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

Can solar costs keep shrinking?

unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 632 posts

Re: Can solar costs keep shrinking?

#401

Post by briffle »

kingkongjaffa wrote: post #209
caymanjim wrote: post #204

I spend four months of the year traveling in an RV. Two years ago, I budgeted over $6000 for my desired solar setup (at least 1200Ah of battery, at least 2400W of solar, plus various controllers and other components). It was expensive enough for me to hold off, and more importantly, I didn't have the space on my current RV for the solar panels. In just the two years since then, prices on batteries and panels have dro…

> I intend to buy undeveloped land far from civilization I'm always intrigued by this notion, I know plenty of Americans have this kind of plan, but it's never quite as remote as they think, because, y'know you're still in America somewhere. Unless you're thinking of somewhere in northern Canada. I'd love to know where is considered 'far from civilization' on the continental US.

Crane, OR is I think the only public high school that boards its students in dorms during the week. Its geographic area is 7700sq miles. (The size of Massachusetts) It has 50-60 students.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crane_Union_High_School

Re: Can solar costs keep shrinking?

#402

Post by KennyBlanken »

nl wrote: post #343
conradev wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America can get extremely remote and so you can choose how remote you want to go. Here is a journalist from Manhattan meeting folks living off-grid in Colorado: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/11/28/what-going-off... Not to mention Slab City: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_City,_California Infrastructure-wise, roads come before water or electricity, and so plenty of the United States has a road but no pow…

Slab City is 100 miles from San Diego and only 160 miles from Los Angeles! That's not remote - remote should be classified using a decreasing population density over distance function. Remote is somewhere like Nullarbor, which is 183 miles from Ceduna (population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor,_South_Australia

Many times, it really doesn't matter if you're 30 miles from anything, or 300.

If your vehicle breaks down, how screwed are you?

Do you have cell coverage to call for help?

Will anyone be passing by to flag down, any time soon?

How far away is the nearest LEO agency, fire department, ambulance?

How far away is the nearest place for water, food, etc?

Re: Can solar costs keep shrinking?

#403

Post by droopyEyelids »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #391
aegis4244 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're looking for some inexpensive land that can be fairly remote you might do worse than Cochise county AZ. The county has an opt out permit program as long as you have at least 4 rural acres. You can build whatever you want, no permits, no inspections. There are some restrictions. No bank will give you a mortgage, can't sell or rent it out within 2 years. You can live in your RV while you build, for 2 years I t…

> If you're looking for some inexpensive land that can be fairly remote you might do worse than Cochise county AZ It's pretty hard to do worse than "the very small amount of water is being sucked dry because there are no regulations around water use." Once the water table compacts, it never comes back... > Rooftop water collection for water. It's one of the dries parts of the country. Good fucking luck. A growing num…

I'm not endorsing it as a sane idea, but for people who think the idea of living on Mars is cool, living in areas like this could push forward development of compatible technologies- like retaining and recycling all water.

Like right now my mind is trying to imagine a solar powered desiccator and water recollection device that could dehydrate all compost and bodily excretions.

Re: Can solar costs keep shrinking?

#404

Post by bee_rider »

verisimi wrote: post #394
bee_rider wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn’t a free market for energy really, it is a global marketplace and the government of every major player puts their thumb on the scale. Governments are investing in solar because they want to be ahead in the renewable economy, where energy literally just falls from the sky. Is that a subsidy? I guess. It is also a good strategic move. Are petrochemicals taxed or subsidized? I have no idea, it is a big tangled…

Wouldn't the answer be to provide a simple number for the cost of a thing (oil, solar, wind, etc), that removes the government subsidies/taxes from the equation. Otherwise, you can tax what you don't like to oblivion or subsidise what you do like until it appears viable, but in neither case are you getting a true picture of the cost. The subsidies/tax moves a simple cost question, into the murky world of politics and…

Who’s going to provide that number and how do they calculate it?

Re: Can solar costs keep shrinking?

