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

141–150 of 172 posts

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

#141

Post by ctdonath »

eru wrote: post #122
wallace_f wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on that, shouldn't it be possible to get close to a 35% price decline, as long as the government allows you to buy wholesale and self install? It would be great to see a DIY community around this, making widespread adoption even cheaper.

You can definitely get a monetary price decline from DIY. But most people's time has value, too.

Yes, it does. But outside regular work hours, it's hard to get a meaningful return on those hours - something as costly, yet relatively easy (if laborious & monotonous) as installing solar panels/shingles, makes for an attractive DIY.

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

#142

Post by baking »

kodfodrasz wrote: post #104
bjelkeman-again wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gives a good overview. What people miss is that during the summer the sun is up all the time. (In the winter, not so much.) And average cloud cover is also accounted for. http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/countries/europe/EU-Glob_op...

Do I understand correctly that the wishful thinking value of 75% photovoltaic conversion efficiency is plotted in the diagram?

The 75% performance ratio represents system losses not module efficiency. So a system rated at 1kW(peak) which may be 5-6 square meters in size, and which is exposed to annual sunlight of 1200 kWh/m2 might only produce 900 kWh of usable power.

So efficiency has to do with the rated power per surface area and the performance ratio reflects all the system electrical and environmental factors that reduce the amount of usable power below what would be expected based upon module ratings and annual sunlight exposure.

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

#143

Post by pmyjavec »

fallingfrog wrote: post #139
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.

Here in Maine your solar panels are going to be covered with snow 5 months of the year, so the power production in the winter can't be very significant.. It's one thing to store energy between night and day and it's another thing to store energy between summer and winter. Don't get me wrong, I think solar is the future, but not sure how to make it work up north.

In curious about this, does it snow so heavily for 5 months there would be no way to clear the panels?

I mean they're installed at an angle to start with so how does the snow build up? Could panels not be designed with inbuilt defrosters?

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

#144

Post by HillaryBriss »

eru wrote: post #123
ehsankia wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about some place like California? It has sunlight almost all year round, it has a pretty progressive government, and a leading tech sector. With house prices being so high, so the cost of solar panels would be relatively lower too.

They also have a crazy amount of NIMBYs. Though they might not have figured out how to object to solar panels, yet?

in Los Angeles, solar panels are becoming increasingly common on single family dwellings.

as more and more existing trees die off because of higher water costs and a general theme of reduced water usage, there's a little bit less shade, too.

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

#145

Post by jackmott »

Tsagadai wrote: post #46
s0rce wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do those same people get sad when they see arable land being used for food production or large cities from space? They probably need a reality check on their understanding of humanity. We have always been modifying the environment to suit our needs, every species does this.

Yeah, but we are the first species to start modifying 100% of it in such a way that only corn and cows will be left.

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

#146

Post by fallingfrog »

pmyjavec wrote: post #143
fallingfrog wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Maine your solar panels are going to be covered with snow 5 months of the year, so the power production in the winter can't be very significant.. It's one thing to store energy between night and day and it's another thing to store energy between summer and winter. Don't get me wrong, I think solar is the future, but not sure how to make it work up north.

In curious about this, does it snow so heavily for 5 months there would be no way to clear the panels? I mean they're installed at an angle to start with so how does the snow build up? Could panels not be designed with inbuilt defrosters?

The snow could be cleared off with a shovel, but then you have to either pay someone to do it in the case of industrial solar, or in the case of home solar, go up on your roof when it's covered with ice and snow, not the safest maneuver. Defrosters might be possible but that might use more power than the panels generate. You'd have to raise the temperature of the panels to above the freezing point of water, which might be a change of 20 or 30 degrees F on really cold days. Some years are worse than others- 2014 was really bad, I didn't see bare ground until late April.

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

#147

Post by HillaryBriss »

tryingagainbro wrote: post #99
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…

>>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. Sure, when building the roof, it is installed as a solar one, saves on roofing materials and installation, since you only pay for solar and for solar installers. Granted not 100% substitution since not all the roof can be covered but a nice chunk. Or make the panels more DIY.…

not to dispute the concept of an easy solar install, in theory, but i note add that, in Los Angeles at least, it's hard to imagine a quick, low-cost, DIY solution.

to the LA Department of Water and Power, home solar is basically competition. and the DWP is an important cash cow for city workers and the city budget. they will find ways to add customer fees and reduce the customer's energy bill savings. (e.g. limiting the amount of electricity a home is allowed to feed back into the grid.)

the agency and the city simply need that cash.

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

#148

Post by taloft »

wyattk wrote: post #59

Many of the comments seem to be focusing on the initial install costs and missing a big point here. Solar can save a lot of money and even make a nontrivial amount of money for the owner. As you would expect, there a lot of factors that go into how much an array would save/produce (generation, storage, etc.), but a regulatory factor that changes everything is rate structures. Rate structures are far from a standard t…

Solar can save a lot of money over 30 years, but current homeowners have to pay the initial cost. Solar initial costs are much more than composite and homeowners may not stay long enough to make it worthwhile. Also, they may not recoup their investment when they sell the home.

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

#149

Post by Caveman_Coder »

wyattk wrote: post #59

Many of the comments seem to be focusing on the initial install costs and missing a big point here. Solar can save a lot of money and even make a nontrivial amount of money for the owner. As you would expect, there a lot of factors that go into how much an array would save/produce (generation, storage, etc.), but a regulatory factor that changes everything is rate structures. Rate structures are far from a standard t…

> "I am fully engulfed in this field and am working on these things now."

What aspect of the field are you working in currently?

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

#150

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

bluedino wrote: post #3

Our local solar panel plant shut down a few months ago - Suniva. They just mysteriously closed up shop.

I understand this is trivial, but I have a serious bias against that company just because the name really bothered me.

It sounds too much like a crappy Iced Tea.

Post reply on HN