Solar PV rapidly becoming the cheapest option to generate electricity(grist.org)
grist.org
Solar PV rapidly becoming the cheapest option to generate electricity
http://www.grist.org/solar-power/2011-10-11-solar-pv-rapidly-becoming-cheapest-option-generate-electricity
104 comments
That $60/month is over a 30 year period, which is a pretty long payback.
On the positive side, electricity prices will probably go up. On the negative side, the PV cells will likely deteriorate at a 0.5 to 1% rate[1]. At 0.5%/year, 30 years would be 86% original rating (not bad). At 1%/year, 30 years would be 74% original rating (still fairly effective).
[1] http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/life-expectancy-solar-PV...
On the positive side, electricity prices will probably go up. On the negative side, the PV cells will likely deteriorate at a 0.5 to 1% rate[1]. At 0.5%/year, 30 years would be 86% original rating (not bad). At 1%/year, 30 years would be 74% original rating (still fairly effective).
[1] http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/life-expectancy-solar-PV...
The point is the homeowner saves money from day one, not even taking into account current rebates.
The utility bill savings more then compensate for the extra $60 in the monthly loan payment.
Most solar panels come with a 25 year warranty.
The utility bill savings more then compensate for the extra $60 in the monthly loan payment.
Most solar panels come with a 25 year warranty.
The money saved would reduce substantially if you consider the economic cost of investing the $12500 over 30 years. My guess is the best approach would be to invest the money until the price of solar stops dropping so quickly.
Edit: I'd love to put solar in my house. We have a rebate in my country as well, but I'm sure I can use the money better in the short term, and likely end up with a more efficient setup for less money if I wait. Until then, geyser blanket, install LED's in the most-used light fittings, install a small geyser under the kitchen sink so it doesn't draw the full pipe's water just to wash dishes.
Edit: I'd love to put solar in my house. We have a rebate in my country as well, but I'm sure I can use the money better in the short term, and likely end up with a more efficient setup for less money if I wait. Until then, geyser blanket, install LED's in the most-used light fittings, install a small geyser under the kitchen sink so it doesn't draw the full pipe's water just to wash dishes.
This isn't an addition $12500 to invest, this is instead of spending this (or more) on your next 25 years electricity bill. So you might have $12500 in year one, but each year you would be eating away a good chunk of that to pay your electricity bill - and let's face it, bill aren't going to get cheaper. I'd say that pot of money would last you about 10 years max, then you have to find more cash to fund your next 15 years worth of bills.
The idea isn't to hold out forever, just long enough to let the innovation curve flatten somewhat. Remember, "from $4.00 a watt to $1.25 in three years". Buying now means you're locking yourself into a given year's technology and pricing for the next 30 years, exactly when the price per watt is dropping insanely.
That reminds the "rifle nightmare" of the Russian Defense Ministry (1860s-1870s). Every new rifle system accepted was entirely obsolete the next year. By the time of Russo-Turkish war, the army had 10-20 completely different rifle systems in use.
That was over in 1891 when Mosin-Nagant was introduced. That one was in use for 60 years, including both World Wars. (Germans had highly similar Mauser rifles.)
When the paradigm is changing, investing is risky.
When the paradigm is changing, investing is risky.
What kind of rebate do you have? According to my calculations one needs very little subsidies to make installing solar panels attractive financially, even when discounting for opportunity cost (of course if you take a yield of 7% on your money then it's different, but who has made 7% on small amounts (10-20k) over the last few years and is willing to use that yield as an assumption for the next 2 decades?)
IIRC approximately 15%, which is a lower than it was a year ago. Prices range up to 3x the lowest price, with a suggested 2x to be sure of a good quality setup and 10 year guarantee (which seems short).
However, if you buy a system now and it's 10% cheaper in a year and you would have made say 3.5% on the investment [1] you'll be out 13.5% minus your electricity savings, and that's in 1 year. What about 4-5 years? Won't it be much cheaper then?
[1] I've made about 37% this year as a fairly active trader, so every cent means a margin of safety. No solar for me because I need the cash!
However, if you buy a system now and it's 10% cheaper in a year and you would have made say 3.5% on the investment [1] you'll be out 13.5% minus your electricity savings, and that's in 1 year. What about 4-5 years? Won't it be much cheaper then?
[1] I've made about 37% this year as a fairly active trader, so every cent means a margin of safety. No solar for me because I need the cash!
I've made the numbers match (i.e., same cost for PV installation or using power from grid, assuming defensive increases in cost of electricity for the next 15 years - only going up as much as inflation) with a slightly higher subsidy (1000€ subsidy on an installation cost of a little under 12k€, which would only buy an installation that doesn't produce 100% of an average consumption).
But when the costs converge this closely then small assumptions can tip the scale one way or the other - one % extra opportunity cost, a converter that needs replacing 5 years earlier, 10% less sunshine in one of the earlier years of the installation's lifespan, ... That said though, when you extrapolate costs of grid electricity of the last 10 years, and base your energy price scenario on that (instead of keeping up with inflation like I did), PV comes out ahead even when taking worst-case scenarios of all other variables.
Many people argue that because prices are falling so fast, it doesn't make sense to buy now. But IMO it's much more nuanced than that:
- As prices fall, so will subsidies. Already most subsidies are being phased out or decreased.
- There is a floor on the prices - in the short term that floor is just below grid parity, in the medium and longer term it will be production limits. I don't think it's rational to assume that prices will keep falling so fast.
Many words have been shed on this - I guess only time will tell. That said, like I posted elsewhere here, my parents are getting an ROI of 11% on their panels. That's mighty good for money that can be borrowed under mortgage, and 'green' == cheap mortgages for that matter. (that yield is only because of subsidies though, so it's not really a fair general case comparison).
But when the costs converge this closely then small assumptions can tip the scale one way or the other - one % extra opportunity cost, a converter that needs replacing 5 years earlier, 10% less sunshine in one of the earlier years of the installation's lifespan, ... That said though, when you extrapolate costs of grid electricity of the last 10 years, and base your energy price scenario on that (instead of keeping up with inflation like I did), PV comes out ahead even when taking worst-case scenarios of all other variables.
Many people argue that because prices are falling so fast, it doesn't make sense to buy now. But IMO it's much more nuanced than that:
- As prices fall, so will subsidies. Already most subsidies are being phased out or decreased.
- There is a floor on the prices - in the short term that floor is just below grid parity, in the medium and longer term it will be production limits. I don't think it's rational to assume that prices will keep falling so fast.
Many words have been shed on this - I guess only time will tell. That said, like I posted elsewhere here, my parents are getting an ROI of 11% on their panels. That's mighty good for money that can be borrowed under mortgage, and 'green' == cheap mortgages for that matter. (that yield is only because of subsidies though, so it's not really a fair general case comparison).
