US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year • Hacker News Board

Re: US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year

#31

Post by Iv » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:21 AM UTC

nwah1 wrote: post #18

Solar panels are a semiconductor technology, and as such follow Moore's Law, and have been for decades. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/smaller-chea...

No. Moore's law talks about miniaturization that leads to better performance and about the fact that when it was first pronounced, no significant roadblocks seemed to exist for 20 years.

The improvements in solar panel tech do not depend on such a straightforward route. There is no process that you can simply iterate through to reproduce the last performance gain.

Re: US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year

#32

Post by s0rce » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:21 AM UTC

redwood wrote: post #8

Flying recently from Phoenix to San Jose I was amazed by the size of the solar arrays I saw in the desert. I wasn't sure that that was what they were; but I found some of them on Google maps satellite after and confirmed it (cool time we live it). Good news is that there's so much more room to build more!!! Edit here if anyone's curious: https://goo.gl/maps/SjzWw9b2dSH2 Edit 2 - as an aside, when I first saw, I could…

Sadly, there appears to be many environmentalists and conservation people against large desert solar arrays claiming it threatens habitat of whatever lives there. It probably does have an impact but at this point unless population declines or energy use dramatically decreases I think we need to focus on minimizing human impact on the environment and not stopping everything that isn't completely harmless.

Re: US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year

#33

Post by maxerickson » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:25 AM UTC

D_Alex wrote: post #30

sounds wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation-adjusted residential costs according to nrel.gov are shown in the chart on page vi of https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf The raw costs, not adjusted for inflation: Q1 2014: $4.52/W total for $1.03/W modules [0] Q1 2015: $3.09/Wdc total for $0.70/Wdc modules [1] Q1 2016: $2.93/Wdc total for $0.63/Wdc modules [2] Q1 2017: $2.80/Wdc total for $0.35/Wdc modules [3] Conclusion: Even if the modules cost…

Based on the Australian experience, the next wave of price declines for residential solar will indeed come from balance-of-system cost declines, increased installation efficiency and lower profits. Current costs in Australia are about A$ 1.70 /pk-W (~US$1.35), pre-subsidies, split roughly into 35% modules, 10% inverter, 10% mounting system, 10% other hardware (cabling, switchboard etc), 10% installation and 25% "vend…

Probably not enough interest.

It'd be interesting to see the costs split out based on available sun. I would guess they are lower in Phoenix than in Connecticut.

Re: US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year

#34

Post by hwillis » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:28 AM UTC

sounds wrote: post #23

ggm wrote: post #12

The non-decline in the associated costs for individual installs has to be thought about. If this is a true reflection of unavoidable costs, home installs are unlikely to break a cost barrier, and won't make substantive differences in centralized generation. If on the other hand they are mutable costs, and can be brought down, then microgrids and local power has more chance of becoming something of substance. The bigg…

Inflation-adjusted residential costs according to nrel.gov are shown in the chart on page vi of https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf The raw costs, not adjusted for inflation: Q1 2014: $4.52/W total for $1.03/W modules [0] Q1 2015: $3.09/Wdc total for $0.70/Wdc modules [1] Q1 2016: $2.93/Wdc total for $0.63/Wdc modules [2] Q1 2017: $2.80/Wdc total for $0.35/Wdc modules [3] Conclusion: Even if the modules cost…

> Conclusion: Even if the modules cost $0.0000001, the total price could not fall much more unless the rest of the business model gets updated.

Which is where solar roofing comes in, taking up the cost of installation almost completely and dropping price almost to grid scale. Of course, the only solar roofing available forces you to get it installed by their technicians, but hey. Baby steps.

Re: US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year

#35

Post by totalBeginner » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:36 AM UTC

sounds wrote: post #29

bagacrap wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So from 16 to 17, the total cost aside from modules went up?

I haven't collected the hard numbers for what is presented on page vi of https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf , but soft costs appear to have swollen to take up most of the cost savings from reduced module prices. In other words, yep.

Here are the exact numbers that went into the figure you reference, the key costs findings by category for 2010-2017: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/nrel-u-s-solar-photovoltaic...

Soft costs decreased appreciably from 2016-2017 in both "utility-scale" categories (Fixed-Tilt, and One-Axis Tracker), and have increased slightly at the smaller "commercial" and "residential" scales. Across all scales, soft costs claim a larger portion because other costs are falling more quickly.

Only at residential scale has soft cost growth consumed much of the savings in other costs: $-0.18/(watt installed) total cost, $+0.16/(watt installed) soft costs.

At commercial scale: $-0.32/(watt installed) total cost, $+0.05/(watt installed) soft costs.

While this direction of change is certainly suboptimal, I don't think the magnitude is worrisome yet.

EDIT: paragraph/line breaks for clarity of presentation.

Re: US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year

#36

Post by hwillis » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:41 AM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #19

ggm wrote: post #12

The non-decline in the associated costs for individual installs has to be thought about. If this is a true reflection of unavoidable costs, home installs are unlikely to break a cost barrier, and won't make substantive differences in centralized generation. If on the other hand they are mutable costs, and can be brought down, then microgrids and local power has more chance of becoming something of substance. The bigg…

In the US at least, a huge fraction of costs for residential solar are in customer acquisition. Something like 20%-30% of the cost of a residential install goes to paying for lists of potential customers and marketing to them! This makes US residential solar much more expensive than in many other countries. After that cost is reduced, there may be room for innovation in reducing install costs by bundling solar with r…

> In the US at least, a huge fraction of costs for residential solar are in customer acquisition. Something like 20%-30% of the cost of a residential install goes to paying for lists of potential customers and marketing to them!

