Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @02:40AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @02:40AM (#568240)

    > shift some of the cost onto people who will never benefit from these panels.

    Hmmm. Assuming that you believe in the "law" of supply and demand, then:
      If I'm a rich person that puts up solar, then I use less fossil fuel.
      The price of fossil fuel goes down in some relation to that reduction in demand.
      Result, the price of that fossil fuel is lower for the poor person that still uses it.

    Hell, I don't even have to be rich, all I have to do is ride a bicycle instead of use my car, reduces demand for gasoline and lowers the price of gasoline for everyone (a tiny bit--but economies are made up of many tiny transactions).

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @02:56AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @02:56AM (#568247)

    Yes, that's the magic fantasy version of economics. In reality, when giant multinational giant industries make less profit than they used to, they raise prices to cover the difference and bribe a few politicians on both sides of the aisle so neither one raises a fuss.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday September 15 2017, @06:32PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday September 15 2017, @06:32PM (#568609)

      True, but the poor are still the ones who benefit from not being on the front lines of the obsoleted war for oil.