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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:27PM (7 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 21 2018, @10:27PM (#641443) Journal

    "OIL WILL RUN OUT...."

    Will it? What about bio fuels? Isn't that basically oil? And isn't it basically solar? Using the suns energy to grow plant matter effectively storing the solar energy as hydrocarbons? Maybe instead of solar panels everywhere, we should work to increase efficiency and yields from bio fuel production?

    Biofuels can be oily, but they aren't "oil" in the sense that they aren't fossil fuels, but they *are* solar in the sense that yes, they are a delivery method of solar energy captured by plants. I think we should be doing development in both.

    lets not pretend that oil is anything but solar by another route.

    I dispute this not at all; rather, I am saying that we need to transition to fuels that we don't have to dig out of the ground. (Unless someone makes Thorium work; we have lots of that in comparison to other dig-out-of-the-ground fuel, and it isn't solar).

    The issue I have with solar on every roof is overly optimistic cost and maintenance... Compare that to building a solar capture facility in some rocky desert like area

    I have to agree with you here as well. The solar industry has essentially three types of installation:

    • Small. This is rooftop residential or rooftop small business.
    • Medium. This is solar garden commercial or light industrial.
    • Large. These are solar farms.

    There's a reason that rooftop solar is small in scale, and larger scale solar is in gardens or farms. I don't think there's any harm in running the numbers to see what large-scale rooftop solar would do for us (and 40% of the electrical grid at the very ideal maximum==not enough seems to be the answer in TFA), but you're right, the advantages of rooftop solar right now mostly outweigh the disadvantages.

    "OIL WILL RUN OUT; GET OVER IT."

    Will it?

    Yeah. It still will. None of these words changed that. We are using it faster than it's being made. It's math.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday February 22 2018, @02:59AM (5 children)

    by vux984 (5045) on Thursday February 22 2018, @02:59AM (#641593)

    "Yeah. It still will. None of these words changed that. We are using it faster than it's being made. It's math."

    I guess if you are going to explicitly define modern biofuels as not being oil; despite beign the same hydrocarbon chains, then sure.

    • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday February 22 2018, @05:36PM (4 children)

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @05:36PM (#641881) Journal

      I guess if you are going to explicitly define modern biofuels as not being oil;

      I can draw a distinction between fossil fuels manufactured in the distant past, with the energy already in it, that earth has a lot of, and modern biofuels we added the energy to, that were/are cooked in batches, recently. We get energy from one, and the other gets its energy from us. They're opposites in that respect.

      We can look eye-to-eye and assume that they are not two different things; we can say "they use these hydrocarbon chains, so they are not just oils, they are the same thing." That would last until we observe that for Oil (capital O, the fossil fuel kind) the energy is already in there from sunlight heat and pressure, but with Biofuels, even though they are oily fuels, indeed are oil, we have to *put* the energy in there (if we want to just use the energy the Sun put in there, we must burn the switchgrass or corn or whatever raw material directly, putting us technologically back to the age of steam engines--to make oil out of them we have to add energy).

      I submit that that's a meaningful difference between the two. Because I know this difference, I'm going to "explicitly define modern biofuels" as not being the same thing as Oil from fossil fuels, regardless of the final form each takes.

      The advantage that Oil from fossil fuels has (the reason that we largely use it, instead of BioFuels) is that it already contains the energy, which was added long ago; we don't have to do anything but mine it/wildcat it/pump it up in a well, and then ship it to wherever it's needed, and use it, and the energy is ours.

      When Biofuel oils run out (and they do, just like any other kind of oil that you intend to use up; this is the math part), you harvest some more raw materials, and put those raw materials together with energy and cook up some more Biofuel. You + Materials + Energy => Biofuel.

      When Oil from fossil fuel sources runs out, it's gone. You have to stop using the Oil with the energy already in it, and if you want to still use oils, you have to start making Biofuel oils and putting the energy in there yourself. (Again, the Sun doesn't do it; you actually have to provide the energy that gets stored in the molecular bonds).

      Fossil-fuel crude Oil, oils from Biofuel sources, both of these are fuels, energy storage media, and they will (this is so simple!) run out when burned up. That's their purpose. Their raison d'être.

