The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

[Mav]

But note the ROI debate hinges on the longevity of SolarPV and Wind, the figures assume 10-15 year life for SolarPV at full performance, when the figures are adjusted for real world longevity and degrading performance over time the differences swiftly diminish. For example, if 10% of SolarPV panels fail within 5 years, which is about the current average, the difference to nuclear is halved. Even worse, many people are ignorant that their SolarPV is failing or degraded and keep operating an installation long after part of it should have been replaced.

This is your Achilles’ heel. For the purposes of making comparisons, you regard technology as static. Even worse, you assume the performance of devices built 15-20 years ago reflect the performance of similar devices manufactured now and there’s no acknowledgement that they’ll be even better in the future.

To a degree, that’s understandable. Rosy predictions can prove to be very optimistic in retrospect, so it’s fair enough to point out that similar claims made in the past fell short. But that doesn’t excuse discounting improvements. When comparing mature power sources with rapidly improving technologies, that’s misleading. Do you agree that solar panels made today are more efficient and reliable than those made 15-20 years ago?

Certainly, that’s not a mistake the markets make. The problem for nuclear is that decisions are made not only on calculations of current RoIs but on what they’ll be as technology improves. Nuclear proponents have to show that an investment today will reap sufficient returns in years 20-70; in other words, will the investment be worthwhile if renewable energy available in that window is cheap and plentiful. It’s not as though nuclear technology will improve so dramatically in the future that the nuclear industry should be seen as developing rather than mature (save of course for nuclear fusion which would be a game changer).

Here’s a potential breakthrough in perovskite solar cells that may increase the longevity and efficiency of solar panels while reducing their costs and carbon footprint:
Once seen as fleeting, a new solar tech proves its lasting power, Princeton University.

Whether it ends up a winner isn’t the point: there is so much promising research into different approaches to renewable energy production and storage that it would be incredible if there aren’t big improvements made in the coming decades.

As a separate matter, when considering an assumption of 10-15 year’s longevity, you have to make sure you aren’t double counting. How do you know this figure doesn’t already factor in the early failure of some panels or their deterioration over time? Given claimed longevity of 20-25 years, there has already been a significant discount applied.