SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the power-to-the-people['s-homes] dept.
Residential solar is cheap, but can it get cheaper? Paths to $0.05 per kWh
The price of solar panels has fallen far and fast. But the Energy Department (DOE) wants to bring those costs down even further, especially for residential homes. After all, studies have shown that if every inch of useable rooftop in the US had solar panels on it, the panels could provide about 40 percent of the nation's power demand. Right now, the DOE's goal is residential solar that costs 5ยข per kilowatt-hour by 2030.
In a new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), researchers mapped out some possible pathways to that goal. Notably, the biggest barriers to cost reduction appear to be the stubborn "soft costs" of solar installation. Those soft costs include supply chain costs, labor costs, and sales and marketing costs that aren't related to the physical production of solar cells at a factory.
NREL wrote: "Because the 2030 target likely will not be achieved under business-as-usual trends, we examine two key market segments that demonstrate significant opportunities for cost savings and market growth: installing PV at the time of roof replacement and installing PV as part of the new home construction process."
The report mapped out two "visionary" pathways (as well as two "less-aggressive' pathways) to achieving those cost reductions within the roof replacement and new home construction markets. The result? The only way NREL found it could achieve the "visionary" cost reductions was by assuming that solar installers would start selling low-cost solar-integrated roof tiles before 2030, "which could significantly reduce supply chain, installation labor, and permitting costs."
[...] [It's] not just Tesla working on this: the Colorado-based lab cites CertainTeed's solar shingle product and GAF's solar panels as examples of products breaking the divide between roof and solar panel installation.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:24PM (2 children)
Nuclear power currently accounts for about 20% [eia.gov] of electric power generation in the US. They are proposing attempting to generate 40% from rooftop solar (and presumably more from other solar sources).
Sure, we could build 5x as many nuclear power plants and have "clean energy" that way, but the past 40 years pretty clearly says: we won't.
What I wonder about this rooftop solar calculation is: are they assuming that all rooftops will be covered? Including those shaded by trees?
My last 4 houses out of 5 have all had their roofs shaded by trees >60% of the day, which puts solar ROI pretty far out in the future for me - I'd like to do it, but the economics just aren't there, and cutting the trees would dramatically increase my total energy consumption.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by requerdanos on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:31PM (1 child)
They eliminated [arstechnica.com] rooftops from their numbers "if they were too small, too steep, north-facing, or otherwise would lose more than 20 percent of their possible solar output"
Tallish wind generators might work better at some of those locations than shady solar panels.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 22 2018, @02:17AM
Wind generators don't start working well until they clear the treetops, which in the SouthEast US means somewhere around 40' most places... that's a damn tall tower to put on a 1/4 acre subdivision lot.
🌻🌻 [google.com]