Schalke you are being very selective with the information you choose to write about.
You do this by hiding all of your arguement in data. But there are some basic facts that can't be hidden. The actual truth about Vietnam is that they have massive oversupply of solar. Right now, the folk who created the solar farms in response to their governments offer to pay a guaranteed rate for electricity offered to their grid are in a legal battle with their government. The government expected 850MW of solar. What they got was 16.5 GW of solar. Their grid could take up to 2GW. So there is 14.5 GW of community solar power they don't know what to do with.
Like I've shown, with commercially available technology, they could easily dump that power into hydrogen, and distribute the hydrogen throughout their economy, and even sell excess hydrogen to other countries needing it.
But the government is pressured by the grid owning companies to respond not by stepping up, to give these communities the technical knowledge and funds that might be needed to convert their solar farms to points of hydrogen generation and local microgrid 24/7, but to actually order the dismantling of the solar infrastructure.
The government made the first mistake of grossly underestimating how quickly solar could be ramped up, using exactly the same kind of argument you are making here.
The reason they got it wrong is because they underestimated its value to people.
The reason they are still getting it wrong is because they are underestimating the value of hydrogen, and the maturity of hydrogen technology.
They are allowing the financial might of the self interested, centralised energy company to sway their objectivity.
All of this is down to a fundamental underestimation of the value of sunlight, which obeys no EROI, because it is not capital, it is a permanent function of time, therefore cannot be considered as capital.
Any attempt to compare solar energy with anything else using EROI invalidates all arguments based on it. This is a mathematical fact, which you should at least be able to see.
Given capital on one hand, and something which is a function of time on the other hand, which one has the most value? I hope you would say the function of time, which always removes all value of any amount of capital, in time.
There is only one way to issue funds economically honoring the Joules coming in and being put to use from solar, more than tens of GigaJoules per second in every developed country, and that is to issue continuous funds for free to all people, reflecting those Joules and transporting them to all people in a similar way as the nutrients in a tree transport the energy from solar to all of life needing it, and the current flow in an electrical circuit, and fuel flowing in a pipe make all things glow bright.
Since those Joules are donated, not extracted, money issued as debt can't reflect it, because debt has to translate to work of extraction, none of which is associated with solar.
There are many views of the system confirming this is the correct way to see and do things, none of it requires analysis of much data, only a willingness to accept that they way we've done things at profit for thousands of years, is the thing that needs to change.
To me you are charging down an energy cul-de-sac, which has a dead end we can't get around, and you seem to be making this mistake based on mistaken ideology, which is that somehow nature is intrinsically "Stingy" when it isn't at all, quite the opposite is true, but that mistaken believe makes you select only the information you believe confirms your argument.
Sorry if that questions your scientific objectivity, but if I was to ask a final question, how would it affect your job, if you were to say to your employers, that you believe their business is a useless waste of energy, if it can't be solar powered?
