SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The installed price of solar energy has declined significantly in recent years as policy and market forces have driven more and more solar installations.
Now, the latest data show that the continued decrease in solar prices is unlikely to slow down anytime soon, with total installed prices dropping by 5 percent for rooftop residential systems, and 12 percent for larger utility-scale solar farms. With solar already achieving record-low prices, the cost decline observed in 2015 indicates that the coming years will likely see utility-scale solar become cost competitive with conventional forms of electricity generation.
A full analysis of the ongoing decline in solar prices can be found in two separate Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Reports: Tracking the Sun IX focuses on installed pricing trends in the distributed rooftop solar market while Utility-Scale Solar 2015 focuses on large-scale solar farms that sell bulk power to the grid.
[...] The installed cost includes everything needed to get a solar power system up and running: the panels, the power electronics, the mounting hardware, and the installation itself. The continued decline in total installed cost is noteworthy considering the fact that the price of the solar panels (or modules) themselves has remained relatively flat since 2012. This means that the decline in installed cost observed since 2012 was largely caused by a decline in the cost of the inverters that convert the DC power produced by solar panels to AC power for the grid and other "soft" costs such as customer acquisition, system design, installation, and permitting.
[...] Going forward, the declining price of solar across all categories demonstrated by the latest Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reports coupled with the extension of the federal renewable energy investment tax credit through 2019 should drive a continued expansion of the U.S. solar market and even more favorable economics in the next few years. It will certainly be interesting to see what kind of market dynamic develops as solar approaches the tipping point where it becomes more economical than conventional forms of electricity generation.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 30 2016, @01:38AM
Its still the price of a new car. In round bald numbers its still 25K for a small rooftop.
And you better have that roof redone while you are in the process, or you will have to tear up the solar to do it later.
The price seems to be held at a level that you MIGHT break even in a northern-tier state after the things are paid for, which will be about when they start failing.
I like the Idea, and if I lived in Arizona or Texas I'd be signing up.
But Washington through Maine and all of the Canadian provinces end up being something of a money loser. Saw a program on Canadian TV last night where some minister was saying solar was a good deal. She was short on numbers, but long on effervescent praise of solar gains. 2050 she said.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @02:10AM
> The price seems to be held at a level that you MIGHT break even in a northern-tier state after the things are paid for,
No shit sherlock. That's pretty much the definition of breaking even.
> which will be about when they start failing.
Not in the slightest. Solar panels are rated for 80% of original output at 20 years. Most of them far exceed that in practice, especially in cooler climates. And that's just an output rating, actual physical longevity is much longer.
> But Washington through Maine and all of the Canadian provinces end up being something of a money loser.
Which is why new jersey, new york and massachusetts are in the top 10 states for installed solar capacity. [seia.org]
> She was short on numbers, but long on effervescent praise of solar gains.
Unlike yourself who is short on numbers but long on know-nothing solar bullshit.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Whoever on Tuesday August 30 2016, @02:12AM
Please get your facts straight.
No, it's not. Most installed systems are 4-5kW. That size of system costs $15k-$18k. And there is a federal tax credit of 30% available, so the real cost is more like $10k - $12k.
The cost of removing and re-mounting the solar panels is a small part of the overall cost. Most installers will commit to a fixed price to remove and replace the system in the event that root work is necessary some time after installation. This cost is usually about $500 to $1000.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ledow on Tuesday August 30 2016, @05:00AM
So it's subsidised into profit by a tax credit.
Ignoring that, it costs more than ten years of electricity would cost me (probably a lot more, I took the lower numbers I can't do the maths and convert currencies at the same time) to put the system in.
And then I'd be limited to a system that can't get near half the current that my grid connection can handle as a matter of course (220v, 60A to the fuseboard, no conversion losses obviously).
Now more interesting is that others mention the life of the panels but not the life of the storage. So we're not talking replacing batteries every year or so? So you're talking about maintaining a connection to the grid, therefore you're not really changing anything, are you? Except feeding back some power in need of serious voltage/current/phase conversion to be anywhere near useful.
