What does this even mean? What inputs and outputs are you comparing to get an apples-to-apples comparison between efficiency between fossil fuels and solar?
You are going to have to explain this. Because there is no measurement of efficiency in which solar PV in Minnesota in efficient in any way. To produce a watt of electricity using natural gas actually produces less CO2 than a watt from solar that far north. So it isn't even more environmentally friendly. And its far more expensive. It uses far more energy. So I have no idea at all what you are referring to. Cap Ex perhaps or cap cost...if that's what you mean, you have no idea what you are talking about.
For the next watt, you need more natural gas which co-releases more CO2 .. or you can just use the same solar panel again - with its fixed up front CO2 cost already "paid for"
Over 25 or 30 years a panel keeps producing w/out additional CO2 release, during that same period natural gas extraction and consumption continue releasing CO2.
What about the watt after that? I still got the solar panel for that next watt, and with natural gas I have... well I don't have anything, I need more natural gas!
Learn some facts before spouting bs.
If you want people to take you seriously, start linking to facts and analyses by credible sources or showing your math.
The only situation where you would have a point is micro wind generation, and that's basically no longer a thing because it doesn't work.
You're clearly and provably wrong, and looking at your comments shows me lots of clearly and provably wrong statements, and almost every single one of them pertains to energy.
..so I presume you have a dog in this race.