#405

Post by tfourb »

opo wrote: post #389
tfourb wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be the case but the fact is that these incentives exist and eligible home owners that don’t use them are in effect throwing money away. Also, it can be politically and technically expedient to provide incentives, even if it is not the theoretically most efficient use of that money. For example if it increases acceptance for renewables in the broader population or jump starts an industry (as it has in Germa…

You don't need to use tentative phrases like "That might be the case", or "even if it is not theoretically most efficient use of that money". As the page on statista.com states: >Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come…

Places outside the U.S. exist, you know? PV would be cost effective here in Germany for residential buildings even without incentives, though most owners would probably build smaller installations. And there are plenty of countries without government incentives where people still build PV.

As for the renters: many of them currently have decided to buy small plug in PV sets, since their installation has been allowed under German law recently. No incentives for those, either.

And I’ll repeat myself: incentives can have valuable political goals that have nothing to do with cost effective buildout of solar. In Germany, these incentives have contributed massively to improving popular sentiment towards PV and acceptance of government subsidies for renewables generally.

Re: Can solar costs keep shrinking?

#406

Post by technofiend »

caymanjim wrote: post #296
kragen wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is awesome! i do have one quibble, though, and it's a big one. in the last two years, prices on mainstream solar panels (monocrystalline with warranty) have fallen from €0.25 per peak watt to €0.12 per peak watt; low-cost panels have fallen from €0.17 per peak watt to €0.07 per peak watt.† technically that is 'fallen by 25% or more' because it's fallen by almost 60%. 2400 watts of solar should cost you 290 us do…

400W solar panels cost $200-250. So 2400W will cost me roughly $1800. There are discounts if you can buy in bulk, but I don't have room for more than 6-8 panels at most. Like all things, the raw material cost is trivial. There are the tariffs you mention (I just skimmed your link, and don't speak German), but there's also economy of scale, packaging, logistics, etc. I'm sure I could get 400W panels for as little as $…

Before you purchase anything try A1 solar. They often have deep discounts on single panels as well as container lots. For instance they have a 440 Watt panel priced at $140, six of which would get you 2,640 watts @ $840. https://a1solarstore.com/solar-panels/440-watt-solar-panels....

Re: Can solar costs keep shrinking?

#407

Post by dzhiurgis »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #78
anonfordays wrote: post #72

Soon (if not already) the largest costs associated with solar installations will be the labor. It's expensive to get people on roofs and electricians to reconfigure panels, install transfer switches, etc. The equipment could be free and it would still cost thousands for the skilled trades to install.

I wonder to what extent we can make it unskilled, at least for a building with modern wiring. Plug-and-play solar panels and batteries sound scary, but not necessarily impossible to do safely.

It's pretty high voltage (500V DC) - you start to get arcing at this voltage.

Re: Can solar costs keep shrinking?

#408

Post by nl »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #402
nl wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slab City is 100 miles from San Diego and only 160 miles from Los Angeles! That's not remote - remote should be classified using a decreasing population density over distance function. Remote is somewhere like Nullarbor, which is 183 miles from Ceduna (population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor,_South_Australia

Many times, it really doesn't matter if you're 30 miles from anything, or 300. If your vehicle breaks down, how screwed are you? Do you have cell coverage to call for help? Will anyone be passing by to flag down, any time soon? How far away is the nearest LEO agency, fire department, ambulance? How far away is the nearest place for water, food, etc?

It really depends on the reasoning for wanting to be remote.

Some people just love not having people around, in which case you really want low average weekly population density within say 5-10km (out of easy visibility and hearing).

Some people are concerned about civilization collapse or civil war or... something (ie, the prepper type). In that case you can imagine population dispersing away from (and possibly towards) major population centers over a period of months, and you want true isolation.

Re: Can solar costs keep shrinking?

#410

Post by refurb »

WillAdams wrote: post #377
refurb wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that sad? These can be logging trails you’d need to squint to actually see in the brush. And 115 miles? That’s a huge distance.

Invasive species for one thing --- folks aren't nearly as careful about checking their vehicles as they ought to be. Not huge enough when you're considering how the McDonald's have driven out little hole-in-the-wall places and that the presence of such a fast food restaurant requires a busy highway, or a reasonably dense population center.

Invasive species? Most of these trail aren't even used?
Post reply on HN