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

Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#21

Post by huherto »

steven2012 wrote: post #10

I'm super excited about the promise of solar panels, because my house has unobstructed exposure to the sun, and I live in the Bay Area, so we get sunshine 300+ days per year. However, every time I revisit the math, it never works out. Even if I purchase it myself, the payoff times are never less than around 17-20 years, depending on how aggressive I project the rise in electricity rates. Given that solar panels have…

Can you take advantage of the shade from the Solar Panels?

If you can install solar panels above the ceiling with enough space to keep the air flow, it can help you keep your house fresh and comfortable during the day. Specially in a hot and dry climate.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#22

Post by petercooper »

I have the means and the property (albeit small) to do this but.. no chance. The main payback (ignoring the environmentalism externality) is dependent upon a government subsidy rather than actual savings or efficiency gains and as soon as it suits them, the government can yank the benefit away and you're sat with an expensive piece of plastic on your roof that'll take 20 or more years to pay for itself. (I seem to recall the government encouraging the use of diesel in the 80s and LPG in the 00s through reduced duties, yet both are now in the same sky high ballpark as petrol once their respective efficiencies are taken into account.)

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#23

Post by mjn »

infinotize wrote: post #13

Tangental observation: it's interesting that a large number of people are really enthusiastic about changing to solar, moving away from carbon-producing energy sources, etc. But when it comes down to it, even for those people the response is usually "the math just doesn't work" for solar. I wonder if in surveys how many people would say they would pay a little extra for clean energy, until it's actually time to shell…

One place to look for numbers more solid than people just claiming they would pay more, could be in areas with deregulated markets for home electricity, like Texas, where people have a choice of generation provider. Since generation is decoupled from transmission and maintenance, providers don't compete on reliability, but mainly on price and environmentalism. The "green" plans are typically $0.02-$0.04/kWh more expensive than the cheapest plans. Would be interesting to know what proportion of people opt for one.

Examples of such a provider and the plans: http://www.greenmountain.com/texas-oncor

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#24

Post by wolff »

steven2012 wrote: post #10

I'm super excited about the promise of solar panels, because my house has unobstructed exposure to the sun, and I live in the Bay Area, so we get sunshine 300+ days per year. However, every time I revisit the math, it never works out. Even if I purchase it myself, the payoff times are never less than around 17-20 years, depending on how aggressive I project the rise in electricity rates. Given that solar panels have…

Are you factoring in that you can stay hooked up to the grid and sell extra power back to the energy company?

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#25

Post by driverdan »

huherto wrote: post #21
steven2012 wrote: post #10

I'm super excited about the promise of solar panels, because my house has unobstructed exposure to the sun, and I live in the Bay Area, so we get sunshine 300+ days per year. However, every time I revisit the math, it never works out. Even if I purchase it myself, the payoff times are never less than around 17-20 years, depending on how aggressive I project the rise in electricity rates. Given that solar panels have…

Can you take advantage of the shade from the Solar Panels? If you can install solar panels above the ceiling with enough space to keep the air flow, it can help you keep your house fresh and comfortable during the day. Specially in a hot and dry climate.

The Bay Area is not a "hot and dry climate."

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#26

Post by michielvoo »

steven2012 wrote: post #10

I'm super excited about the promise of solar panels, because my house has unobstructed exposure to the sun, and I live in the Bay Area, so we get sunshine 300+ days per year. However, every time I revisit the math, it never works out. Even if I purchase it myself, the payoff times are never less than around 17-20 years, depending on how aggressive I project the rise in electricity rates. Given that solar panels have…

Do you factor in an increase of the price of your home when you sell it?

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#27

Post by corresation »

jdmitch wrote: post #7

It doesn't sound like it is sustainable to have these subsidies for very long: - At current rates the Feed-in Tariff pays you 14.9p for every kWh you produce, whether you use it or not. The Feed-in Tariff is TAX FREE and RPI Linked. - Export your excess electricity to the grid and earn an additional 4.6p/kWh. ( http://www.hanergy.co.uk/why-solar/feed-in-tariff )

In Ontario you get 39.6c per kWh fed into the grid, down from 54.9c per kWh last year. Worth noting that when you hook in and sign up, your rate is guaranteed for, I believe, 25 years (meaning reductions, which are surely going to continue, impact new builds). It is completely unsustainable and is not rational pricing, but instead is built around the notion of bootstrapping the industry through subsidies, and it does seem to be working -- solar panels are getting more efficient and less expensive as a result of programs like this, which would never have happened had they been left to their own merits.

I should add that the Ontario program also demands a percentage of domestic content of installs as well, again trying to bootstrap a domestic industry rather than simply benefiting foreign manufacturers. As a result various solar manufacturing businesses have arisen here.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#28

Post by lukeschlather »

fooqux wrote: post #20
xbryanx wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does if you factor in the extremely expensive, yet largely unaccounted for, costs associated with generating electricity from coal.

Where are you getting your information? What assumptions are you making here? It looks to me that coal is one of the cheapest forms of generating electricity there currently is. [1] [1]: http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/

That doesn't factor in numerous externalities such as healthcare costs due to emphysema and other diseases caused by coal smoke, ocean acidification killing fisheries, rising sea levels displacing seaside residents...

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#29

Post by ag80 »

mjn wrote: post #23
infinotize wrote: post #13

Tangental observation: it's interesting that a large number of people are really enthusiastic about changing to solar, moving away from carbon-producing energy sources, etc. But when it comes down to it, even for those people the response is usually "the math just doesn't work" for solar. I wonder if in surveys how many people would say they would pay a little extra for clean energy, until it's actually time to shell…

One place to look for numbers more solid than people just claiming they would pay more, could be in areas with deregulated markets for home electricity, like Texas, where people have a choice of generation provider. Since generation is decoupled from transmission and maintenance, providers don't compete on reliability, but mainly on price and environmentalism. The "green" plans are typically $0.02-$0.04/kWh more expe…

Centerpoint has some overall price data they monitor at http://www.mytruecost.com, though at present it doesn't include distinctions between electricity sources. I submitted some feedback via their contact form suggesting they should put some data together.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#30

Post by nmeofthestate »

xbryanx wrote: post #11
jdmitch wrote: post #7

It doesn't sound like it is sustainable to have these subsidies for very long: - At current rates the Feed-in Tariff pays you 14.9p for every kWh you produce, whether you use it or not. The Feed-in Tariff is TAX FREE and RPI Linked. - Export your excess electricity to the grid and earn an additional 4.6p/kWh. ( http://www.hanergy.co.uk/why-solar/feed-in-tariff )

It does if you factor in the extremely expensive, yet largely unaccounted for, costs associated with generating electricity from coal.

That depends on how you define "sustainable". So far, a perhaps pessimistic assessment of sustainable energy is that it's driving up energy costs, while reducing the increase of CO2 emissions by only a very small amount. It's increasing fuel poverty and deaths from cold weather events, and ultimately it will drive business out of the countries that are building sustainable energy into countries that have cheap energy, by making business uncompetitive. Then, people will buy products from the cheap energy countries that are emitting CO2 (although they'll be poorer, so perhaps they'll buy less).
Post reply on HN