Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday February 21 2018, @04:23PM   Printer-friendly
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 5¢ 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.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:41PM (4 children)

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:41PM (#641273)

    But, but, but, but, you aren't supposed to care about how much rare materials are used to create new solar cells every few dozen years! or how much non-nonrenewable resources are consumed doing that! or how many child laborers turn in to piles of meat producing each panel! Or that in a few thousand years there will be piles of dead solar stuff piled to the sky in a land fill!

    IT'S GREEN DAMMIT! Green is good for the planet! Why do you hate the planet!? You are supposed to buy it without thinking because we say IT IS GREEN!

    Oh, and buy a new tablet or smart phone each year because paperless is green too!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Funny=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:07PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:07PM (#641285)

    To summarize: If externalities were actually included in the price, purchasing decisions may evolve.
    Which is as valid for rare minerals and child labor for green tech, as it is for military and pollution for dino juice.
    Given the current pentagon budget, plus the cost of smog, green energy is still probably ahead by a lot.

  • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by fritsd on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:33PM (1 child)

    by fritsd (4586) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:33PM (#641302) Journal

    I wonder it they still teach Lavoisier's 18-th century Law of the Conservation of Mass [wikipedia.org] in high schools chemistry???

    Q: Where do the rare materials and elements that are used to create new solar cells come from?
    A: Old solar cells.(*)

    Q: Where does the rare earth Neodymium in those humongous wind turbine stators come from?
    A: Old wind turbine stators (same *). In fact, I suspect they don't wear down that much.
            Besides Neodymium isn't so rare, just difficult to separate from the other Lanthanides used in fireworks and cigarette lighters.

    (*) Yes, I know what "steady state" means, that we aren't there yet, and I concur that evaporation and wind abrasion and vandalism and lightning strikes and spontaneous nuclear transmutation (if any) of the solar cells/wind turbines means, that a fraction of a percentage of the materials has to still be mined.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @05:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @05:59PM (#641885)

      You make the very incorrect assumption that everyone will always "recycle". As long as it is cheaper to mine new material, old material may wind up in a landfill where it becomes harder or impossible to access in the future.

      And that still does not take in to consideration the fresh materials, resources, and labor required to build something new from old materials. Something made out of recycled material did not just pop in to existence from unicorn magic.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:28PM (#641825)

    But in 30 years(*) we will have fusion, and all our energy problems are solved anyway!

    (*) or 30 years after that, or 30 years after that, or …