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

161–170 of 172 posts

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

#161

Post by toomuchtodo »

wallace_f wrote: post #159
toomuchtodo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your typical DIYer is unable to penetrate an asphalt shingle or metal roof and properly waterproof those penetrations for the panel frame supports, voiding your roof warranty and possibly negating any ability to make a claim for water damage from your homeowner's insurance. Also, any electrical work in most sane jurisdictions is going to require signoff from both the local code department and the utility (if grid tie…

Ok, I can appreciate those concerns, but if someone wants to do this, I think that's their right. What if they have a cabin that they want to wire with solar? What if they just want to setup some panels on top of an awning, or in their backyard, and hook them up to a beer cooler? To be fair I installed a solar+2nd battery+inverter that can also charge or be charged from the primary battery in an RV. I waterproof'd th…

> Should you or my local gov have stopped me from this?

The government isn't stopping you from putting solar panels on the top of your RV, and it's regulation of structures through building codes is usually reasonable.

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

#162

Post by wallace_f »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #161
wallace_f wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I can appreciate those concerns, but if someone wants to do this, I think that's their right. What if they have a cabin that they want to wire with solar? What if they just want to setup some panels on top of an awning, or in their backyard, and hook them up to a beer cooler? To be fair I installed a solar+2nd battery+inverter that can also charge or be charged from the primary battery in an RV. I waterproof'd th…

> Should you or my local gov have stopped me from this? The government isn't stopping you from putting solar panels on the top of your RV, and it's regulation of structures through building codes is usually reasonable.

You might be interested in reading about the Tiny House movement. I think you would be surprised by how many people Rdisagree with you, and are upset with draconian housing laws and building codes.

Again, I don't see an enormous difference b/w putting solar panels on an RV, and a backyard, shed, cabin or house, particularly for off-grid power.

You are absolutely entitled to state your opinion though. I just think if other people want to do something that doesn't bother you in any way, it can be nice to warn of the risks, but why tell them they are wrong?

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

#163

Post by Iv »

nwah1 wrote: post #130
Iv wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Moore's law is about improvements in cost-benefits that occur at a steady rate, and CPUs have not simply been shrinking transistors, but adding instructions, reorganizing the architectures, moving motherboard components on-die, etc. PV panels have had certain types of regular process improvements. My understanding is that they try to add layers that use more of the energy of the light spectrum. Conversion efficiency…

Moore's law simply says that the density of transistors in CPUs doubles ever two years. It was an observation over the past, and M.Moore (who is still alive and often criticizes Moore's law) famously said in 1965 that he did not see a reason for it to stop for another decade.

Later Intel said that performances (not just transistor density) would double every 18 months, which is different.

Moore's law talks about transistors and we arguably have finally reached a point where it slowed, after having outlived its initial prediction for several decades.

Moore's law, though, was more than an extrapolation of the past: it was an understanding of the causes for the speed of the trend and an examination of what the future may provide by someone who understood the manufacturing process behind CPUs.

Moore knew about CPUs, he was talking about CPUs and transistors. His "law" holds no predictive power whatsoever for PV. You will have to find a specialist about the processes to know if there are any predictable roadbloacks ahead.

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

#164

Post by cesarb »

curtis wrote: post #154

If panels keep getting cheaper and cheaper I wonder if installing them vertically on south-facing walls will start to make sense. This won't ever be optimally efficient, but installs will be much cheaper since it won't involve roof work. If you want to take the idea to an absurd level, garage doors could be designed with integral panels and then installed anywhere somebody has a south-facing garage door. In most case…

Here in Rio, one building retrofit added panels vertically to the whole visible part of the north-facing blind façade (the neighboring building is smaller).

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

#165

Post by toomuchtodo »

wallace_f wrote: post #162
toomuchtodo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should you or my local gov have stopped me from this? The government isn't stopping you from putting solar panels on the top of your RV, and it's regulation of structures through building codes is usually reasonable.