Why is grid parity the floor? Won't pv suppliers still have to compete with each other?
In the short term it is - when grid parity is reached, there will be more demand than suppliers will be able to fulfill, and there will be no reason to go lower than just below the cost of traditional electricity. Additionally, it's quite likely that for the first couple of years only a limited number of players will have the tech to produce/deploy at the lowest prices, and as such will effectively (for a while) have a monopoly with no incentives to compete on price.
Of course after a few years these situations will change and as more players enter the market (lured in by the high profits of the existing ones...), the downward trend will continue, without the anchoring to 'grid parity' that exists today.
Of course after a few years these situations will change and as more players enter the market (lured in by the high profits of the existing ones...), the downward trend will continue, without the anchoring to 'grid parity' that exists today.
> Most solar panels come with a 25 year warranty.
How much of "rated power" does that warranty cover?
Suppose that the power output drops 20% by year 29, what will the warranty pay? How about if the output drops 15% by year 20?
It's unlikely that the warranty will pay full replacement value. Most warrantys cover pay value, which is likely to be fairly low for 20-30 year-old PV panels. And no, they won't fix if that costs more than the "value".
How much of "rated power" does that warranty cover?
Suppose that the power output drops 20% by year 29, what will the warranty pay? How about if the output drops 15% by year 20?
It's unlikely that the warranty will pay full replacement value. Most warrantys cover pay value, which is likely to be fairly low for 20-30 year-old PV panels. And no, they won't fix if that costs more than the "value".
It is unlikely the warranties would pay for that, the manufacturers couldnt afford to basically replace panels for free.
depends entirely on how much they expect costs to drop. For instance, I would be very happy to provide you a 10 year warranty on 2tb of storage. Sure, it's going to fail and I'm going to have to replace it, but if I can get you to pay a price that would seem fair to replace the thing once or twice at today's prices, most likely when your device does fail, I'll be able to replace it with much cheaper parts.
(Of course, this ignores the format differences; if sata goes out of style, it could actually cost me more to source a sata part. Of course, judging from how long PATA lasted in a largely backwards compatible format, I /probably/ wouldn't have to worry about that too much in the next 10 years, but it'd be a source of worry. I'd be much more comfortable promising you 2tb of storage of some type with some minimum performance level, and not specifying interface, or selling you network-accessible storage for the next ten years.)
(Of course, this ignores the format differences; if sata goes out of style, it could actually cost me more to source a sata part. Of course, judging from how long PATA lasted in a largely backwards compatible format, I /probably/ wouldn't have to worry about that too much in the next 10 years, but it'd be a source of worry. I'd be much more comfortable promising you 2tb of storage of some type with some minimum performance level, and not specifying interface, or selling you network-accessible storage for the next ten years.)
Does your example include a FIT (feed in tariff) provided by government at a much higher rate than grid power, or are you doing a calculations at grid power? A lot of places have a high FIT value currently, but this is subject to political whims and any incoming government might find it easy to gain votes by trimming the FIT, as has already happened in many places around the world.
Another huge problem with these calculations is the very small fraction of people who stay in one house for more than 10 years. Essentially you have to stay in the house for the entire payback period or you've lost out.
Personally I think the solar price will have to drop to the point where it is much lower than grid (with no subsidies), rather than just about equal. At that point, takeup will be much higher.
Another huge problem with these calculations is the very small fraction of people who stay in one house for more than 10 years. Essentially you have to stay in the house for the entire payback period or you've lost out.
Personally I think the solar price will have to drop to the point where it is much lower than grid (with no subsidies), rather than just about equal. At that point, takeup will be much higher.
Why would you have lost out? Couldn't you sell the house for more than you could have if you hadn't had solar panels installed?
No, just avoided cost. Unless your utility drops the rates significantly, the savings are locked in.
As far as moving goes, studies show that solar systems increase the value of a house by approximately the cost of the system. Of course, if solar system prices fall as expected, this premium would likely drop also.
And the economics are the same for a system where the cost is rolled into a loan during a home loan refinance, an option available to many people now.
As far as moving goes, studies show that solar systems increase the value of a house by approximately the cost of the system. Of course, if solar system prices fall as expected, this premium would likely drop also.
And the economics are the same for a system where the cost is rolled into a loan during a home loan refinance, an option available to many people now.
Aren't you missing another very important number? Avg # of sunny dys per mth. The system is going to generate near $0 of electricity per mth if the pv sees little sun exposure.
Thanks. Could you explain in more detail how and under what conditions (location, type of system) a 4500W panel system generates 70/.11 = 636 kWH of power each month?
In Tampa FL with optimal tilt and no shade a panel rated at 1 peak watt would generate 5.3 watts a day X 30.4 days a month * 4500w panels = 725 Kw per month
Thanks. For optimal tilt that implies a sun tracking system, correct? Do most installations track? Do the sun trackers use much energy to rotate all the panels? Are they reliable, or do they add maintenance costs. The system costs we are talking about here do not include trackers or installation of trackers, correct? How much would that add.
Florida gets a lot of sun. I agree with you that a tracking array of new panels in Florida gives those numbers.
For people in other parts of the country and without trackers I find this site that has monthly solar radiation numbers to be useful for estimating output.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/
Looking around I see that a 4500W system, no installation, no tracking, runs about $20,000.
http://www.infinigi.com/4500w-solar-grid-tie-system-20-sanyo...
Florida gets a lot of sun. I agree with you that a tracking array of new panels in Florida gives those numbers.
For people in other parts of the country and without trackers I find this site that has monthly solar radiation numbers to be useful for estimating output.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/
Looking around I see that a 4500W system, no installation, no tracking, runs about $20,000.
http://www.infinigi.com/4500w-solar-grid-tie-system-20-sanyo...
$20000 isn't a good price. Check here to see more competitive pricing:
http://www.sunelec.com/comparisons_of_grid_tie_systems_price...
Optimal tilt just refers to the tilt the panels are installed at, no tracking.
http://www.sunelec.com/comparisons_of_grid_tie_systems_price...
Optimal tilt just refers to the tilt the panels are installed at, no tracking.
No tracking system. Here are some average numbers of hours of peak energy a day for a fixed system
Portland Or 4.0, Chicago 4.4, Tampa 5.3, San Francisco 5.4
Total hardware costs are currently about $1.75 watt for panels, inverter and hardware. Fed Tax rebate is 30%.
Total hardware costs are currently about $1.75 watt for panels, inverter and hardware. Fed Tax rebate is 30%.
Thanks. Ok, your peak equivalent hours number for Portland OR using a fixed position is 4, implying an average of 365 * 4 * 4.5k = 6570kWh/year, correct?
The federal DOE site calculator for the same 4.5kWh fixed tilt plant gives 4580 kWh/yr for Portland (http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/US/...), ranging from 142 kWh/mo in December to 578kWh/mo in July. What accounts for the discrepancy between the two calculations?
