The Energy Question Has an Easy Solution: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
If PV has a 0.5-year energy payback time and 50% of its output is reinvested, then the energy basis for replacing global energy use exists on a roughly 17-year timescale from a 1 MW start. | If PV has a 0.5-year energy payback time and 50% of its output is reinvested, then the energy basis for replacing global energy use exists on a roughly 17-year timescale from a 1 MW start. | ||
The limiting factor is not energy physics, but capital formation, manufacturing scale-up, material throughput, and coordination. | The limiting factor is not energy physics, but capital formation, manufacturing scale-up, material throughput, and coordination. | ||
=Parts of a Panel= | |||
=Links= | =Links= | ||
*[[Embodied Energy of PV]] | *[[Embodied Energy of PV]] | ||
Revision as of 09:04, 22 March 2026
Energy payback is now as little as 0.5 years for utility scale PV. Not counting any open source integrated design improvements. To take it to 0.25 year energy payback time (UMG gets us 30% lower energy already), which is impossible, and thus a perfect project for OSE to take on.
But if we start with 1MW of PV power, and use 1/2 of that for producing more PV - then the time to breed 20TW, starting from 1 MW - is :
T_p is payback time. f = reinvestment fraction. So real impact comes from payback time shortening, and reinvestment expansion.
If we start with 1 MW, and reinvest 50% of energy back into PV manufacturing as a 'solar breeder reactor' - then we have 17 years to replace all energy on earth.
If PV has a 0.5-year energy payback time and 50% of its output is reinvested, then the energy basis for replacing global energy use exists on a roughly 17-year timescale from a 1 MW start. The limiting factor is not energy physics, but capital formation, manufacturing scale-up, material throughput, and coordination.