Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday September 15 2017, @01:22AM   Printer-friendly
from the light-coin dept.

On Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced that utility-grade solar panels have hit cost targets set for 2020, three years ahead of schedule. Those targets reflect around $1 per watt and 6¢ per kilowatt-hour in Kansas City, the department's mid-range yardstick for solar panel cost per unit of energy produced (New York is considered the high-cost end, and Phoenix, Arizona, which has much more sunlight than most other major cities in the country, reflects the low-cost end).

Those prices don't include an Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which makes solar panels even cheaper. The Energy Department said that the cost per watt was assessed in terms of total installed system costs for developers. That means the number is based on "the sales price paid to the installer; therefore, it includes profit in the cost of the hardware," according to a department presentation (PDF).

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a DOE-funded lab that assesses solar panel cost, wrote that, compared to the first quarter in 2016, the first quarter in 2017 saw a 29-percent decline in installed cost for utility-scale solar, which was attributed to lower photovoltaic module and inverter prices, better panel efficiency, and reduced labor costs. Despite the plummeting costs for utility-scale solar, costs for commercial and residential solar panels have not fallen quite as quickly—just 15 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

It seems there are still big gains to be made in the installed costs of residential panels.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday September 15 2017, @08:44PM (1 child)

    by jmorris (4844) on Friday September 15 2017, @08:44PM (#568692)

    Ok, there is lot of low hanging fruit in renovating a forty year old home. And notice that I totally called it in the original post when I mentioned "living with severely limited climate control" and generally reorganizing your lifestyle around energy reduction, since that does seem to be the primary drivers of savings in your case.

    changed the leaky water balloon with an instant water heater

    I use natural gas for that. In the summer the water heater is the only thing using gas. Pay way less than $50/mo even with the minimum billing. Calculate how long it would take to pay off "an extra $2,500" comparing a gas heater to what you pay now, assuming it even less expensive to operate at all. A gas heater is only a little more expensive vs an electric one. You probably should have invested that $2.5K in something that would have given you a better return.

    geeks computers which run all day.

    Power management. Back in the bad old days I had to run 24/7 but now I finally have a machine that Linux can manage properly. If I want to access it remotely I send a WOL packet, wait a couple of seconds and then connect. Really does wonders. Don't bother with the MythTV since it spends at last half the day either recording or playing anyway.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @09:39PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 15 2017, @09:39PM (#568715)

    > generally reorganizing your lifestyle around energy reduction, since that does seem to be the primary drivers of savings in your case.

    That's a bit of an overstatement. Turning off stuff you don't need, and not rushing for the AC when the temps barely approach 30C (dry) isn't "reorganizing", it's the common sense my parents taught us.

    The instant water heater dropped my monthly gas bill from $30 to just above $10. ROI is probably ten years, assuming the gas prices do go up a bit. A replacement before that would be a lot cheaper than the initial pipe gauge conversion this one required (probably $1500 installed). That's the money side.
    The non-money side is I don't have a giant tank strapped in the middle of the wall of my garage, wasting energy all day whether we need hot water or not, keeping the garage even hotter in summer. I also can get as much hot water as my shower requires, even if I'm the tenth person to take one in a row, including a bunch of visiting long-haired teens. When it runs, it's well over 90% efficient, and when we're not here, it uses none instead of a silly oversized pilot light.
    Totally worth it.

    I used my furnace about 2 weeks per year on average since I bought the place. Hate hate hate how inefficient and wasteful it is. I'm going to get a new one, not because the ROI makes sense, not so much because at 40 years old, it could crack and poison us all, but because I'm upset at the sound of burning excess dollars every time it's on (house value would also benefit from not having an ancient furnace).

    I like the peace of knowing that my house doesn't waste my dollars because energy is cheap (at 40 years, energy wasn't actually that cheap then). It doesn't matter if I could afford the waste, or don't get instant ROI on one specific piece.