The federal DOE site calculator for the same 4.5kWh fixed tilt plant gives 4580 kWh/yr for Portland (http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/US/...), ranging from 142 kWh/mo in December to 578kWh/mo in July. What accounts for the discrepancy between the two calculations?
A good bit of the discrepancy is that the calculator assumes that the DC to AC conversion is only 77% efficient (see "DC to AC Derate Factor" in the calculator), while the naive calculation assumes 100% efficiency of conversion, right?
Do these installations just pick the best single angle and stick to it all year? It seems like you must be able to get a reasonable benefit by adjusting your panels say, once a month.
Yield from that isn't very big, and far outweighed by the cost of making the whole installation moveable. If you're going to put everything on a moveable frame anyway, it's better to have it servo-controlled so that it's at least adjusted continually.
fed tax rebate turns into a tax credit at the end of this year, btw! Move fast!
Your units are off there. Watts are a measure of power (joules per second), not energy (joules).
It took me some thinking to decode it as well. He has ratings numbers per watt-peak of the rating. Watt peak is a normalized output rating for a panel under some conditions and doesn't actually mean it's producing that in a given condition. He has numbers that a brand new 1 watt-peak panel gives 5.3 watts a day of power in a certain location with a certain configuration. He has a 4500Watt peak installation. So he multiplies the 4500 watt peak by the watts per day per watt-peak. The watt-peaks cancel out, giving watts per day. Multiplying further by days per month gives the average watts per month (average per year) for the 4500Wp installation in the given location. Basically, it's correct, but one has to understand that the W, typically called Watts, in the panel rating is not Watts, but a normalized Watt-peak rating of the panel. It is worth noting that solar salesmen will often intentionally confuse the two, leading homeowners to believe that their new installation has much higher capacity than it actually does.
It's not a matter of decoding-- it's wrong. Watts are a rate of energy usage. It's like saying that my car can drive 60 MPH per day. Doesn't make any sense.
(I do think you're right about the confusion and exploitation of the difference between peak power and average power.)
(I do think you're right about the confusion and exploitation of the difference between peak power and average power.)
My car gets 60 miles per hour per day, when I am pushing it. At that acceleration I can do a quarter mile in just under 27 minutes.
Pretty sure GP meant watt-hours.
I think you mean 5.3 Watt-hours (Wh), 4500 W, and 725 kWh?
http://www.energylens.com/articles/kw-and-kwh
http://www.energylens.com/articles/kw-and-kwh
Sure, a reasonable location (not Seattle), you might expect 5 hours of "peak solar equivalent" sunshine per day on average.
5 hr * 4.5 kw * 30 days/month = 675 kwh/month
5 hr * 4.5 kw * 30 days/month = 675 kwh/month
Thanks. It looks like a 4500W fixed tilt system in Seattle would generate 150 to 572 kWh, depending on the month. 4364 kWh per year, which is not too bad. 1 axis tracking brings it to 5492kWh, 2 axis tracking to 5819kWh.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/US/...
It might become reasonable in Seattle at some point, depending on the costs of installing a system with tracking. One should also factor in that peak output decreases over the life of the panels in figuring out lifetime cost/benefit, and not just look at output numbers from the first year.
It's important to establish what specific area we are talking about in these discussions and what particular sorts of systems we mean and their actual complete costs. Not everyone lives in Florida or Hawaii and my understanding is that tracking systems are quite rare and have their own issues. I've only seen one tracking system myself, it was at a school installation that was done in a field. I have not yet seen them on rooftop installs. There is little information about them but often estimates include numbers assuming tracking.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/US/...
It might become reasonable in Seattle at some point, depending on the costs of installing a system with tracking. One should also factor in that peak output decreases over the life of the panels in figuring out lifetime cost/benefit, and not just look at output numbers from the first year.
It's important to establish what specific area we are talking about in these discussions and what particular sorts of systems we mean and their actual complete costs. Not everyone lives in Florida or Hawaii and my understanding is that tracking systems are quite rare and have their own issues. I've only seen one tracking system myself, it was at a school installation that was done in a field. I have not yet seen them on rooftop installs. There is little information about them but often estimates include numbers assuming tracking.
Tracking is only helpful in sunny areas, certainly not in a cloudy place like Seattle.
Given the rate solar PV panel prices are falling, however, PV in Seattle-type climates (and in Germany like the OP discusses) may be economic much sooner than many people expect.
Given the rate solar PV panel prices are falling, however, PV in Seattle-type climates (and in Germany like the OP discusses) may be economic much sooner than many people expect.
Seattle's latitude makes for long summer days, which include a big part of the not-as-rainy season.
"Tracking is only helpful in sunny areas, certainly not in a cloudy place like Seattle."
This is not strictly correct, tracking does help as the numbers from the DOE calculator show. However, the cost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining a tracking system will cancel out some, or possibly all of the gain. How much so is not clear.
In this case, a 4500Wp fixed angle installation, which appears to be available for around $12,000 not including installation or installation brackets generates 4364kWh per year in Seattle, saving the homeowner $279.30 in annual electric costs given the alleged 6.4¢/kwH rate in Seattle (which seems very low to me). This is equivalent to a 2.3% return on the investment, with, unlike in savings, the principal is non-recoverable and expires after 25 years as the panels reach their end of life.
The numbers are better for other cities true. The DOE calculator gives 5491 kWh/yr for a 4500Wp fixed angle installation in Hawaii, with 18.1 cent electricity. Over a year, the electricity value is $993.87, an 8.2% annual return, but again, with the principle not returned and the investment expiring after 25 years.
This is not strictly correct, tracking does help as the numbers from the DOE calculator show. However, the cost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining a tracking system will cancel out some, or possibly all of the gain. How much so is not clear.
In this case, a 4500Wp fixed angle installation, which appears to be available for around $12,000 not including installation or installation brackets generates 4364kWh per year in Seattle, saving the homeowner $279.30 in annual electric costs given the alleged 6.4¢/kwH rate in Seattle (which seems very low to me). This is equivalent to a 2.3% return on the investment, with, unlike in savings, the principal is non-recoverable and expires after 25 years as the panels reach their end of life.
The numbers are better for other cities true. The DOE calculator gives 5491 kWh/yr for a 4500Wp fixed angle installation in Hawaii, with 18.1 cent electricity. Over a year, the electricity value is $993.87, an 8.2% annual return, but again, with the principle not returned and the investment expiring after 25 years.
> It is surprising how little attention has been created by this huge PV panel price decrease, from $4.00 a watt to $1.25 in three years.
The sad thing is that First Solar's thin film panels hit $1/watt a few years ago, but you are unable to buy them in the US due to Solar City getting an exclusive and deciding to only leasing them at nowhere $1/watt.
