You might not think i answered well, but in fact i did already answer. Within reason no. 2% efficient would be a very poor return on investment and for that reason it might matter to the person spending their money. The difference between 40 and 50 % efficient probably wouldn't stop an installation going ahead either and for that reason no it doesn't matter.
But surely after it's fitted it'd need to generate more energy than it's construction took (including collection of raw materials) otherwise it'd be pointless? This is part of the problem in that lifecycle information is too rarely available to enable informed decisions by consumers e.g. you get an energy usage rating on a fridge in a shop but nothing to tell you what energy has been consumed in getting there.....pointless!
what are the fields and fields of panels doing if not supplying the national grid? ar yeah, taking govt subsidies and tax payer money, silly me :Facepalm:
Why pointless ffs? On a global scale and from a green and sustainability point of view possibly. But, from the point of view of mr smith that pays £10k for his free electricty why should he care. This may or may not be morally supportable but after mr smith writes his cheque he is getting free electricity, from his viewpoint. Mr smith might not have the most efficient possible panels because he bought last years crappy 40% panels rather than this years super duper 50% version but it is still free electricity. Lets say that again, it is still free electricity.
globally pointless if you spend more carbon producing than it can ever save, or another way how many years of carbon-free production is needed by a panel before it becomes truly carbon-neutral, and will it last that long..
Most of that 'farm' land is owned buy the council. IIRC Solar Farms have a permiisible residency of 30 years then gone. Many farms are constructed on shit land. No good for farming, ex land fill or old RAF sites and the like. Many also have a community pay back , which is welcomed by hard pressed Parish Councils.
I can say that the huge growth of solar farms in east anglia is built on very good land actually. Just travel from baldock to snetterton for example.
I dont care if a panel or set of panels is carbon neutral. My concern would be, for the money i have paid do i get a return that suits me and mine.
Two large ones have gone up locally within the last 12 months. Both are on prime agricultural land which was under cultivation up until the applications were granted. One is well outside the Parish boundary and is of material benefit only to the landowner, (a member of a wealthy local farming family, a neighbouring branch of which have applied to cover their dairy farm in wind turbines because they are easier to milk than cows) the other has been built ostensibly to power a new housing estate. The solar panels occupy a larger land area than the housing development.
in which case, I don't care if the oil and fossil fuels run out in 50 years, coz I'll be dead, so I want my 8l muscle car now
So solar is here and we are accepting its place on the landscape? I think wind turbines are lovely structures. I like them. I think we need more. I'd have one but the wind is border line.
Bradders seriously, my comment concerns you ? this is a Ducati centric site, i guess you own one, none of us need a Ducati and yet you pontificate about my attitude to resource usage.
I'd rather my neighbours had solar panels on the roof than a 500 ft wind turbine in the garden. Sun glare can be a major issue with some installations. You think it would be possible to develop non-reflective material and technology which renders solar panels less conspicuous. Unfortunately there's little incentive for such development in any industry funded by subsidy milking. Quite the opposite: throw up as many as possible, as cheaply as possible and as quickly as possible before public opinion shoots the cash cow.