Or if we are talking about "off-grid" systems, then I have, say, 12 hours a day of sunlight on average over the year. So half the time I'm not actually getting 4-5KW. And with perfect storage, only half of that. Which brings me back to a point where if I boil a kettle, I could exhaust the system's current-supplying capacity and have to go to battery storage. Which needs replacement, maintenance and monitoring.
We're not just talking "slap a panel on your roof", even at great expense and with tax breaks. We're talking a major drop in productivity of electrical supply to your house. That's part of the reasoning, of course, to make people green, but it's a hard sell.
"Hey, your tax dollars are paying for everyone to do this, why don't you spend a lot of money in one hit to get an unreliable power supply that needs the national grid to be useful anyway and/or throw out half your electric kit because you won't be able to use it at the same time as anything else? It'll pay for itself in only 20 years (providing nothing goes wrong at all in that time and the subsidies still exist)!"
Sounds like it's still a hard-sell to me, despite the objections.
And, to be honest, this assumes you have the roofspace, the ownership (Mortgaged house? Hope the panel lease is on the mortgage if you didn't pay for it outright, as there's legal hassles in my country over people doing that and then trying to sell a leased-out-to-the-solar-company-for-20-years roof), the latitude, the sunlight, the right direction of house, the right angle of roof, electrical installers and companies willing to help (specialised installers, government-approved installations, electricity companies willing to modify your installation, etc.). If you don't, you still can't even achieve the above.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday August 30 2016, @05:28AM
You seem to be rather confused.
Firstly, unless you plan to go off-grid, you should not try to size a system to produce anywhere near your house's theoretical maximum grid load, or even your actual maximum grid load (my typical maximum load is typically about 4:00am, when my EV is charging at 7kW).
1. Panels can pay off in as little as 5 years. This does depend on two factors: net energy metering and tax credits.
2. It's stupid to ignore tax credits when considering your own situation. However, without the credits, payoff could still be in 8 years (easily during the warranty period of the system).
3. Net energy metering is the key factor that determines viability. With net energy metering, batteries are not required. In California, current installations are guaranteed net energy metering for 20 years.
4. Depending on the alignment of your roof, the time of peak output can match the time of peak demand quite well. A west-facing roof is better than a south facing roof, because, although total output is less, the time during which the panels produce electricity matches peak demand much better.
I agree that a leased system can give problems down the road: re-financing or selling become more difficult.
It's a hard sell because it is a big outlay and the alternatives (lease or power purchase agreement) have big disadvantages.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday August 30 2016, @09:53AM
>>Its still the price of a new car. In round bald numbers its still 25K for a small rooftop.
>No, it's not. Most installed systems are 4-5kW. That size of system costs $15k-$18k.
Just as an act of petty pedantry I was going to point out that $15-18k is still enough to buy a new car. Then I decided that I ought to do some fact checking first, since this was based on an in-my-head conversion of approximate UK prices into US dollars. I looked up some new car prices in the USA, and their corresponding prices in the UK, and it seems you colonials pay quite a bit more for your vehicles than we do. This is a refreshing change, since we Brits normally pay over the odds for most things.
Cheapest new cars in the UK that I could find are the Dacia[1] Sandero at ~£6k, and various other small cars at ~£7k.
Cheapest US new cars seem to come in at around $12.5k - $13k (Nissan Versa, Chevy Spark, Smart ForTwo.)
At today's exchange rate, that's a significant difference.
Is this some tax / regulation overhead that we don't pay, or is it simply that USians can't conceive of buying a car without a big engine, aircon and an automatic gearbox?
A bit of googling suggests that you can get a car across the Atlantic for less than $2000 (that's just shipping, I'm sure there would be other expenses not accounted for here), so if you were in the market for a cheap new car, live on the US East coast (or live further west and want an excuse for a road trip) and don't mind waiting then I wondered if it would be worth buying a new vehicle in Western France, Spain or Portugal (since it will not only be even cheaper than the UK, but will also be LHD) and getting it shipped over.
