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

131–140 of 172 posts

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

#131

Post by bradfa »

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.

A properly done and code-compliant residential rooftop solar install is non-trivial for many DIYers. I do lots of things around my house but a rooftop solar install is something I'd definitely hire an experienced and insured contractor for.

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

#132

Post by evgen »

samolang wrote: post #82
dogruck wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ignorant people look at a desert and see lifeless desolation. When they educate themselves they come to see the desert as an very active environment with limited resources, and cut-throat competition for same, that makes human impact more pronounced. Better to put solar panels over scrubland or even farmland than into deserts.

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

#133

Post by corpMaverick »

snovv_crash wrote: post #83
maxerickson wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks to your comment I looked this up. There is actually a term for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale

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

#134

Post by jacquesm »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #75
shandor wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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...

But cold panels produce more power.

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

#135

Post by ssharp »

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…

Do solar roof tiles help this out at all, under the assumption that you'd be replacing your roof anyway? Is the labor cost of replacing with solar tiles in line with the price to replace a shingle roof?

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

#136

Post by toomuchtodo »

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.

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).

The labor of a professional is cheaper than possible poor outcomes.

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

#137

Post by Caveman_Coder »

redwood wrote: post #120
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.

Very true, but this tends to be an issue mostly in California. That's why it's quite surprising that states like Arizona, Nevada, Utah, NM and Texas haven't started getting into this in a big way. I think it's just a matter of time. Especially since they can sell their power to California for a big profit.

We (Arizona) are getting "into this in a big way."

Existing AZ Solar:

- Agua Caliente (~400MW)

- Arlington Valley (300MW)

- Solana (280MW)

- Mesquite (150MW)

Future AZ Solar:

- Sterling (1200MW)

- Hualapai (340MW)

- Hyder Valley (325MW)

- Sonoran Solar (300MW)

- Crossroads (215MW)

- Quartzsite (100MW) [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Arizona#Large_p...

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

#138

Post by mattferderer »

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.

This is a good introduction & has excellent maps. http://solarinsolation.org/tag/map/page/2/

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

#139

Post by fallingfrog »

fastbeef wrote: post #68
extrapickles wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the northern states don't have much sunlight and have cheap enough power to make it not worth it.

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.

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

#140

Post by [deleted] »

ju-st wrote: post #117
kodfodrasz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It means the conversion factor of yearly yield in kWh to installed PV in kWp. "Yearly sum of solar electricity generated by 1 kWp system". It's not about the physical PV efficiency.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN