Things must have changed
Things must have changed dramatically. A two year payback of the energy used to create, transport, and properly install solar PVs seems inaccurate. In fact, if I remember correctly, many studies estimate that just the transportation and mounting use up about two years of the output of the solar PVs used on buildings. Many of the PVs used in the US come from China, is that right? So how sure are we that the energy debt estimations are correct? Bear in mind that aluminum (or steel) is very energy intensive to mine, mill, and process - and don't forget about recycling the units at EOL. Concrete, which is the base for all solar installations not mounted on roofs, is also very energy intensive to produce. So much so that many cement plants actually have on-site electrical generation. Both of these materials are required to create the support structures for the panels themselves. Also, in the Northeast and much of the upper mid-west, the payback would be considerably longer, wouldn't it?
It is very frustrating to read the hype about solar having worked in power generation. Most frustrating of all is when you visit your kid’s new school at the grand opening and there is an LED TV with a display of how much energy is presently being saved by the brand new PV’s on the roof. No mention at all of the energy debt. Bad science and bad education.
Combining a discussion of a dedicated, solar energy plant in the dessert with a discussion of PVs mounted on homes seems purposefully misleading. The two have vastly differing paybacks of energy compared to their energy debt incurred when they are created.
In the late 1990s I visited the plants that made the substrates, Spin on glass (SOG) and other components for PV arrays. They could not, and did not use PV power alone to create their products. Many had small arrays for show, but they couldn’t run the factory on solar, not even close. Is there a PV company that uses solar alone to create its products you know of? If not, why?