The answer for traditional solar panels is about 2 months IIRC.
The answer for these should be significantly less, because you should only count the delta between solar tiles and non-solar tiles rather than the entire footprint.
The carbon footprint idea seems flawed to me. It always just depends how far you look. There are machines making machines making machines and so on, the chain is really long and those early machines in the chain, which may have been necessary to create given product, may not even exist anymore. They might have existed before the product was even invented.
Note that the whole idea was mostly popularized by BP [1][2].
No, I couldn't find it again, it was just from memory. But a check on your number shows that it came from 2004. The price of solar panels has dropped ~90% since 2004, and price is fairly well correlated with carbon footprint.
> The price of solar panels has dropped ~90% since 2004, and price is fairly well correlated with carbon footprint.
Part of that low price was China flooding the market with cheap subsidized cells in other to take the competition out of business. Similar to the way Amazon puts the prices (of products and prime) up in markets where they've already eliminated most of the competition.
I don't think actual energy footprint has reduced by that much, I'm sure it has a bit though.
Frauenhofer pv report says 4 months to 3 years EPBT depending on travel distance, grid losses (both in manufacture and generation) and install location. If you install on a single axis tracker in Chile and use the energy DC then 2 months is believable. These lose about half the light, so up to six years assuming the decorative tile part is negligibly higher carbon than what would go there anyway.
The answer for these should be significantly less, because you should only count the delta between solar tiles and non-solar tiles rather than the entire footprint.