Perhaps when such a phrase is quoted at us, we can rephrase it in reply: "raw electricity at 20 $/MWh". Qualification is then necessary: including backup, on-demand electricity from PV requires separate costing.

The average member of the public does not have the technical chops to understand this argument.  You need something on the level of a meme, like a PV panel with the moon over it and the words "Why are solar people leaving you in the dark?"

The raw electricity that PV provides is useless to the consumer at large. We need to assert that PV needs "backup" or "infill" by gas turbines.

You could use RFK Jr. himself as your proof, but I'm not sure how much traction you'd get.  The public is extremely ignorant about these issues and the greens are always pushing disinformation and diseducation propaganda.

However the rhetorical assertion, "PV needs gas" is increasingly true as an increasing proportion of renewables soaks up flexibility. In a hypothetical world where renewables saturate all flexibility for its backup, each extra PV generator must be matched up with a single stage gas turbine.

Or a RICE generator farm.  An image showing the physical backup systems might make a good meme.

That ultimate case should be the one we should quote when calculating the EROEI difference between raw electricity and electricity on demand.

Also add the cost of tax credits, if any.  It all comes down to the bottom line.