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

31–40 of 85 posts

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

#31

Post by polshaw »

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/

I believe xbryanx was referring to the externalities (ie the costs arising from pollution, global warming, etc that traditionally go unpaid by the producer) rather than just the financial cost of producing the power.

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

#32

Post by qwerta »

I find this article bit too skeptical. Solar panels improved a lot in recent years, and you can break even with investment even in UK without subsidies.

My friend in Czech Republic is a software developer. He works from home and his house is not connected to grid. He has 12-volt house grid with dozen car batteries. His office has 2 LED screens. Everything is powered by solar energy, except once a week he runs a generator for one hour to do a laundry. Heating and cooking is done by solid fuels and gas. Investment into solar panels and grid was about 6000 euro.

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

#33

Post by bborud »

walshemj wrote: post #8

The problem is that this is a tax dodge for rich middle class people - at one time selling your solar energy back to the grid you got 8% return for 20 years guaranteed by the government. Even after the scheme was amended its a nice little subsidy for richer people it's the poor sods on key/coin meters that are paying for this.

I find it disheartening that every technology that takes us in the right direction, but which is not yet cost effective, is constantly pissed on by people who expect immediate solutions and who fail to see that these things are not going to develop themselves.

Sure, it is a tax dodge for rich middle class people, but if people could just keep their envy in check for the decade or two it is going to take to bring costs down and sustainability up, this is going to benefit a lot of people.

How else are we going to incentivise companies to develop better solar panels? Seriously, I really want to know.

We are seeing the same thing with the Tesla Model S in Norway right now. On one hand people dismiss electric cars because they are not yet as sustainable as we would like them to be. On the other hand they get their panties in a bunch because you can now buy a really good car (with amazing performance) at the same price as a regular car. In Norway the Model S costs ~550k NOK. A petrol-powered car with the same performance figures costs ~1,500k NOK -- nearly 1,000k NOK being taxes. (Interestingly, the Model S is the first electric car that many people would consider buying as their only car. So far, electric cars have been toys for people who can afford a second or third car, and who want to park for free and use the public transport lanes).

It is going to take a lot of development to make solar panels sustainable. The more of a market we can create for them, the quicker development will take place and the quicker they will become available to broader segments of consumers. And we'll just have to tolerate that to push the industry forward, we will have to dangle some incentives in front of those who are able to take part.

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

#34

Post by steven2012 »

michielvoo wrote: post #26
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?

I would guess there is likely no increase in house price, especially for current solar panels. If I live in the house for the next 10+ years, it's questionable what value a 10-15 year old solar panel array will have, especially if the next owner will need to either change them out or remove them in 5-10 years

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

#35

Post by JRobertson »

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…

If you're sincerely interested in solar panels you should look into doing it yourself. It's not as complicated as many of the solar retailers want to make it out to be.

Step 1) Buy panels direct with mounts Step 2) Mount the panels yourself. They aren't super heavy, just fragile. The tricky part here is measuring and drilling the holes you need to get them secured to your roof properly. Or buying a slanted frame if you have a flat roof. Step 3) Hire a licensed electrician to wire them up.

That's pretty much it. Total cost for a 9kw system will run about 13-15k after the electrician. You'll get 30% (almost 4k) back in rebates bringing your total cost out somewhere around 10k. That's a 5-7 year payback for your average american home.

There are a number of online solar panel distributors that are reliable and have been in business for quite some time.

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

#36

Post by polshaw »

walshemj wrote: post #8

The problem is that this is a tax dodge for rich middle class people - at one time selling your solar energy back to the grid you got 8% return for 20 years guaranteed by the government. Even after the scheme was amended its a nice little subsidy for richer people it's the poor sods on key/coin meters that are paying for this.

A business sector has arisen to address this issue- companies will pay for and install the panels for free, allowing the household to consume the electricity for free, whilst the company will profit from the subsidy for the generation.

Of course, those with the capital themselves are going to do better still, but that is the very nature of capitalism, hardly unique to this issue.

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

#37

Post by DanBC »

quarterto wrote: post #15
DanBC wrote: post #3

IKEA has a bizarre complex business setup which ends up with IKEA being the world's largest (and nearly least generous) charity. ( http://www.economist.com/node/6919139/print?story_id=6919139 )

I don't see how that's relevant to the article in hand.

IKEA promotes itself as ethical and clean. Selling solar panels is part of this marketing buzz that IKEA has created. This submission is a direct result of IKEA marketing.

Some people may not want to buy from a company engaged in such vigorous tax avoidance.

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

#38

Post by steven2012 »

wolff wrote: post #24
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?

Yes, I used some online calculators that predicted how much electricity I generated based on the size of the array, the amount of electricity I used, and how much I could make selling the electricity back, as well as rebates, etc. I can't remember the actual link for the calculator, but it was pretty thorough. Of course, there was a lot of guessing that needed to take place, like the rise in electricity prices, etc.

And as far as I remember, the ability to sell electricity back to the utility like PG&E isn't something that is guaranteed in the future. However, I could be wrong about this point.

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

#39

Post by ripter »

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 )

Calling it a subsidy seems weird to me. Every state I've lived in will pay you if you generate more electricity than you use. You are providing power back into the grid, of course you should be paid for it. That doesn't sound like government support to me.

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

#40

Post by huherto »

driverdan wrote: post #25
huherto wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I am not familiar with the climate on the SF Bay area and don't know how effective the shade would be. It think this would be ideal for a house in Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas, May be Southern California.
Post reply on HN