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: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:01PM (11 children)
I kinda see your point - but - we've already given up tens of millions of acres of arable land to make room for all those rooftops. Might as well make those rooftops dual purpose, or even multiple purpose. How about maybe putting sod on the roof, to help green up America, then allow children to play on the sod, and mount those solar panels overhead, to protect the children from sunburn? And, if you get tired of having just plain old sod, you can always grow some popcorn, or tomatoes, or whatever. Wow - I've just recovered millions of acres of arable land!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:10PM (1 child)
Because you've just severely overloaded dozens of structural members in our underbuilt American houses as a result of overstressing them with three stories worth of unexpected weight.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:21PM
But, I wasn't going to put all those millions on the same rooftop. I was going to spread them around some!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by requerdanos on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:18PM
Solar panels don't care about the agricultural characteristics of nearby land. Solar panels work well on rocky, drought-stricken land that won't even grow weeds [wikipedia.org] if that land gets sun.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:31PM
You're suggesting that just because want to yell "tricksy little hobbitses" instead of "get off my lawn".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:32PM (5 children)
The solar panels over your sod will prevent it from growing....
I want solar panels installed over the highways we commute on, to cut down on the solar heating of the roadway - cars run cooler, don't need as much (or any) air conditioning...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 21 2018, @07:01PM (2 children)
interesting idea. you could have free electric car recharge stations then too.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:37PM
Well, somewhere between free, "free + maintenance cost + labor costs, but subsidized", and "market value"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:32PM
There aren't many free electric cars to recharge. Recharge stations for expensive electric cars would probably be much more useful.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Wednesday February 21 2018, @07:14PM (1 child)
The obvious issue is that the infrastructure to mount it (safely) above roadways is way more expensive, and it carries an implicit danger to the public should those supports fail, and barring accident depending on geography such supports could limit visibility in a hazardous way, though limiting visibility of adverts would be a welcome change to me if unwelcome to others.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Wednesday February 21 2018, @08:48PM
> though limiting visibility of adverts would be a welcome change to me if unwelcome to others.
Don't worry, they would just stick the adverts under the panel roof, slightly angled to always be in your field of view. Another bonus is a steady supply of electricity, so they can make the adverts light up and be animated. Think of the synergy! </sarcasm>
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:18AM
we've already given up tens of millions of acres of arable land
To take it 1 step farther:
The local college had a big uncovered parking lot.
In the summer, getting back into your car after it had been sitting in the sun for some hours was an unpleasant experience.
The lot now has a cover and that cover is coated with solar cells, turning "wasted" space into productive space.
...and the cars beneath it stay cooler. 2 birds; 1 stone.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]