Big_Hitter
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
solar salesperson came by yesterday to set up a meeting - about how much does a 40 panel system cost to install?
I think LEDs are getting some subsidies from power company instant rebates. They are also getting a synthetic subsidy by the recent $0.25 surcharge per bulb on CFL.
I installed a metal roof a year ago last winter and was really surprised by the savings. My peak summer electrical bill the prior year was $170 or so. Last summer my peak bill was under $90. I live in midwest so we get the summer heat. The light colored roof reflected so much heat it usually was late afternoon before AC kicked in. And the best thing was no "payback period" as installing the metal roof over existing shingles was cheaper than replacing the shingles.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Agreed. I was saying that subsidies resulted in a larger market for solar panels. The larger market resulted in more interest by manufacturers. More interest by manufacturers led to more R&D and large scale manufacturing investment. More manufacturer investment led to the 7.5x drop in PV panel prices that we have seen over the past 15 years. Are you suggesting that you think that the prices would have gone down more than that with fewer people buying panels in the US and Europe?CardsFan said:I think we have the proverbial "failure to communicate". I am saying just the opposite. Subsidies do not kick start innovation, they stifle it. Subsidies encourage the seller to sell the current design, at a profit, because the consumer does not pay the full price.
I wasn't wishing, I was responding to CardsFan's comment comparing the rate of change in the price of consumer electronics to the rate of change in the price of hardware installed on the roof. Pointing out that local installation make them different animals.ERD50 said:That's the nature of the beast, wishing won't change it.
And I was pointing out that PV panels have already come down in price by a factor of 7.5 in the past 15 years. I think the rapidly growing size of the solar market in large part drove those prices down. And that growth was driven by subsidies. So I'm disputing that the subsidies have kept PV panel prices artificially high and stifled innovation.ERD50 said:The panels are mass produced in large quantities already - after a point, the increased volume doesn't cut costs much, the curve flattens. But as pointed out, the labor for installation just isn't something that is going to respond in that way.
Nice. And this link I posted earlier:
http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%...sion 8.0.pdf
shows that hands down (I'm using technical language here), conservation is the cheapest $/MWHr investment we can make.
-ERD50
Interesting paper here, though LOTS to wade through:
http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%20-%20Version%208.0.pdf
But what stood out to me is - they consistently show that a utility scale installation of solar PV costs less than half (without subsidies included) compared to residential rooftop (with subsidies included).
And of course, those subsidies come out of our pockets, so it's a shell game anyhow. So more like 3x cheaper to install at utility scale.
So if we stopped this silly notion of paying people to put the panels on their residences, the same $ could have installed about 3x the amount of solar panels, and everyone would share in any cost savings, rather than an elite few who can afford them (with help from everyone else).
If you are an environmentalist, wouldn't you want 3x the panels installed? Or the same number with 1/3 the money, and spend the rest as the price comes down, and/or on R&D? The price reductions seem to be just about inline with the payback period, it pretty much pays to wait.
-ERD50
ERD50, your link is fritzed, at least for me.
How these comparisons are accounted for in dollars is important, ie, cost would exist to tie large utility scale solar to the grid in cases where available land is far from the opportunity. Very large roof area buildings leased to utilities would not suffer that cost.
How big the accounting ring-fence is makes a difference in terms of achieving apples to apples.
These situations and many others would seem to offer the opportunity for individual fractional ownership of large industrial-sized PV installations. People could buy X sq ft of panel that is installed on warehouse rooftops somewhere, probably in the service area of their utility. The output from that gets credited against their utility bill through net metering. Installed cost per watt and maintenance should be a lot less expensive than an installation on residential rooftops. The square feet could be bought and sold to others. Crazy govt subsidies could flow to the individual owners just as they would if the installation was on their rooftop. It seems silly that, to own the PV output, we need to put the panels on our individual rooftops where they are more expensive to install, more likely t be damaged, less likely to be optimally pointed, more likely to be shaded, etc.Our utility company is starting solar farms and consumers have the option to choose all solar power. But the kicker is the solar power option costs more, at least for now. Directionally, our roof top is not situated the best for solar panels. It does seem to make much more sense to do it at the utility level. But our top tier rates are already 3 times the average U.S. electricity rates. I can't see offering to pay more. So at our house that brings us back to conservation as the most cost effective choice.
