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

91–100 of 172 posts

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

#91

Post by mc32 »

dx034 wrote: post #88
mc32 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany was once (ten years ago) the top PV panel producer. All it's MFGs, including SolarWorld[1] have gone under because of dumping and flooding the market with cheap PVs. This subverts R&D in panel technology both in Germany and in the US. In addition, some German PVs were hacked[2] and had their IP end up in the hands of CN MFGs, again, that subverts German (and any other MFG) R&D efforts in PV tech. So we may en…

Isn't this a good thing when it comes to renewables? If the Chinese state pays for the world to become less dependent on coal that should be good? Solar installations are still labour intensive, probably more so than coal plants. This is one of the very few cases where I don't mind states subsidising. The technology is still well understood by others so that European/US companies could start producing again if China…

Not really because they cannot sell below cost in perpetuity --that's just a temporary race to the bottom to see who can survive the bloodbath. In the meantime no one is innovating because there is no money to be made and also there is no money to invest by the subsidized companies since they are bleeding money anyway. So the result is innovation gets retarded.

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

#92

Post by wallace_f »

D_Alex wrote: post #30
sounds wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation-adjusted residential costs according to nrel.gov are shown in the chart on page vi of https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf The raw costs, not adjusted for inflation: Q1 2014: $4.52/W total for $1.03/W modules [0] Q1 2015: $3.09/Wdc total for $0.70/Wdc modules [1] Q1 2016: $2.93/Wdc total for $0.63/Wdc modules [2] Q1 2017: $2.80/Wdc total for $0.35/Wdc modules [3] Conclusion: Even if the modules cost…

Based on the Australian experience, the next wave of price declines for residential solar will indeed come from balance-of-system cost declines, increased installation efficiency and lower profits. Current costs in Australia are about A$ 1.70 /pk-W (~US$1.35), pre-subsidies, split roughly into 35% modules, 10% inverter, 10% mounting system, 10% other hardware (cabling, switchboard etc), 10% installation and 25% "vend…

Based on that, shouldn't it be possible to get close to a 35% price decline, as long as the government allows you to buy wholesale and self install?

It would be great to see a DIY community around this, making widespread adoption even cheaper.

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

#93

Post by pyoung »

icefox wrote: post #39
epistasis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US at least, a huge fraction of costs for residential solar are in customer acquisition. Something like 20%-30% of the cost of a residential install goes to paying for lists of potential customers and marketing to them! This makes US residential solar much more expensive than in many other countries. After that cost is reduced, there may be room for innovation in reducing install costs by bundling solar with r…

When I got solar several years ago I watched as the various installers wasted a ton of time selling to me. It was clear that all the steps between when I was interested and when I gave the go ahead to start the install were extremely expensive in the big picture and in the long term the winners of residential installation would be those that will be able to drive that cost down and or spread that cost out to as many…

That website exists, to some degree: https://www.google.com/get/sunroof

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

#94

Post by ccozan »

addHocker wrote: post #81
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.

Deserts are abandunt- in fact they are the default ecology on all planets. https://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/229_RSER_WildLife_2011.pdf If solar panels could be modified to create substained microclimates below that would be awesome. After all, there is still enough straylight getting below, to allow for a average forrestplant to exist.

Speaking of which, they also could be used to condense the (low) air humidity and channel it into the ground, so the possibility to create a micro ecology system is even more higher. Water immediately attracts life.

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

#95

Post by DamonHD »

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...

PVGIS is an excellent tool and I have been using it for years!

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

#96

Post by DamonHD »

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.

Making better use og roof-tops generally is a win as far as environmentalists are concerned; NIMBYs/BANANAs may complain however.

Not that I see any intrinsic beauty in concrete titles or roofing felt. Even clay tiles and slates I suspect are just something we have gotten used to.

In all cases they are a financial and embodied energy and financial cost as-is, and PV can turn them into something positive.

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

#97

Post by ccozan »

addHocker wrote: post #72

Imagine if we could do solar in space.. infinite area- no soil wasted, the power transmitted as a ray of death... oh, so this is why we do not do solar in space.

How about building something similar to a space power station that loads huge batteries, then gravitationally launches them towards ground, while on the other side an automated system launches rockets with empty batteries that docks to the power station?

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

#98

Post by pyoung »

icefox wrote: post #65
sbov wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in SoCal, I have to fight off door to door solar salesman at least once per month. It's really annoying.

For what it is worth I do to. It is amusing to get to tell them I already have solar at which point they look up and then walk away. But think about it... What kind of margin pays to have someone walk door to door? That is the kind of waste that the system has not yet rung out and why residential costs don't seem to be going down as much as they should. As long as all of the installers don't drive their costs down th…

> What kind of margin pays to have someone walk door to door?

If I had to guess, the door-to-door folks are probably lead gen companies that sell leads to solar installers. The economics work out largely because solar installations are such a big ticket item that good leads can demand a nice sum. As a thought exercise, Amazon will pay in the range of 5% to affiliates. If you buy a $100 pair of shoes on Amazon, that will net the affiliate $5. If a solar lead gen gets the same rate, then a single $30k system will earn them $1500. So that salesman only needs to sell a few systems per month to cover salary. Hence the door-to-door.

Also, it's worth mentioning that the residential solar market is pretty cutthroat. Quite a few companies have recently filed for bankruptcy. Part of the reason lead gen and marketing costs are so high is because these companies are fighting tooth and nail for customers. I am pretty sure most installers would love to cut back on that spending, but without it their business would collapse.

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

#99

Post by tryingagainbro »

sounds wrote: post #23
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…

Inflation-adjusted residential costs according to nrel.gov are shown in the chart on page vi of https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf The raw costs, not adjusted for inflation: Q1 2014: $4.52/W total for $1.03/W modules [0] Q1 2015: $3.09/Wdc total for $0.70/Wdc modules [1] Q1 2016: $2.93/Wdc total for $0.63/Wdc modules [2] Q1 2017: $2.80/Wdc total for $0.35/Wdc modules [3] Conclusion: Even if the modules cost…

>>Conclusion: Even if the modules cost $0.0000001, the total price could not fall much more unless the rest of the business model gets updated.

Sure, when building the roof, it is installed as a solar one, saves on roofing materials and installation, since you only pay for solar and for solar installers. Granted not 100% substitution since not all the roof can be covered but a nice chunk.

Or make the panels more DIY...a few cases of beer, a few friends and be done. (plug it in after 24 hour, to make sure that the beer is gone from system)

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

#100

Post by adrianN »

dispo001 wrote: post #60
Pxtl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retrofits may be expensive, but think about what low costs mean for new builds, especially multi-unit dwellings - well, not highrises that lack enough rooftop space, but lowrises and townhomes.

Beyond some height wind makes total sense.

You need pretty big rotors to generate enough electricity to pay for the embedded energy: http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/09/urban-windmills.html
Post reply on HN