Thread by @Dr_Keefer

I was recently featured in a @simonahac “gotcha tweet” regarding the lifespan of renewable energy projects. There are some major problems with @simonahac's reasoning which I will go into below. I’ll avoid the mudslinging and name calling and stick to the facts. Thread

2.) TL:DR The renewables industry themselves and independent organizations claim an average lifespan of wind of 20 years and of solar panels of 25-30 years. I will argue below that the solar numbers are likely exaggerated. twi-global.com/technical-know…
greenbiz.com/article/what-w…

3.) @simonahac's overheated rhetoric overshadows two troubling flaws in his argument. 1.) He cherry picks examples of long lived installations instead of examining sources with a larger more representative sample 2.) He relies on manufacturer warranties as evidence.

4.) A recent solar industry study with a large sample size reported a 2x faster degradation of panels than has been advertised and modelled by manufacturers. kwhanalytics.com/solar-risk-ass… pv-tech.org/built-solar-as…

5.) kWh Analytics’ most recent figures place the median annual degradation for residential solar systems as 1.09% and non-residential systems at 0.8%. The report states that over a 20-year asset life, project degradation could therefore be underestimated by as much as 14%.

6.) In addition solar panels are manufactured in millions. A lack of quality control in many factories means a significant number of cheap panels will retire prematurely. An Australian study shows that ~20% of rooftop solar installations are deficient. smh.com.au/politics/feder…

7.) “Of 4140 small-scale solar systems, mostly rooftop units, inspected last year, 822 were “substandard”, meaning they did not meet Australian requirements and may prematurely fail. This equates to almost 20 per cent, compared to 22 per cent the previous year.”

8.) In another example of cherry picking, @simonahac refers to his own solar panels which have a warranty of 40 years. However “In Sydney, the worst-performing 25% of systems had electricity yields at least 16 per cent lower than the best-performing 25% of systems.

9.) Only a tiny proportion of solar households monitor performance according to Solar Analytics chief executive Stefan Jarnason. Analysis of data from over 6000 photovoltaic sites that are not actively monitored found 11% were likely to be generating <1/2 their expected output.”

@simonahac's description of nuclear longevity glosses over the fact that many reactors have been prematurely retired for political reasons ranging from anti-nuclear activism, the deregulation of electricity markets or unequal subsidies which disadvantage the nuclear sector

11.) If the playing field were leveled & generous subsidies were removed & the costs of grid integration such as transmission, grid upgrades & firming of intermittency were added to the W&S ledger you would be sure that many installations would be retiring prematurely. @pwrhungry

12.) Gentilly 1 was a prototype BWR CANDU. Many of the reactors that @shac lists to arrive at his nuclear lifespan estimates were part of a FOAK exploration of the technology to arrive at successful designs which have proven to be very long lived indeed.

13.) Simon’s line of reasoning which lumps in FOAK and prototype nuclear in an overall discussion of nuclear longevity would be analogous to including the world's first PV panels created in 1883 by New York inventor Charles Fritts in an analysis of PV longevity.

14.) In Ontario CANDUs are being refurbished to achieve lifespans of 60-80 years with the possibility of further 30-40 year life extension refurbishments thereafter.

15.) We made the poor choice to invest 10’s of billions in wind and solar which have done very little to reduce emissions rather than refurbishing Pickering which will be replaced by gas worsening air quality and climate change.

16.) In the words of William Blake “Opposition is true friendship.” In the past @simonahac has corrected several misconceptions I held and for that I am grateful. However this attempt at a “gotcha” was poorly argued and contributed very little to the debate.