Agreed. I was saying that subsidies resulted in a larger market for solar panels. The larger market resulted in more interest by manufacturers. More interest by manufacturers led to more R&D and large scale manufacturing investment. More manufacturer investment led to the 7.5x drop in PV panel prices that we have seen over the past 15 years. Are you suggesting that you think that the prices would have gone down more than that with fewer people buying panels in the US and Europe?
I understand the concept of price supports having the potential to stifle innovation, but not in a nacent tech industry like this. The huge size of the prize stimulated by US and European subsidies is clearly what brought all that capital to bear on PV design and manufacturing.
Now that there is lots of capital in the solar manufacturing industry, maybe it is time to withdraw the subsidies and let the industry innovate on its own to compete in the open power market.
I think the rapidly growing size of the solar market in large part drove those prices down. And that growth was driven by subsidies. So I'm disputing that the subsidies have kept PV panel prices artificially high and stifled innovation.
These situations and many others would seem to offer the opportunity for individual fractional ownership of large industrial-sized PV installations. People could buy X sq ft of panel...
...Is this being done?
These situations and many others would seem to offer the opportunity for individual fractional ownership of large industrial-sized PV installations. People could buy X sq ft of panel that is installed on warehouse rooftops somewhere, probably in the service area of their utility. The output from that gets credited against their utility bill through net metering. Installed cost per watt and maintenance should be a lot less expensive than an installation on residential rooftops. The square feet could be bought and sold to others. Crazy govt subsidies could flow to the individual owners just as they would if the installation was on their rooftop. It seems silly that, to own the PV output, we need to put the panels on our individual rooftops where they are more expensive to install, more likely t be damaged, less likely to be optimally pointed, more likely to be shaded, etc.
Is this being done?
These situations and many others would seem to offer the opportunity for individual fractional ownership of large industrial-sized PV installations. People could buy X sq ft of panel that is installed on warehouse rooftops somewhere, probably in the service area of their utility. The output from that gets credited against their utility bill through net metering. Installed cost per watt and maintenance should be a lot less expensive than an installation on residential rooftops. The square feet could be bought and sold to others. Crazy govt subsidies could flow to the individual owners just as they would if the installation was on their rooftop. It seems silly that, to own the PV output, we need to put the panels on our individual rooftops where they are more expensive to install, more likely t be damaged, less likely to be optimally pointed, more likely to be shaded, etc.
Is this being done?
See link in post 87.ERD50 said:First of all - got a link for that?
See link in post 87.
The panels are mass produced in large quantities already - after a point, the increased volume doesn't cut costs much, the curve flattens. But as pointed out, the labor for installation just isn't something that is going to respond in that way.
-ERD50
Maybe 1.3 mWh per month? 1.3 kWh would yield a monthly bill of about a dime.I'm leaning towards doing this. I probably use 1.3kWh per month on average, so that's basically $130 per month.
solar salesperson came by yesterday to set up a meeting - about how much does a 40 panel system cost to install?
Maybe 1.3 mWh per month? 1.3 kWh would yield a monthly bill of about a dime.
But, my nit-picking aside, what do you find attractive about the Seattle solar program? It's about a wash from a financial standpoint.
A recent large installation was $3.57/watt.
All flat roof (two large school buildings at different locations in the same town), lots of economy of scale. Far more cost efficient than sighting a single home.
896 Total kW $3,200,000 Installed $
-ERD50
Residential install in my part of FL is less than $2.7 per watt now.
Is that the un-subsidized cost? I used the actual total cost in my calculation.
-ERD50