The sad thing is that First Solar's thin film panels hit $1/watt a few years ago, but you are unable to buy them in the US due to Solar City getting an exclusive and deciding to only leasing them at nowhere $1/watt.
If some company rolled out production right now for 50 cents a watt, unless their volume was ridiculously high or their tech looked easy to copy it wouldn't have that much affect on the market price. Why? Because they don't have to sell it at 50 cents, they can just sell it at market rate. Only when more than one (at least) company has the ability to sell for 50 cents is the price likely to approach that.
> And the owner of such a system does not need to worry about utilities increasing their rates over the years.
That's not how it works unfortunately. Most of the cost of a utility are fixed. If more people are using PV then the fixed cost get divided over a smaller number of kWh and the cost of the remaining non-PV kWh goes up. Since peak usage in most countries is when it's dark the utility will not be able to reduce its fixed cost until someone finds a way to store energy in an economical way. The utility will simply have to stop paying for electricity delivered back to the grid because they will no longer be able to afford it (the only reason they do that now is politically motivated).
That's not how it works unfortunately. Most of the cost of a utility are fixed. If more people are using PV then the fixed cost get divided over a smaller number of kWh and the cost of the remaining non-PV kWh goes up. Since peak usage in most countries is when it's dark the utility will not be able to reduce its fixed cost until someone finds a way to store energy in an economical way. The utility will simply have to stop paying for electricity delivered back to the grid because they will no longer be able to afford it (the only reason they do that now is politically motivated).
> peak usage in most countries is when it's dark
Citation needed.
http://www.srpnet.com/prices/home/tou.aspx
Looks to me like most of the peak hours are when the sun's out; especially in the areas where PV panels work best.
Citation needed.
http://www.srpnet.com/prices/home/tou.aspx
Looks to me like most of the peak hours are when the sun's out; especially in the areas where PV panels work best.
Even in areas where the peak coincides with a peak in sunlight that helps very little since the reliability of sunshine is much lower than the required reliability for power, so you still cannot close power plants and need to keep the fixed costs. You can optimize your systems for a lower average output in those areas, especially in areas with lots of air conditioning where the peak load is expected to drop with lower sunshine, but we are talking percentage points, nothing drastic. Just look at the cost structure of an energy company, there is lots of staff driving around in vans, etc, the cost of fuel is only a small part.
He's making way too many assumptions. In 1894 a writer said that at then current rates of population expansion in fifty years the streets of London would be buried in horse manure.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past-th...
Course he didn't foresee the advent of the automobile. Breakthoughs like the horseless carriage come out of nowhere. Something like Thorium could end up generating ultra cheap electricity and in fifty years solar might end up being thought of as a quaint technology like buggy whips.
Our goal for the US should be energy independence, not a slavic devotion to a specific technology.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past-th...
Course he didn't foresee the advent of the automobile. Breakthoughs like the horseless carriage come out of nowhere. Something like Thorium could end up generating ultra cheap electricity and in fifty years solar might end up being thought of as a quaint technology like buggy whips.
Our goal for the US should be energy independence, not a slavic devotion to a specific technology.
not a slavic devotion to a specific technology
I'm thinking you mean:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavish
rather than:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples
I'm thinking you mean:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavish
rather than:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples
You are correct. That will teach me not to multitask;<)
Since solar is less than 1% of US electricity generation, it is unclear why you interpret this to be "a slavic devotion to a specific technology".
Solar is the ultimate option of energy independence, since as the OP discusses, 30 lbs of sand turned into solar cells will power a house for three decades or more.
Solar is the ultimate option of energy independence, since as the OP discusses, 30 lbs of sand turned into solar cells will power a house for three decades or more.
But it's hard to store energy and to transmit it across long distances. This is the fundamental problem with solar and wind. You can put one of China's new thorium [1] or pebble bed [2] reactors anywhere on the face of the earth, and the wattage per surface area ratio relative to solar will be a great deal less.
Solar will likely be some part of the answer but it's always going to be niche relative to oil, coal, nuclear, and (where the region allows it) geothermal/hydroelectric.
The question that only experts in the space could answer is whether the $1.25 price per Watt is due to a real decrease in the price of fundamental components/manufacturing processes or whether it is due to subsidies of some kind.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_prit...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/global/25chinasid...
Solar will likely be some part of the answer but it's always going to be niche relative to oil, coal, nuclear, and (where the region allows it) geothermal/hydroelectric.
The question that only experts in the space could answer is whether the $1.25 price per Watt is due to a real decrease in the price of fundamental components/manufacturing processes or whether it is due to subsidies of some kind.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_prit...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/global/25chinasid...
Not hard to transmit solar electric fifty feet, from the rooftop to the iPad charger, pretty much a solved problem.
The OP graph showed solar prices falling faster than linear on a log scale. Meanwhile, nuclear and coal plant construction costs are now two to three times what they were a few years ago.
Not sure where your confidence solar will be a niche player comes from when the pricing trends favor solar so dramatically.
The OP graph showed solar prices falling faster than linear on a log scale. Meanwhile, nuclear and coal plant construction costs are now two to three times what they were a few years ago.
Not sure where your confidence solar will be a niche player comes from when the pricing trends favor solar so dramatically.
Solar will always remain niche because it can't do baseload power. Sure, there's been some success with solar thermal providing power for 24 hours, but during bad weather there's no chance it's going to do that for a week at a time. Anything that can't do baseload power has to have baseload power backup, which is a large cost of duplicating power. Which is why very few people will every totally rely on solar power if they can get a grid connection.
There is no way around the fact that the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and residential power usage peaks after dark.
In short, other types of large-scale generation will always outdo solar because it just cannot reliably provide power around the clock.
A bicycle is cheaper than a car by an order of magnitude, but can't carry passengers or luggage, can't go long distance, and isn't weatherproof. That's why nearly everyone with a bike also has a car, even despite the massive cost advantages to cycling.
There is no way around the fact that the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and residential power usage peaks after dark.
In short, other types of large-scale generation will always outdo solar because it just cannot reliably provide power around the clock.
A bicycle is cheaper than a car by an order of magnitude, but can't carry passengers or luggage, can't go long distance, and isn't weatherproof. That's why nearly everyone with a bike also has a car, even despite the massive cost advantages to cycling.
So the question is, is it possible to imagine a system that uses a majority solar? And does it appear to have the potential to be economically competitive?
First, however, residential usage does not peak after dark. Peaks occur on sunny hot days when A/C usage is maximum. And since in the US the electric grid already exists and no one is proposing dismantling it, that simplifies the problem.
Ten years in the future, iPad-level power consumption will rule for computing machinery at home (iPad == 2.5 watts). LED lights will be common. Solar panels will be the cheapest form of electricity, if current trends hold. Even on a cloudy day, solar PV generates significant power, so about the night?