Page 22 of the report[1] estimates sales and marketing/customer acquisition for residential solar to be 12% of the price, and says Vivint and Sunrun report it as 17% and 22%, so I think your numbers are a bit high. I also doubt that cost will actually fall- if anything it might rise, since advertising pays for itself. As costs drop it becomes more important to advertise the low costs!

[1]: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf

Re: US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year

#37

Post by economics1241 » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:41 AM UTC

future1979 wrote: post #11

taneq wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Over-producing" isn't really a thing. You're complaining about supply outstripping demand causing prices to fall - that's always going to happen with any mass produced goods. It sounds like the real issue is that doing R&D in the U.S. is uncompetitively expensive compared to doing the same work in China.

Err ... not according to Econ 101. A rational producer in a perfectly competitive market supplies just enough to clear the market. When people distort markets with subsidies, etc. the amount produced is more. This can also be in industries with barriers to entry as a large producer might supply more on purpose to drive existing competitors out of business.

Always gotta be careful applying 101 knowledge to a real world problem.

Also, this is an unfortunate misinterpretation of even econ 101. Econ 101 says that there is not a fixed demand for most goods. Demand (and supply) have elasticity, which is a measure of their responsiveness to price changes. A rational producer with perfect information does not "clear the market" if that means "supply enough to meet all demand for the good." (If that's not what it means, I really don't know what it does mean.) They supply just to the point where marginal cost of production is equal to the price the next consumer is willing to pay.

And, subsidies are not definitionally distortionary. Sometimes they can be used to correct uncaptured positive externalities.

Re: US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year

#38

Post by csours » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:42 AM UTC

redwood wrote: post #8

Flying recently from Phoenix to San Jose I was amazed by the size of the solar arrays I saw in the desert. I wasn't sure that that was what they were; but I found some of them on Google maps satellite after and confirmed it (cool time we live it). Good news is that there's so much more room to build more!!! Edit here if anyone's curious: https://goo.gl/maps/SjzWw9b2dSH2 Edit 2 - as an aside, when I first saw, I could…

ag = agriculture ... took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out it wasn't a technical term for something.

Re: US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year

#39

Post by icefox » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:47 AM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #19

ggm wrote: post #12

The non-decline in the associated costs for individual installs has to be thought about. If this is a true reflection of unavoidable costs, home installs are unlikely to break a cost barrier, and won't make substantive differences in centralized generation. If on the other hand they are mutable costs, and can be brought down, then microgrids and local power has more chance of becoming something of substance. The bigg…

In the US at least, a huge fraction of costs for residential solar are in customer acquisition. Something like 20%-30% of the cost of a residential install goes to paying for lists of potential customers and marketing to them! This makes US residential solar much more expensive than in many other countries. After that cost is reduced, there may be room for innovation in reducing install costs by bundling solar with r…

When I got solar several years ago I watched as the various installers wasted a ton of time selling to me. It was clear that all the steps between when I was interested and when I gave the go ahead to start the install were extremely expensive in the big picture and in the long term the winners of residential installation would be those that will be able to drive that cost down and or spread that cost out to as many customers as possible.

They visited my house when I was just looking for a quote. The quotes were these large custom contracts with all the information which we would iterate a few times on.

I can imaging these days just going to a website, finding my roof, selection my option and getting a quote in real time. Maybe they would even let different installers all bid for the job, who knows. The website would have detailed information and information if I want it. Only if I did an initial downpayment would someone come out to confirm it could be installed. Someone like this could be able to drive the install cost down.

Or maybe "groupon deals" where if you and 4 other neighbors on your block all buy solar it is 15% cheaper or something. That would be one way to shift the marketing and sales to the consumer and not the installer.

Re: US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year

#40

Post by SteveCoast » Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:48 AM UTC

s0rce wrote: post #32

redwood wrote: post #8

Flying recently from Phoenix to San Jose I was amazed by the size of the solar arrays I saw in the desert. I wasn't sure that that was what they were; but I found some of them on Google maps satellite after and confirmed it (cool time we live it). Good news is that there's so much more room to build more!!! Edit here if anyone's curious: https://goo.gl/maps/SjzWw9b2dSH2 Edit 2 - as an aside, when I first saw, I could…

Sadly, there appears to be many environmentalists and conservation people against large desert solar arrays claiming it threatens habitat of whatever lives there. It probably does have an impact but at this point unless population declines or energy use dramatically decreases I think we need to focus on minimizing human impact on the environment and not stopping everything that isn't completely harmless.

There are circular-ish arrays of mirrors which reflect light to a tower with a water tank. The water turns to steam which turns a generator. There's at least one of these on the flight path from phoenix to SF somewhere.

Anyway, I read that this instantly incinerates any birds flying near the focal volume and you get these little puffs of vaporized bird every few minutes.