Just opened ralfys comments
Should not have bothered
Still single study syndrom still has not understood renewable energy is both cheaper and more efficient than way back in 2015
And can not get it is getting cheaper every year as we climb the learning curve and reach economy of scale.
Wasted space...
It's cheaper because of the price, but the price doesn't change the energy return. Look at what happened to oil: low prices but energy returns are still low.
The energy return is highest when ideal conditions are considered. That's nameplate power, and for photovoltaics that's 30.
It goes down when you look at payback time. That's lifecycle analysis, and for photovoltaics that's 11-12.
It goes down even more when you at the cost of making components available to you and how you use them. That's extended EROI, and for photovoltaics that's 6-7, or so-called "outdated" data.
Finally, there's real-world conditions, where observed measurements are made to see what might be actual EROI. One study shows a return of less than 6.
Now, given that, there are many ways to increase EROI, and by that I don't mean lower prices. That involves technology to make extraction of resources and manufacture of components more efficient. But that doesn't stop the trend of diminishing returns: at some point minerals and oil used for manufacture and delivery of RE components and finished goods, not to mention the infrastructure needed for that plus delivering the energy that they produced, go up because of two simple facts that for some reason some forum members in, of all places, a science forum, cannot fathom: physical limitations and gravity. Put simply, the trend for oil, copper, and many material resources needed is always downward: resources that are deeper or that are now accessed because the materials that are of better quality (lower levels of sulfur, higher grade or with fewer impurities) have already been extracted and used require more energy for extraction and/or processing (e.g., lower quantities of lower-grade copper, from light oil to heavy oil). That has an obvious impact on energy returns.
Finally, there are more points to consider in light of these and any transition in a global capitalist system. First, what investors want are higher prices, not low. Prices may be low thanks to better efficiency, for example, but they want them higher eventually because that allows for greater returns on investment. Meanwhile, consumers want lower prices for obvious reasons, but as more of them want and buy more RE components (i.e., demand) then prices should go up.
That's why the main reason why investors, including oil companies, went into renewable energy because oil prices were high. The problem is that they went down because of weak demand, and that's mistakenly seen as a good sign because it means people want less oil and more RE. What's more likely is that the global economy has been weak since the 2008 crash because of high levels of spending and debt, and that might explain why prices for oil are low. It's not because more began to care for climate change issues.
Next, demand in the form of what people want given the opportunity to consume more, is high. That's because most people are poor and want to become rich: they want basic needs plus wants. At the same time, what they need and want involve material resources that face diminishing returns (which is the main factor behind limits to growth). Based on what I've explained in multiple messages, that will require much higher energy returns (from which we get higher energy quantity), which is why instead of a transition I think the world will use every available energy source to meet what they need and want.
Unless the global economy crashes again due to another crisis. That is, in 2008, it was due to rising debt and increasing financial risks leading to fallout, and part of the debt was needed to finance unconventional production, which in turn was needed to make up for a peak in conventional production which the IEA acknowledged in 2010. In 2020, it's a pandemic leading to disruption of supply chains, low demand overall due to high unemployment and business closure, and may lead to, among other things, at least 30 million people worldwide facing lack of food, among others.
In a sense, one might say that we are looking at this argument based on the difference between what we hope will happen (nameplate power) and what's actually happening (extended EROI). What I've been trying explain is the latter, but it appears that it is now considered a waste of space to do so. In which case, I don't see the point in discussing this issue further, as every point I've raised above comes from my previous posts.
With that, I cannot help you anymore. At some point, you will have to connect the dots.