Batteries, either connecting a city's worth of hybrid cars, dedicated battery packs, pumped water storage, compressed air storage, are all options. Others are to run natural gas generators at night, or wind or hydro or geothermal, all grid connected. None of these are particularly difficult to imagine, and combined with efficient lighting and other expected improvements in efficiency could easily be expected to cover residential night time load.
First, however, residential usage does not peak after dark. Peaks occur on sunny hot days when A/C usage is maximum. And since in the US the electric grid already exists and no one is proposing dismantling it, that simplifies the problem.
Ten years in the future, iPad-level power consumption will rule for computing machinery at home (iPad == 2.5 watts). LED lights will be common. Solar panels will be the cheapest form of electricity, if current trends hold. Even on a cloudy day, solar PV generates significant power, so about the night?
Batteries, either connecting a city's worth of hybrid cars, dedicated battery packs, pumped water storage, compressed air storage, are all options. Others are to run natural gas generators at night, or wind or hydro or geothermal, all grid connected. None of these are particularly difficult to imagine, and combined with efficient lighting and other expected improvements in efficiency could easily be expected to cover residential night time load.
The majority of power usage in homes is heating, cooling, cooking, refrigeration and appliances. Lighting is already falling down the list of energy usage because of more efficient lighting solutions that are already widespread. It is a total red herring to discuss the power usage of computing devices, because they already constitute a tiny minority of power consumption.
Adding battery packs significantly increase the cost of a system by an order of magnitude. These are all true but they do not factor cost into the equation. With any of these additions, solar will still be far more expensive than baseload grid power, and for most will still not negate the need for a grid connection.
All these technologies will be fantastic for remote areas to obtain a higher standard of living, but essentially have zero chance of displacing baseload grid power as the majority of power usage in urban areas.
The only way they will win out in the long run is with punitive taxation of large-scale power generation, which is essentially a political dead end for all those who try it.
It's great to be enthusiastic about solar power, I personally like solar technology and will buy when it makes sense to do so on it's own merit. But there are limitations that are very difficult to overcome.
Adding battery packs significantly increase the cost of a system by an order of magnitude. These are all true but they do not factor cost into the equation. With any of these additions, solar will still be far more expensive than baseload grid power, and for most will still not negate the need for a grid connection.
All these technologies will be fantastic for remote areas to obtain a higher standard of living, but essentially have zero chance of displacing baseload grid power as the majority of power usage in urban areas.
The only way they will win out in the long run is with punitive taxation of large-scale power generation, which is essentially a political dead end for all those who try it.
It's great to be enthusiastic about solar power, I personally like solar technology and will buy when it makes sense to do so on it's own merit. But there are limitations that are very difficult to overcome.
There is no requirement to use batteries to back up a grid connected solar house, any of the current generation options work fine.
The question raised was could solar PV supply a majority of residential electric load if it was basically unavailable at night.
In ten years, when the OP expects solar PV to be cheaper than all other forms of generation, how much power will really be needed at night?
I can easily imagine a house with very little night time consumption. Natural gas furnace, gas stove, gas water heater and dryer; nothing exotic. Refrigeration electric load can be shifted to the daytime by simply setting the controller to over-chill the freezer during the day.
That leaves computing devices, lighting, and entertainment for the night time electric load.
The question raised was could solar PV supply a majority of residential electric load if it was basically unavailable at night.
In ten years, when the OP expects solar PV to be cheaper than all other forms of generation, how much power will really be needed at night?
I can easily imagine a house with very little night time consumption. Natural gas furnace, gas stove, gas water heater and dryer; nothing exotic. Refrigeration electric load can be shifted to the daytime by simply setting the controller to over-chill the freezer during the day.
That leaves computing devices, lighting, and entertainment for the night time electric load.
Don't forget hair dryers, vacuum cleaners, and microwaves, all devices that (in northern latitudes) are used before sunrise or after dark during the colder 5 months of the year.
Maybe we can totally flip culture on its head by going to work when it's dark and enjoying the few hours of sunlight all to ourselves.
Maybe we can totally flip culture on its head by going to work when it's dark and enjoying the few hours of sunlight all to ourselves.
> Adding battery packs significantly increase the cost of a system by an order of magnitude.
At current prices. Grid-scale batteries are expensive now because each is a unique specialty product. If we built sodium-sulfur batteries in the same volume as we build gasoline storage tanks, the price would decrease dramatically.
Efficiency gains also matter, because net system efficiency is a geometric process. Consider a 20% efficient solar cell and a 20% efficient battery: the system efficiency is a ghastly 4%. And that's not counting power conversion and transmission.
If the solar cell and battery were boosted to 40% efficiencies (physically possible), then the system efficiency would rise to 16%, a factor of 4 increase. That's halfway through the order of magnitude price problem you give.
Then there's heating and cooling efficiency. American buildings and refrigerators tend to have horrible insulation. In many localities, merely using proper insulation closes the rest of the price gap.
At current prices. Grid-scale batteries are expensive now because each is a unique specialty product. If we built sodium-sulfur batteries in the same volume as we build gasoline storage tanks, the price would decrease dramatically.
Efficiency gains also matter, because net system efficiency is a geometric process. Consider a 20% efficient solar cell and a 20% efficient battery: the system efficiency is a ghastly 4%. And that's not counting power conversion and transmission.
If the solar cell and battery were boosted to 40% efficiencies (physically possible), then the system efficiency would rise to 16%, a factor of 4 increase. That's halfway through the order of magnitude price problem you give.
Then there's heating and cooling efficiency. American buildings and refrigerators tend to have horrible insulation. In many localities, merely using proper insulation closes the rest of the price gap.
Lead acid batteries are 85% to 95% efficient. A good AGM is 98% efficient.
As a data point, I sized the batteries at my cabin to provide two days of power under total cloud (more than enough for getting to 24 hour solar power) and the batteries cost about half what the panels did.
(That discharges the batteries to 60% capacity. You also need to consider that the batteries will last about 6 years then get recycled. I mentioned AGM because they can charge much faster. If you are only interested in 24 power shifting, it might be cheaper since you'd need to buy more capacity in lead acid batteries to tolerate the charge rate. )
As a data point, I sized the batteries at my cabin to provide two days of power under total cloud (more than enough for getting to 24 hour solar power) and the batteries cost about half what the panels did.
(That discharges the batteries to 60% capacity. You also need to consider that the batteries will last about 6 years then get recycled. I mentioned AGM because they can charge much faster. If you are only interested in 24 power shifting, it might be cheaper since you'd need to buy more capacity in lead acid batteries to tolerate the charge rate. )
[deleted]
Does the actual efficiency of the solar panel matter? Of course it factors into the area needed to generate a given amount of power and given equal production costs more efficient is better, but people with lots of roof space are generally going to install the cheapest panels that meet their needs, not the most efficient panels they can find.