I decided to dig deeper and went as far as trying to compare like-for-like on a typical car using the car configurators on the Ford.com, Ford.co.uk and Ford.es websites. Basic Ford Focus with 1.0 Ecoboost engine and Automatic transmission:
US $19130
UK £18345 (~$24000)
ES €15955 (~$17823)
As you can see the results do not support the "UK is cheaper" premise above. Based on this sample size of one, the UK one is by far the most expensive, with the Euro price being the cheapest, but probably not quite cheap enough to justify transatlantic shipping costs. However this isn't exactly a high-end car, a more expensive vehicle might magnify the differences and make shipping worthwhile. Also Ford is a US company, I'd be interested to see if domestic brands are cheaper than imported ones even though all brands are manufactured on both continents. If anyone can be bothered to do a like-for-like comparison on a more expensive European vehicle, (say a BMW or Porsche) then maybe it would get interesting.
[1] I suspect Across-the-ponders will be unfamiliar with the Dacia marque. The story is similar to that of Skoda: Originally an East-European Soviet brand renowned for cheap, crappy cars, it got bought out by a reputable west-european manufacturer (Renault in this case) and is now producing quality cars with low price tags.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @01:53PM
The US wouldn't let European cars in for sale.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday August 30 2016, @02:22PM
You forgot that US prices do not include sales tax, which varies by state and city.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Tuesday August 30 2016, @04:55PM
or is it simply that USians can't conceive of buying a car without a big engine, aircon and an automatic gearbox?
This.
bigger === better
aircon is not optional unless you live in the far north (like Maine), or at very high altitude (like Colorado). Remember that the furthest south point in Great Britain is a higher latitude than essentially every point in the lower 48 states. Florida is entirely south of Morocco.
and why in $DIETY's name does every manufacturer in the US assume that no-one wants to drive a standard transmission??? The excuse that "women don't like the distraction" is insulting to my wife, sisters, mother, and daughter who ALL DO IT JUST FINE and like it better than automatics.
But yeah, you've got the U.S. figured out; no need to look much farther than this.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 30 2016, @10:44PM
Taxes are extra, and they vary. Some places charge a few thousand $ to register the car. (Maryland is bad) Some places have a high sales tax; it could be around 10%.
We have pretty severe driver-oriented passive safety requirements. Our assumption is that the driver is passed out and crashing into something solid, like a concrete bridge support, while driving at decently high speed.
We have pretty severe emissions requirements. We require catalytic converters, even on small well-designed engines. For diesel, we require particulate filters and we effectively require (see VW scandal) urea injection.
We have pretty severe fuel efficiency requirements. Normal drivers can't meet these with a manual gearbox. The new cars are coming with 8-speed automatics.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 30 2016, @12:25PM
Its still the price of a new car.
I have "about that much" electric company stock via a zero commission stock investment plan ($50/month for decades commission free does add up..)
Anyway the biggest problem I have with solar, is as of a couple years ago, True I could put up an array that will eliminate my bills and/or may eventually pay for itself with considerable labor and risk, but I already have about that much money invested in the power company and my direct deposited dividend checks pay my electric bill and then some even after I pay income taxes on the dividends.
So if you want to obtain a household worth of electricity you can pay $200/month or whatever in perpetuity, or hand your broker a car's worth of cash to buy a small fraction of an electrical power company, or buy a metric crapton of hardware to install on your roof and maintain and fuss over and worry about non-distributed risk etc etc.
BTW I'm not claiming exactly $25K of solar panels is exactly equal to $25K of one specific local electric power company, but "its dang close" within 25% or so.
Remember the total system cost over the system lifetime is going to be way the hell more than just panels. Don't forget to talk to your homeowners insurance, permanently attached improvements increase your property tax permanently, locally I recently discovered freestanding "on a pole" panels are essentially unregulated by our local building code but every roof installation requires a structural engineers stamp on the architectural drawings verified by the planning commission and a special permit from the planning commission after a presentation at their meetings (I donno, $3K of engineer and architect time by the time you're done? And the permit itself isn't free) And of course licensed electrician to bring the whole building up to code not just grandfathered in because they're messing with the entrance facility to pump power back into the grid, etc. Oh and mods to the roof for the panels have to be done by union carpenters, which means it'll be done right but it'll be expensive.
