1) You've neglected the cost for new (non-waste)silicon, additional storage, transmission lines, maintenence and labor of pv systems. The boundries for eroei analysis are greater than those for energy efficiency studies

2)Your analogy is lacking. Cotton candy is light and contains little caloric content but is full of embodied energy. She spinning machine and labor use a lot of energy

IP

I agree that an article should ultimately be judged by the quality of the data and argument, but when did good writing become a character flaw? Most scientific writing suffers from a terrible form of prose that follws the following sentence structure ad nauseum: preposition...preposistion...linking verb...preposition...preposition.

E.g.

The cost OF installation OF solar panels WITH the new technology invented BY our company IS less than the cost OF operating the older system WITH the inefficiencies inherit In the system.

or

The effect OF the medication ON systolic blood pressure IN the experimental group WAS greater than the effect ON the placebo group IN this study.

This latter sentence could be rendered:

The medication effectively reduced the experimental group's systolic blood pressure more than the placebo group's.

By avoiding all the prepositions and allowing an action verb to create some of the sentence's meaning, the point is made more clearly and is easier to read.

If you read a lot of scientific writing, like I do, pay attention as you read. You'll become aware of how repetitive and redundant this lazy form of writing is and how it detracts from the writing and makes the point less clear. And then you'll realise how refreshing it is to read something like Mr. Cleveland's essay.

Oh, and yes, the "repetitive and redundant" phrase was intentional.