Some of those poor Brits will be poorer when they realize their water pipes got frozen and then it bursted open lmao.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Yes, but polysilicon production is very electricity intensive. And we've seen significant decreases in the amount of materials required (and therefore energy) to produce solar.
So 3x is a reasonable working assumption. But even a 2x difference completely debunks old studies on solar EROEI.
The NREL paper you use has old data again. 2017 this time. That is a lifetime ago in the world of solar.
So of course the NREL and world-nuclear.org sources match up, given that they use the same OLD data.
---
There are lots of solar costs analyses, but here is the version from Lazards which covers 2014-2021. Their estimate is that solar costs have decreased by almost 2.5x in this timeframe. And Lazard's actually spend billions on funding energy projects.
lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/
---
Why is it so difficult to accept that solar has seen huge improvements in the past few years?
We all know that Chinese data which is just 2 years old can be completely obsolete.
And solar is an industry which is dominated by Chinese companies which are relentless at reducing costs, and therefore energy consumption
80% of all solar production is located in China and the estimate is that by 2025, China will account for 95%.
So let's say the NREL EROEI paper is accurate as of 2017
If costs have decreased by 2-2.5x, you get the following solar EROEI figures
2x adjustment: EROEI of 7-10 becomes 14-20
2.5x adjustment: EROEI of 7-10 becomes 17.5-25
That matches up with the guaranteed performance levels of todays P-Type and N-Type solar panels, which I've seen range from 17-27 for EROEI.
Again, you cannot use OLD data when looking at fast-moving technologies
Look at how the West is in denial at China's development because they are all using old datapoints
I already noted that cost is not a proxy for EREOI because not all costs are energy related.
Cost is a suitable proxy because the final cost of a solar panel has very contribution from the:
a) labour component
b) capital investment components.
A panel is mostly materials, so cost reductions reduce the material content, and likely means a direct reduction in the energy required.
---
And the other side of the equation is technology improvements in efficiency and longevity, which increase electricity generation.
So if the NREL have an estimate of EROEI of 7-10 back in 2014, what do you expect the figure to be today?
We have actual cost breakdowns so there's no guessing involved.
Note the cost breakdown. Most of the cost is in non-silicon related components of the photovoltaic module. Most of the decline in cost is 1.) amortizing R&D and 2.) declining rest of module costs. Silicon and wafer processing costs are not changing much. This is not surprising since wafer processing and silicon costs draw on the existing semiconductor industry which already has best practices known for silicon production and wafer processing.
NREL also makes very optimistic assumptions like average 22% efficiency while , so real costs are more in line with their 2019 estimates.
More estimates on payback time, which is a more direct measure of EROEI than currency cost:
Consensus is 6-10 years at best as of 2021, a far cry from the 3 month payback time for nuclear and hydro.
As for why I'm skeptical, without doxxing myself, it's sufficient to say I'm not an uneducated or merely self educated layman in photovoltaics. In the course of my association with the field, I found the amount of overhyping, overselling and overpromising to be excessive.
Last edited:
I guess it isn’t too long before both sides are at each other throat.
U.S. tightens chip export rules to China, hitting Nvidia and AMD
TAIPEI -- The U.S. is further restricting shipments to China of high-end graphics processors and AI accelerators used in high-performance computing, a move that is already affecting Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices as Washington steps up efforts to curb Chinese technological and military advancements.Nvidia confirmed to Nikkei Asia that two of its premium AI computing chips and one type of its powerful AI computing system were affected by a new U.S. regulation. The company said it will seek export control licenses and will also talk to customers in China about the issue.
AMD meanwhile alerted its China operations on Wednesday that the U.S. chipmaker will suspend some shipments of high-end GPUs to China, according to two people familiar with the matter. AMD confirmed to Nikkei Asia that it has received notification of new licensing requirements from the U.S. Department of Commerce that prevent it from shipping MI250 integrated circuits to China and Russia.
"The only current products that the new licensing requirement applies to are A100, H100 and systems such as DGX that include them," a Nvidia spokesperson said, referring to the company's premium AI accelerators, which can be used to develop cutting-edge supercomputers.
AMD's MI250 chip is another such AI accelerator.
An official from the Commerce Department told Nikkei Asia that the agency cannot comment on specific policy changes but said it is taking a comprehensive approach to implement additional actions necessary to protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests and avoid any advanced U.S. technologies ending up being used in Chinese military applications.
Non-paywall source:
Last edited:
Hahaha.
This garbage company deserves it for being an American slave. Always knew that they were a "fraudulent" company compared to BYD.
See how much NIO was proud for cooperating with NVIDIA? Serves them right.
Good stuff. Using NVIDIA DGX. So lets see how good it is... oh actually it doesn't matter because it is now forbidden to get it:
Lol
Lmao