> it’s a technology, not a fuel
Maybe! But nothing has an infinite lifetime, so while solar is a technology, the actual solar panels that get made aren't, they're a durable good or an asset, depending on your point of view.
Right now, in a lot of ways a solar panel is simply a way to burn a fossil fuel to make more fuel. Since the lifetime isn't infinite you can compute the amplification factor. Depending on how you calculate it might be a factor of a couple up (just based on price) to a couple dozen (joules to joules). But it's not infinite.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-cells-prove-...
This finite lifetime and substantial capex is one of the reasons people criticize basically any kind of ocean power; the environment is so harsh that it's hard to do a lot of energy amplification. If your maintenance costs aren't completely trivial then you're opening yourself up to a sensitivity failure. The difference between 2% and 4% per year doesn't seem huge but over 20-30 years is big.
1.02 ^ 30 = 1.8
1.04 ^ 30 = 3.2
That's one of the reasons that people like fossil fuels so much. The amplification factor is huge and it's well known. It might take two weeks to drill a well (on land) and during that time you might use 3000 horsepower continuously (about 2MW). But if you do the math, that's only 672 MWh. A BOE is about 1.7MWh so you only need to produce 400 barrels to get ahead on the well. Add in another couple of thousand for everything else (pumps, piping, etc) and you've still got a very low bar to net energy gain.