Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reneweconomy.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

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

#81

Post by addHocker »

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.

Deserts are abandunt- in fact they are the default ecology on all planets.

https://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/229_RSER_WildLife_2011.pdf

If solar panels could be modified to create substained microclimates below that would be awesome. After all, there is still enough straylight getting below, to allow for a average forrestplant to exist.

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

#82

Post by samolang »

dogruck wrote: post #49
maxerickson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Environmentalism is often just a stated preference. Like humans shouldn't disturb some thing. So it isn't necessarily the case that you need to be more knowledgeable to challenge them. Availability of inexpensive energy without burning coal is another preference. I certainly have reached the point where I think popular environmentalism is waaaaay too focused on static conservation.

That's a generic view which I might actually be inclined to agree with you on. I'm personally skeptical of the current climate change politics, for example. But OP made a more specific claim about solar arrays in the desert. Seems like we should be able to debate that on its merits.

That alternative to putting them in the desert is putting them in some non-desert area or putting them nowhere. If these people are objecting to putting them in a desert, they'll object to putting them in a non-desert area too.

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

#83

Post by snovv_crash »

maxerickson wrote: post #28
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…

The discussion in your first link is interesting. Smaller installers can end up having lower costs because they spend less on customer acquisition. They pay somewhat higher prices for material, but plummeting panel costs and not holding panels in inventory have worked out well for them.

This sounds like inverse economies of scale. Interesting.

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

#84

Post by dx034 »

hwillis wrote: post #53
maxerickson wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6% isn't really a non decline, it just isn't a huge decline. The major component of residential cost is non-labor soft costs. The NREL pdf is easier to read ( https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf ) and lists them: permitting, inspection, and interconnection, land acquisition, sales tax, overhead and profit. According to their modeling, it's mostly profit, overhead and sales and marketing costs.

Emphatically, this. 21 is the page with the breakdown: only 10.7% of the cost is in installation labor! Percentage-wise, not counting the module itself, the biggest culprits are profit(14% vs 7%), supply chain adding 17%, and sales adding 14%. Installation is actually lower as a percent of overall cost. Profit and sales are usually higher for direct to consumer, but supply chain is the biggest single cost at 42 cents…

Sales should become cheaper as volume goes up and the market becomes more mature. But supply chain with 17% looks very high for non-perishable goods. They need to be handled with care but this could surely be brought down? Or anyone here who knows why they make up that much of the cost?

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

#85

Post by fastbeef »

extrapickles wrote: post #71
fastbeef wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common misconception. Even in northern Sweden, which is above the arctic circle, you can still generate ~80% of the energy that Southern Europe generates.

It's a combination of the 80% output and the cheap local hydro power which makes it not attractive.

It's true that power here is cheap (~0.1€ per kWh). However, since most electric companies buy back what you overproduce you can get an installation that covers your whole years supply and have it paid of in 7-10 years.

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

#86

Post by dx034 »

cup wrote: post #42
dogruck wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that sad? Are you more knowledgeable than said environmentalists, or do you simply assume that they are wrong?

I'm guessing theyre sad because they don't value desert habitats highly nor appreciate them and are probably raised to think deserts are "empty" when thats far from the truth.

We'll destroy habitats anyway. But stopping/slowing down climate change by reducing the habitat of some species will still be beneficial for global diversity of species. I find it hard to believe that warming oceans would kill less species than solar panels in the desert. And even for 100% renewable energies, only small parts would have to be used for production.

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

#87

Post by hnnsj »

shandor wrote: post #69
fastbeef wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common misconception. Even in northern Sweden, which is above the arctic circle, you can still generate ~80% of the energy that Southern Europe generates.

This is fascinating if true. Do you gave any sources, I'd be really interested in reading more on the matter.

Nitpick: Only the northern tip of Sweden is north of the polar circle. But yeah, Sweden is pretty dark anyway.

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

#88

Post by dx034 »

mc32 wrote: post #44
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.

Germany was once (ten years ago) the top PV panel producer. All it's MFGs, including SolarWorld[1] have gone under because of dumping and flooding the market with cheap PVs. This subverts R&D in panel technology both in Germany and in the US. In addition, some German PVs were hacked[2] and had their IP end up in the hands of CN MFGs, again, that subverts German (and any other MFG) R&D efforts in PV tech. So we may en…

Isn't this a good thing when it comes to renewables? If the Chinese state pays for the world to become less dependent on coal that should be good? Solar installations are still labour intensive, probably more so than coal plants.

This is one of the very few cases where I don't mind states subsidising. The technology is still well understood by others so that European/US companies could start producing again if China decides to raise prices.

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

#89

Post by dx034 »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #70

When will prices drop below $20k for a full install? I get so frustrated when I hear that the price keeps dropping, but the price for a consumer install hasn't dropped below $20k in years. If I do the installation myself, will that make it cheaper?

Somewhere else in this thread people posted the cost. Labour is only 10%. Most is marketing and supply chain, so if you buy them directly from the manufacturer and hire people to install them it should be much cheaper (~30-40%). Not sure if that's possible though.

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

#90

Post by Someone »

shandor wrote: post #69
fastbeef wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common misconception. Even in northern Sweden, which is above the arctic circle, you can still generate ~80% of the energy that Southern Europe generates.

This is fascinating if true. Do you gave any sources, I'd be really interested in reading more on the matter.

One factor that helps is that solar cells become less efficient if temperature goes up (https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/article/the-impact-of-temperat...)
Post reply on HN