In the "old days" a solar installation was like $50K of panels and $15K of BS "wealth extraction because they can". Now a days we've improved it to something like $5K of panels and $15K of "wealth extraction". But we're going asymptotic where eventually panels are going to be as cheap as TVs or windows, and your average installation will be $500 of panels covering your entire roof and the same old $15K of "wealth extraction" we've always had. And the industry is fixated on reducing panel cost, which no longer matters, while ignoring the "wealth extraction" corruption.
I'd predict the world of the future is going to be off grid with the grid as a charger and supply of huge power. This grid connected stuff is just too expensive to be useful once panels get cheap. So for example instead of panels and central air conditioning and room AC, a product of the future for your south facing house window will be a variable speed very low power window AC with attached solar awning that plugs into nothing at all, self powered just apply sunlight. Rather than dealing with the incredible amount of bullshit it takes to attach panels to the grid, it'll be cheaper to direct wire panels to a car charger in the garage, forget all this grid attached bullshit.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday August 31 2016, @01:49AM
Too right. Your investments in the local power company make global climate change worse. My solar panels reduce climate change.
The difference to my insurance is insignificant. My state, like many, waives property valuation increases for solar panel installations.
And your electricity prices are going to increase in the future, making my panels more cost effective.
Got any more ridiculous ideas that you want to get off your chest while you are at it?
I am guessing that you live in a state where the utilities have influenced the state laws in order to make solar panels more expensive and difficult to install.
My state requires that cities use an expedited permit approval process for solar installations. It's quick and cheap.
We did not have to bring the whole house up to today's code. Yes, we do need new smoke and CO detectors. Wow!
Mods to the roof? What mods? Most roofs are strong enough.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday August 31 2016, @01:19PM
Your investments in the local power company make global climate change worse.
In they eye of the beholder. Where I sit there was two miles of ice not long ago, and I hope it doesn't come back anytime soon.
I am guessing that you live in a state where the utilities have influenced the state laws in order to make solar panels more expensive and difficult to install.
Uh, yeah, I think we agree on that.
making my panels more cost effective.
Yes the alpha strategy well known. I have to budget for eternal increases. Of course my local power company owns farms of solar panels and windmills so they benefit too from the same effect. They did idiotically build a bunch of natgas and coal plants over the last couple decades and even sold off or shut down their nukes, its not like they're geniuses.
What mods? Most roofs are strong enough.
No, most were built to barely achieve code compliance for snow loads at the time of construction, and here comes hundreds of pounds of asymmetric load on something that barely met 1960 code or older... Now its not rocket surgery to tell a carpenter to double up every fifth frame or whatever, nor is it really hard to do, of course.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday August 31 2016, @07:03PM
So there are more powerful storms in the oceans, doing more damage, droughts in some places, flooding in others in ways that did not happen in recent history, but, hey, some ice near you melted, so, it's all good!.
I think you mis-spelled "employer".
Once again, you show your ignorance. Firstly, many people live in areas where snow is something that you have to drive for hundreds or thousands of miles to see. Snow loads on the roof? Never going to happen for millions of houses. Secondly, "double up every fifth frame or whatever": in fact, if you did need to strengthen a roof, this would have to be closely aligned with the attachment points of the rails, since many mounting systems use rails that are attached in only a few places. It would not help to double up on the framing, if the mounts were screwed into an unreinforced frame.
But, no, fundamentally, you are wrong. Most roofs don't need reinforcement. If a roof needs reinforcement, solar panels are unlikely to be economically viable. I also think that solar panels weigh a lot less than you think. I am not saying that roof strength is never an issue, just that it usually isn't.
Or is your claim that most of the existing solar panel installations don't have sufficient support in the roof? Perhaps you would like to link to a news story that describes a roof collapse due to the load of a solar installation?
I suspect very strongly that your position is not based on fact, but instead, based on scare stories put out by your employer.