It matters to the extent that you need enough roof space. The last time I calculated I figured that the available south facing roof of a typical midwestern United States house was about right for the non-heating power needs of the house with current solar technology.
No one has ever suggested throwing out all other power generations in favour of only one renewable method. Power storage is relatively easy too, even on huge scales. Look at the way compressed air can be stored in caves or pumping water into hydro dams for some large scale examples of power storage that exist right now. Hydroelectric power provides a huge amount of baseload for some regions already. Also gas , biomass and geothermal work perfectly well at night (when load is much lower because industrial users use far more power).
>No one has ever suggested throwing out all other power generations in favour of only one renewable method
And I didn't either. I just said Solar will always remain niche because of the inherent characteristics of it. You can't make the sun shine 24 hours a day, day in, day out and create baseload power. You can add capacity and use storage, but you'll never be able to make it competitive as you do so, because your efficiency drops as you do. You can be passionate about solar, but you can't ignore the facts.
>Hydroelectric power provides a huge amount of baseload for some regions already.
Agreed. Hydro is a fantastic power source and should be expanded because it brings water supplies and electricity, two of the building blocks of civilisation. And this has nothing to do with solar.
>when load is much lower because industrial users use far more power
Large industrial users like aluminium smelting will run whenever the power is cheapest. If that means smelting at night, they will. Worker overtime is a fraction of the savings they will make through cheaper power Aluminium is literally congealed electricity. Again, nothing to do with solar, but I thought I would add it.
Bottom line ; solar will always remain niche, it will have an important part to play in sunny regions where it correlates well with power usage for cooling, but it will never displace baseload power generation by other means.
And I didn't either. I just said Solar will always remain niche because of the inherent characteristics of it. You can't make the sun shine 24 hours a day, day in, day out and create baseload power. You can add capacity and use storage, but you'll never be able to make it competitive as you do so, because your efficiency drops as you do. You can be passionate about solar, but you can't ignore the facts.
>Hydroelectric power provides a huge amount of baseload for some regions already.
Agreed. Hydro is a fantastic power source and should be expanded because it brings water supplies and electricity, two of the building blocks of civilisation. And this has nothing to do with solar.
>when load is much lower because industrial users use far more power
Large industrial users like aluminium smelting will run whenever the power is cheapest. If that means smelting at night, they will. Worker overtime is a fraction of the savings they will make through cheaper power Aluminium is literally congealed electricity. Again, nothing to do with solar, but I thought I would add it.
Bottom line ; solar will always remain niche, it will have an important part to play in sunny regions where it correlates well with power usage for cooling, but it will never displace baseload power generation by other means.
My point was that it can take up most of the load in the day and then other methods can take the load at night. Niche does not mean unimportant. Solar could easily produce about 90% of power for some regions (remember, electricity is a valuable export commodity) and other methods will take up the load at night. That is where we are going and that is what the article is about. Once the price gets down low enough solar will become the first choice and other choices will just support it, much like coal or natural gas is that choice at the moment. Economics is a very powerful force.
Can't do baseload power is something of a myth, too. There are a reasonable number of pump-hydro systems in use now, and they work reliably and efficiently.
In the US, 2.5% of baseload power is pump-hydro. Most of this is probably powered by hydro electricity, but solar is working well in many places too.
In the US, 2.5% of baseload power is pump-hydro. Most of this is probably powered by hydro electricity, but solar is working well in many places too.
There is no way around the fact that the sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day
Sure it does; we just need to blanket the planet in superconductors, and. . . .
Sure it does; we just need to blanket the planet in superconductors, and. . . .
I was referring to government spending on wind and solar companies to the exclusion of competing technologies.
Note I am not against government spending for basic research it has paid for itself time and time again.
If you consider solar to the "ultimate option" you're closing your mind to other ideas.
People have made fortunes betting against conventional wisdom.
Note I am not against government spending for basic research it has paid for itself time and time again.
If you consider solar to the "ultimate option" you're closing your mind to other ideas.
People have made fortunes betting against conventional wisdom.
That is a false comparison, because you're comparing a 'positive evolution' (yield of PV increases) with a 'negative evolution' (amount of horse manure produced grows). What he's saying is that, even without radical breakthroughs, we will reach grid parity in a few years. Of course there may be a breakthrough in either PV or other tech, that will make it only better.
What he's saying is that we've reached the point where we can generate renewable electricity. Now we only need to triple the output so that we can have our cars drive on it too, and that industry can run on solar power.
What he's saying is that we've reached the point where we can generate renewable electricity. Now we only need to triple the output so that we can have our cars drive on it too, and that industry can run on solar power.
This is really interesting because very recently, a bunch of American solar companies joined together to sue Chinese solar companies for selling panels "below cost" (i.e. "dumping") [1].
I don't understand how that works. What is the cost they use? For industries with steep learning curves, the right strategy would be to use expected future cost as the basis for business decisions, rather than the trailing average (realized) cost, in order to build the market and more quickly progress on the learning curve.
If that's illegal (it's often used in instances I mentioned above), then I feel like progress in industries with steep learning curves will be slower, because companies will be more timid, causing the market to grow less quickly.
What is everyone's opinions here?
[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/234291/20111019/solarworld-s...
I don't understand how that works. What is the cost they use? For industries with steep learning curves, the right strategy would be to use expected future cost as the basis for business decisions, rather than the trailing average (realized) cost, in order to build the market and more quickly progress on the learning curve.
If that's illegal (it's often used in instances I mentioned above), then I feel like progress in industries with steep learning curves will be slower, because companies will be more timid, causing the market to grow less quickly.
What is everyone's opinions here?
[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/234291/20111019/solarworld-s...
We should thank the Chinese for giving us free solar panels which will eventually help disentangle us from the geopolitical mess in which our fossil fuel dependency involves us. We will be able to devote the intellectual and financial resources formerly devoted to those pursuits to more beneficial endeavors.
I'm more inclined to view it cynically, China have already said they want to be the world leader in alternative power sources, a move like this could be seen to deliberately destroying foreign competition, stopping any incentive for non-Chinese companies to invest in R&D leading to a Chinese monopoly on the technology.
At best China will collapse a-la Russia under its own evil government, at worst this will help prop them up for many years to come.
Scary thought.
I'm not thanking any nation involved in such wholescale thought control. Let's not forget it's an evil nation, they're liberty and freedom hating bastards. This seems to be a lost thought recently in the capitalist land rush that's been going on the last decade.
At best China will collapse a-la Russia under its own evil government, at worst this will help prop them up for many years to come.
Scary thought.
I'm not thanking any nation involved in such wholescale thought control. Let's not forget it's an evil nation, they're liberty and freedom hating bastards. This seems to be a lost thought recently in the capitalist land rush that's been going on the last decade.
