The LNG also takes up 3x the volume in shipping.

Also LNG in Europe is currently over $15/mmbtu, and 55% efficiency applies only to advanced (expensive) combined cycle plants that need to run 24/7 to achieve that rate. Peaker plants are less than half as efficient.

So instead of 25-30 times more energy/$ from solar, its closer to 35-50 times, before including the cost of the power plants that burn the fuel.

angry German energy minister noises

Sorry, but 9.1 million MMBtu are a lot less useful than 1 GW of solar panels: machines vs fuel

difficult to justify invading other countries though for their solar, that's why we need to stay on oil, to prop up defence industries and provide education pathways for the poor /s

i guess you could argue too much sun falls on Iran ?

This is a climate group though and yet the economic arguments in some of these comments are bordering on insane :(

I'll take solar and geo-thermal.

When our energy department ran this calc Solar was far cheaper but the actual costs were nearly 10x using LPG because a grid needed storage and diversification to account for the different outputs. If the sun is low you cant run a country of batteries and still have it match LPG.

This image shows Solar at a best case comparison and not the times when its producing 20% of LPG