      If you have n quantity of something (whether 1 Earth's reserve of Crude Oil, or a tanker truck full of Biodiesel, or a BIC lighter full of lighter fluid), and your plan for it is to burn x amount of it per week, then after the first week you have n-x of it, and after the second week n-2x, after the third week n-3x, and so on until the product of weeks*x=n and you have n-n units of it. The most useful thing we can say about n-n units is "it ran out." This is the expected result.

      That applies to fossil fuels, biofuels, firewood, paper, pine straw, hay, you name it. The math doesn't make exceptions here.

      We can make more oil in the form of Biofuels, but we have to already have the energy in another form, and add that energy to raw materials to make more Biofuel.

      And we do that *because* we ran out, not because it doesn't run out. If it didn't run out, there would be no need to make more. Your fuel tank would not have a removable lid. There would be enough fuel built into the engine for one firing cycle per cylinder, and this fuel-that-doesn't-run-out would just be burned over and over.

      TL;DR: Your notion that there is some oil that never runs out seems to be really (inexplicably) common, but it's still wrong.

      • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday February 23 2018, @04:28AM (3 children)

        by vux984 (5045) on Friday February 23 2018, @04:28AM (#642212)

        "If you have n quantity of something (whether 1 Earth's reserve of Crude Oil, or a tanker truck full of Biodiesel, or a BIC lighter full of lighter fluid), and your plan for it is to burn x amount of it per week, then after the first week you have n-x of it, and after the second week n-2x, after the third week n-3x, and so on until the product of weeks*x=n and you have n-n units of it. The most useful thing we can say about n-n units is "it ran out." This is the expected result."

        That is overly simplistic. Clearly one can start with a pile of firewood, some land, and some seedlings and manage things such that each week you burn x units of firewood, and at the end of each year you have as much firewood as you started with, a healthy forest to draw it from, with new tress replacing the ones you took down, essentially indefinitely. You mocked wood burning, but wood is actually pretty sustainable, because forests can be a renewable resource; and effectively a solar powered one when you get to it.

        Likewise there is nothing inherent to using biofuel that mandates that you use fossil fuels in their production. It may take 5 barrels of oil's worth of energy to produce one barrel of biofuel, but there's no reason that the 5 barrels worth of energy needs to be 5 actual barrels of oil. The energy input could be solar; and probably should be.

        • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday February 23 2018, @03:28PM (2 children)

          by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 23 2018, @03:28PM (#642403) Journal

          there is nothing inherent to using biofuel that mandates that you use fossil fuels in their production... The energy input could be solar; and probably should be.

          Solar, wind, something else renewable. People complain that you have to put the energy into Biofuels and about how much energy you have to put in, perhaps questioning Biofuel's utility given that you already have the energy, but that's, I believe, looking at it the wrong way. Biofuels are a way to make energy portable.

          Large-scale solar power is useful when it's sunny. Large-scale wind power is useful when it's windy. Add batteries to them, and both are useful round-the-clock, but only in a single spot. Contrast this with large-scale Biofuel which is useful all the time, and what's more, it's portable (just like Oil-derived products that we currently use). That portability is huge--large-scale solar and wind aren't portable. Yes, energy has to be put into Biofuels, but energy had to be put into fossil fuels as well. The advantage is that you can carry around a fuel tank full in your car, truck, boat, ship, or airplane and draw on it any time you need it.

          You mocked wood burning, but wood is actually pretty sustainable, because forests can be a renewable resource; and effectively a solar powered one when you get to it.

          Well, I pointed out that it was steam-engine age technology, which it is. I didn't mean to mock it. Being steam-engine age technology doesn't mean it isn't useful--it's very useful. Plus, burning the wood means you are harvesting the solar energy collected by the trees (no need to put more energy into wood).

          We have the technology to run, for example, trains and steamboats directly on wood (in place of the coal that they traditionally have burned), which nobody finds very useful just now, but which, I'll bet, will be deemed a lot more useful if we get to the point where wood+transporting the wood costs, say, half as much as fossil-derived oil+transporting the oil.

          Of course, the reason we need the forest, and the axe, is that the wood runs out. Sure, n-x is an oversimplification, but it holds even if the rate varies, and even if you have a plan to replenish a fuel after it runs out.

          • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday February 23 2018, @08:42PM (1 child)

            by vux984 (5045) on Friday February 23 2018, @08:42PM (#642624)

            It seems like we're coming around to the point where I'm not sure we actually really disagree on anything now.

            We have the technology to run, for example, trains and steamboats directly on wood (in place of the coal that they traditionally have burned), which nobody finds very useful just now, but which, I'll bet, will be deemed a lot more useful if we get to the point where wood+transporting the wood costs, say, half as much as fossil-derived oil+transporting the oil.

            I expect the reality will be somewhere in between. For example, pre-processing the wood in a solar plant into some sort of wood byproduct to increase its energy density, reducing the mass or volume that needs to be transported. Or perhaps also incorporating highly GM strains of tree to store more energy per unit volume... or perhaps it won't be trees but algae grown in ponds. Perhaps GM algae to increase the consistency and density and harvest-ability of their oils...

            Of course, the reason we need the forest, and the axe, is that the wood runs out. Sure, n-x is an oversimplification, but it holds even if the rate varies, and even if you have a plan to replenish a fuel after it runs out.

            This seems like splitting hairs now. If the resource is managed and replenishment efforts meet or exceeds consumption then "n-x" and projecting the resource will be depleted becomes pretty meaningless. It's like projecting the extinction of cockroaches after counting how many the terminator swept out of a tented building. Well there were n cockroaches before he tented it, and he killed x cockroaches... but in the meantime globally n grew by 50x. So... yeah... the cockroach population isn't being depleted. Likewise, if you managed the forest properly, then as long as you are cutting trees down for firewood at a sustainable rate the forest isn't going to run out.

            I think we're in general agreement here on how these systems work; and the only real dispute is whether it really makes semantic sense to say the resource will run out based simply on there being a consumption.

            • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday February 23 2018, @11:06PM

              by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 23 2018, @11:06PM (#642705) Journal

              I think we're in general agreement here on how these systems work; and the only real dispute is whether it really makes semantic sense to say the resource will run out based simply on there being a consumption.

              The key is replenishment.

              A finite resource, with consumption, will run out unless replenished.

              This came up because it's an important difference between fossil fuels and (for example) Biofuel: Fossils can't be replenished except over geologic time. Biofuels can be replenished, but it's not a matter of the Sun magically making them, there is time, effort, and energy involved in the replenishment.

              It's also an important equation because you have to consider what's involved in replenishment costs in determining suitability of a fuel.

              Your well-kept forest/tree farm probably won't run out, but your woodpile certainly will, and it takes energy (fuel/labor) and time to replenish it from the forest.

              Early on with Oil, people had the point of view that it was something that was inexhaustible. Now, (most) people are over that. That lesson is an important one, and if replenishment is to be an answer to the exhaustion of existing stocks of fuel (your woodpile, tanks of Biofuel, whatever) then it has to be considered. So when talking about the woodpile, you can't use handwaving and just say "oh, this forest will last." You don't burn the forest in your (fireplace/woodstove/boiler), you burn the fuel from the woodpile there, and the latter takes energy and time to harvest. If the Forest burns, it means something went wrong.

              That's not semantics, it's time and money.

              highly GM strains... Perhaps GM algae

              Monsanto and various courts are working to kill any benefit from GM plants. Monsanto with DRM and lawsuits, and the courts upholding Monsanto's screwy views.

              The pattern is: Someone "licenses the right to use" Monsanto GM seed (you don't just buy it), then everyone around them gets their crops contaminated with Monsanto(tm) Cross-Pollination(tm) Contamination(tm) which makes their crops contain the DRM-protected Monsanto "Intellectual Property" without a license. Then Monsanto sues, and the courts uphold Monsanto's view. (Further Reading [naturalsociety.com])

              A more reasonable view would be to tell Monsanto, if you don't want your crops spreading their characteristics, then engineer them to stop doing it, or accept that they do it. Don't go suing your victims.

              For society to benefit from GM plants, either Monsanto or courts must be put out of business for the good of everyone.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:59PM (#641844)

    Unless someone makes Thorium work; we have lots of that in comparison to other dig-out-of-the-ground fuel, and it isn't solar

    But it still stores stellar energy; it's just not the energy of the specific star known as Sun.