Personally I wish selling below cost were illegal across the board. It's a destructive practice and allows people who have no stake in one kind of market kill that market.
Take the Amazon Fire, for example. They lose money on every unit sold but they don't care because they expect more sales in their real business: retail. How are companies who only make these devices (e.g. Apple) supposed to compete with that? What market are they supposed to use to makeup their losses. And how can they protect this other market from getting hit with the same thing?
Take the Amazon Fire, for example. They lose money on every unit sold but they don't care because they expect more sales in their real business: retail. How are companies who only make these devices (e.g. Apple) supposed to compete with that? What market are they supposed to use to makeup their losses. And how can they protect this other market from getting hit with the same thing?
How are companies who only make these devices (e.g. Apple) supposed to compete with that?
Apple doesn't only make those devices: see iTunes and the App Store. Besides, one can argue that they do the same in their deal with AT&T (which cuts $100 from the iPad price).
But to answer your question, there is more to compete on than price; in fact, Apple knows that well, considering they've been selling Intel laptops with less bang per buck than other manufacturers, like HP and Dell, and still sells a lot.
Apple doesn't only make those devices: see iTunes and the App Store. Besides, one can argue that they do the same in their deal with AT&T (which cuts $100 from the iPad price).
But to answer your question, there is more to compete on than price; in fact, Apple knows that well, considering they've been selling Intel laptops with less bang per buck than other manufacturers, like HP and Dell, and still sells a lot.
This doesn't make it right. I'm surprised people on this site support below cost selling so much. It is fundamentally a "big player" practice that newcomers can't usually compete in. Imagine you made a company selling one kind of tablet that was vastly better than anyone else's and didn't have an iTunes or App Store to supplement selling below cost? Then you just can't even enter the market because other people are giving their product away. How can anyone say that is the market working? The market has decided this product is worth less than it costs to make? Then it shouldn't exist.
I've found Travis Bradford's book Solar Revolution to give a good overview of the solar industry, with the same numerate feel as this article: http://www.prometheus.org/research/solarrev
The best rebuttal I've heard (to renewables generally, not PV specifically) is the second to last chapter of Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/books/rational-optimist-how-...
(Sorry I can't link directly to the content, but so far as I know, it's not available online in either case.)
The best rebuttal I've heard (to renewables generally, not PV specifically) is the second to last chapter of Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/books/rational-optimist-how-...
(Sorry I can't link directly to the content, but so far as I know, it's not available online in either case.)
Thanks. I will have to get 'The Rational Optimist'. Matt Ridley's book 'Nature via Nurture' impacted me a lot when it first came out.
The online course 'Physics for Future Presidents' taught me a lot about how to evaluate energy sources. I would recommend it to anyone interested in learning the physics concepts behind many hotly debated areas, whom currently has little knowledge or exposure in this area.
The online course 'Physics for Future Presidents' taught me a lot about how to evaluate energy sources. I would recommend it to anyone interested in learning the physics concepts behind many hotly debated areas, whom currently has little knowledge or exposure in this area.
As far as Matt Ridley's writing, can you speak to whether these are the same arguments: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870342120457632... ?
Summarized, Ridley argues here that the "renewable/non-renewable" distinction is quantitative (not qualitative), and that renewable energy harvesting devices are built from non-renewable materials.
Summarized, Ridley argues here that the "renewable/non-renewable" distinction is quantitative (not qualitative), and that renewable energy harvesting devices are built from non-renewable materials.
Some of the arguments in that article are repeated in the book, but it's not the main thrust of the chapter I was referring to. I'm afraid I gave the book to my brother after I read it, so I can't give you an authoritative summary of the arguments in the book. As best as I can recall, the argument was renewables generally have such low power density (W/m^2) and high energy cost ($/J) that they are unlikely to be an effective solution to climate change, should climate change be as severe as we fear it might be. (Ridley is not a climate change denier, but he does think scientists' worst fears are exaggerated.
Here's an audio interview with Ridley that might cover some of the same stuff in the book: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/ridley_on_trade.htm...
Here's an audio interview with Ridley that might cover some of the same stuff in the book: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/ridley_on_trade.htm...
If solar really does drop in price significantly and has a big impact, wouldn't that lessen demand for coal/natgas/etc? A drop in demand will lead to a drop in the price of those fuels everything else held equal.
Of course, maybe the declining supplies of fossil fuels will cause fossil fuel prices to rise. But what about advances that make the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels more efficient?
I'm just throwing these things out there because there's a lot of economic dynamics that could move targets like "grid parity" significantly.
Of course, maybe the declining supplies of fossil fuels will cause fossil fuel prices to rise. But what about advances that make the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels more efficient?
I'm just throwing these things out there because there's a lot of economic dynamics that could move targets like "grid parity" significantly.
Too many assumptions. The biggest of course is that that "22%" number will continue despite the fact that "the learning rate has been exceptionally high".
Another assumption is that natural gas prices will stay the same, when actually they are going down right now.
Not an assumption but rather an omission: He uses a 25 year payback period for solar, but does not include opportunity cost of that money (i.e. how much that money would have brought in interest) over 25 years. Once you include that (and you should) it doesn't look as good. And in any case 25 years is far too long. 10 years is the standard for evaluating payback periods.
6% over 25 years is 4.5 time the base value. So the solar power actually costs 4.5 times as much as he assumes. Even assuming just 3% would give you 2.1 times your cost.
Edit: These calculations are a bit off since they assume paying for the standard power all at once at the end, but actually you make payments throughout.
Another assumption is that natural gas prices will stay the same, when actually they are going down right now.
Not an assumption but rather an omission: He uses a 25 year payback period for solar, but does not include opportunity cost of that money (i.e. how much that money would have brought in interest) over 25 years. Once you include that (and you should) it doesn't look as good. And in any case 25 years is far too long. 10 years is the standard for evaluating payback periods.
6% over 25 years is 4.5 time the base value. So the solar power actually costs 4.5 times as much as he assumes. Even assuming just 3% would give you 2.1 times your cost.
Edit: These calculations are a bit off since they assume paying for the standard power all at once at the end, but actually you make payments throughout.
He says that $700 worth of solar cells would produce 4000kWh of electricity per year which is what the average family consumes. Over the course of 25 years ("a lifetime of household electricity") had you purchased that from the grid, it would have cost $25,000. Ignoring maintenance, you get $25,000 worth of electricity for an initial one-time investment of $700. Though that's production cost, and excludes installation, maintenance, etc. so likely multiples of that at retail.
I think you misread the 25 years as being a payback period.
I think you misread the 25 years as being a payback period.
> Ignoring maintenance, you get $25,000 worth of electricity for an initial one-time investment of $700. Though that's production cost, and excludes installation, maintenance, etc. so likely multiples of that at retail.