You might be interested in reading about the Tiny House movement. I think you would be surprised by how many people Rdisagree with you, and are upset with draconian housing laws and building codes. Again, I don't see an enormous difference b/w putting solar panels on an RV, and a backyard, shed, cabin or house, particularly for off-grid power. You are absolutely entitled to state your opinion though. I just think if…

> I just think if other people want to do something that doesn't bother you in any way, it can be nice to warn of the risks, but why tell them they are wrong?

Because if you're breaking building code, you're breaking the law. That's the entire reason the Tiny Home movement has to build their structures on RV trailers; to be compliant with building code (which doesn't apply to RV trailers).

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

#166

Post by wallace_f »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #165
wallace_f wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be interested in reading about the Tiny House movement. I think you would be surprised by how many people Rdisagree with you, and are upset with draconian housing laws and building codes. Again, I don't see an enormous difference b/w putting solar panels on an RV, and a backyard, shed, cabin or house, particularly for off-grid power. You are absolutely entitled to state your opinion though. I just think if…

> I just think if other people want to do something that doesn't bother you in any way, it can be nice to warn of the risks, but why tell them they are wrong? Because if you're breaking building code, you're breaking the law. That's the entire reason the Tiny Home movement has to build their structures on RV trailers; to be compliant with building code (which doesn't apply to RV trailers).

Ok no one is saying you should break the law, and that also wasn't even your concern in the previous comment, either, which was about the reasonableness of building code. Before that you were primarily concerned about time and risk of cost.

Bringing the goal posts back to the original aim of my comment: that a DIY community would simply increase adoption, let's look at the Tiny House movement. It grew as a DIY community. People sharing info on all parts of the process, incl. building code, helps many people who would have been told by someone that it can't be done, just as you are doing now, to build their own house. And we are talking about building an entire house, not a minor solar panel install.

As that community grows, you have more people that are able to even shape laws for the better, which is what that community is doing.

And you are incorrect about there being no laws governing auto work and customization.

No one is saying you should do this. To be frank, the "hire a qualified contractor" advice is pervasive at HN, but it's also this groupthink attitude of negativity that can grow around a subject that I don't think is necessary, or helpful.

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

#167

Post by hodgesrm »

ericd wrote: post #160
hodgesrm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incinerated birds are called streamers. Here's a reference. [0] [0] https://www.sciencealert.com/this-solar-plant-accidentally-i...

Very interesting, but it'd be nice if they'd mention that many thousands of times more are killed each year by building windows, and pet cats, to put things in perspective for people.

The bird deaths are mostly used by people who are against solar power (or this particular implementation of it) to begin with. Even if the article mentioned it but it would not change many minds.

Sad.

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

#168

Post by plopz »

majewsky wrote: post #113
Yumz- wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Endangered species need to go extinct. We are committing a high level universal crime by intervening in life's natural hygiene process.

That's just as unbalanced a view as "endangered species may never go extinct". The difference is whether they go extinct because of maladaptation to the natural environment or because of maladaptation to human influence on the natural environment. No reasonable person would argue against the first thing, but many argue against the second thing.

Are humans not part of the natural environment?

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

#169

Post by eru »

ctdonath wrote: post #141
eru wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But outside regular work hours, it's hard to get a meaningful return on those hours - [...]

I mostly agree. Of the top of my head, installing solar panels mostly competes with leisure and other DIY projects.

Perhaps also with commuting, but for most people the decision on how long to commute can't be altered in the short term.

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

#170

Post by eru »

wallace_f wrote: post #128
eru wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not sure what your lifestyle is like, but I think you would be surprised by how many people are willing to do weekend DIY projects on their homes, especially if they will save them money.

Yes. Though of course, solar panel installation still has opportunity costs.

Eg even if you don't want to get a second job, you could still be lazing about, spend time with family, do another DIY project, or even commute to a job in that time.

(Commuting decisions usually can't be changed in the short term, but in the long term it's up for grabs just as anything else as people contemplate moving or changing jobs.)

Post reply on HN