Something is wrong here. Installation is maybe $3k. The typical retail markup is 2x. So, let's call it $5k.
25 years of 4,000kWH is 100,000kWH. $25K means $0.25/kWH, which seems high.
Something is wrong here. Installation is maybe $3k. The typical retail markup is 2x. So, let's call it $5k.
25 years of 4,000kWH is 100,000kWH. $25K means $0.25/kWH, which seems high.
The article mentions Germany which apparently is quite high ($0.30/kWh as of 2009):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_elec...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_elec...
in south san jose, we pay an average of $.42/kWH in the summer. and it only goes down to about $.31 in the winter.
Huh?
I'm in San Jose and my last electric bill was $107 (including taxes) for 587kWH. That's just over $0.18kWH.
I'm not on a life-line or time of use schedule. (That's a two family house.)
I'm in San Jose and my last electric bill was $107 (including taxes) for 587kWH. That's just over $0.18kWH.
I'm not on a life-line or time of use schedule. (That's a two family house.)
These solar panels are made with many of the same technologies used to make computer chips (or wafers) and much of the rapid cost reduction was possible because the PV industry benefited from the chip producer's R&D efforts without incurring the cost. This effect makes it reasonable to expect similar improvements over the next ten years - as long as there is still a market to justify the costs of transferring the learnings from the wafer fabs to the PV panel fabs.
Natural Gas prices took a dip because the energy demand curve took a dip in 2009 and most importantly, a relatively new source of of Natural Gas has been developed in North America, which had previously been a major importer. (http://ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng.asp).
Most new power plants in North America and Europe are Combined Cycle Gas Turbines as the relatively low up-front investment, flexibility and (currently)low fuel costs make them the best solution. This should prevent Gas prices from dropping much further. When/if the economy picks back up, the increased demand should further solidify the price of gas.
Of course, if the energy supplied by wind and PV grows faster than the overall demand, then this will reduce the demand for Gas, thus keeping prices low.
Natural Gas prices took a dip because the energy demand curve took a dip in 2009 and most importantly, a relatively new source of of Natural Gas has been developed in North America, which had previously been a major importer. (http://ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng.asp).
Most new power plants in North America and Europe are Combined Cycle Gas Turbines as the relatively low up-front investment, flexibility and (currently)low fuel costs make them the best solution. This should prevent Gas prices from dropping much further. When/if the economy picks back up, the increased demand should further solidify the price of gas.
Of course, if the energy supplied by wind and PV grows faster than the overall demand, then this will reduce the demand for Gas, thus keeping prices low.
sunelec.com,
PV Panels $1.28 Peak watt,
Inverter $0.5 watt,
Rails and Cables $0.27 watt.
In my area I expect to save .18 cents per year per peak watt.
Prices have been falling at 1-2 cents a week since june.
http://pvinsights.com/
In my area I expect to save .18 cents per year per peak watt.
Prices have been falling at 1-2 cents a week since june.
http://pvinsights.com/
But the fact that 30 pounds of silicon, an amount that costs $700 to produce, is enough to generate a lifetime of household electricity baffled me.
Except per panel is at least $300 and you need a bunch of them.
I guess the idea is also to avoid battery storage and just feed the grid.
Price comparison for grid-tie http://www.sunelec.com/comparisons_of_grid_tie_systems_price...
Except per panel is at least $300 and you need a bunch of them.
I guess the idea is also to avoid battery storage and just feed the grid.
Price comparison for grid-tie http://www.sunelec.com/comparisons_of_grid_tie_systems_price...
This is true for deep space satellites and locations where running a power line is cost prohibitive, such as weather monitoring stations in Antarctica.
It's also true in parts of Florida. In rural areas, PV can be cheaper than paying the power company to run out their lines. I expect, in five years, it'll be worth my while to put them on my house, in the middle of the city.
Beyond the power price issues there is some value in being able to partially power your residence when the grid is down. Many of the nicer homes in Florida now have fossil-fuel generators since everyone has seen how a hurricane can knock out power for weeks. And grid reliability is likely to decrease due to lack of infrastructure investment.
Anecdote != data, subsidies are bad, etc etc - but my parents' PV installation is paying off at an 11% ROI right now (Belgium, heavily subsidized), up from an estimated 8% at the time of installation (3 or so years ago) because of the high amounts of sunshine there have been there. Bring on the global warming. There are many people getting filthy rich on these installations (for example those who have large industrial buildings with roof space they don't use - they are getting 4-8% NET YIELD on as much money as they could borrow back in 2006-2007, which back then of course was easy as pie).
A fascinating idea is to use solar and wind power to power factories or mining/production sites that are in remote locations - often, that's one of the main limiting factors.
The main disadvantage of solar power is that it can't be used 24 hours a day, however besides the expensive batteries, solar power can be stored in other ways - for example, you can use every minute of idle time or free capacity to power compressors that pump air inside a few large tanks, and use that compressed air at night to power the generators.
The main disadvantage of solar power is that it can't be used 24 hours a day, however besides the expensive batteries, solar power can be stored in other ways - for example, you can use every minute of idle time or free capacity to power compressors that pump air inside a few large tanks, and use that compressed air at night to power the generators.
In the article the author claims the price reductions came from technology improvements. But some say they are caused by the entry of the Chinese on the market with heavy subsidies and dumping practices (http://www.grist.org/solar-power/2011-10-19-are-we-in-a-sola...).
How can landlords make this an investment that pay off? http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=solar+panels... hardly finds any hits, so I take it "you'll have lower electric bills in this apartment" has not been found an effective way to attract renters.
This is fantastic. Haven't looked at the solar pv for couple years. Didn't realize they have dropped so much in price.
Does anyone know the current approximate total cost (labor + material) in Northern CA? It was like $8-$10/W last I looked couple years ago. Also how easy is a DIY approach in installation?
Does anyone know the current approximate total cost (labor + material) in Northern CA? It was like $8-$10/W last I looked couple years ago. Also how easy is a DIY approach in installation?
I just got quoted $5.10/W in NC, can't imagine the CA costs are too different.
>As scale goes up, per-unit costs come down. This is known as a "learning curve"
Weird. Where I come from that is called economies of scale & learning curves are applicable only to the labour component.
Weird. Where I come from that is called economies of scale & learning curves are applicable only to the labour component.
"European solar radiation"? How much is that exactly? I'm pretty sure the radiation levels where I live (Portugal) are much higher than in Scandinavia.
Solyndra is an early casualty, since their business model depended on PV panel prices to fall much more slowly.
The economics of home based solar electricity depends on three numbers, the panel price, the local retail electric rate, and the interest rate of the loan for the system. Right now, in much of the US, you can see that a PV system makes sense for new construction. A simple example:
In a nutshell, this is grid parity, right now in 2011. And the owner of such a system does not need to worry about utilities increasing their rates over the years.