Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds

[ScienceRocks]

Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2011) — The public is being kept in the dark about the viability of solar photovoltaic energy, according to a study conducted at Queen's University.
Solar power much cheaper to produce than most analysts realize, study finds

Many analysts project a higher cost for solar photovoltaic energy because they don't consider recent technological advancements and price reductions," says Joshua Pearce, Adjunct Professor, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. "Older models for determining solar photovoltaic energy costs are too conservative."

Dr. Pearce believes solar photovoltaic systems are near the "tipping point" where they can produce energy for about the same price other traditional sources of energy.

EDIT: Copyright Compliance

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material. Link Each Copy and Paste.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/47455-usmb-rules-and-regulations.html

 

[editec]

Good news assuming that the numbers are right.

When does this good news scale up to truly cheaper solar power?

 

[chikenwing]

Advances are always good,just wondering how the will make it work at night,and when it clouds over for weeks at a time.

Batteries and inverters are expensive high maintenance and not very green,but then there are never any free lunches are there.

 

[Old Rocks]

Chickenwing, read a little about grid parrallel solar. You put your excess on the grid for credit, and use power off the grid at night. A win-win for everybody.

 

[flacaltenn]

Who pays for the maintenance, the idling time, the personnel for the nightime PRIMARY sources that just sit there all day while the sun is out? This is NEVER calculated in the true cost of solar energy. But the need to have a PRIMARY RELIABLE 24/7 source ready to back-up solar generation deficiencies is a REAL cost that gets ignored in all of these analyses.

The fact that people get paid for deciding to be energy producing moguls (a losing proposition in most cases even with the solar panel market temporarally crashed) is a political artifact, not an indication of an actual generation problem getting solved..

 

[Dragon]

Who pays for the maintenance, the idling time, the personnel for the nightime PRIMARY sources that just sit there all day while the sun is out? This is NEVER calculated in the true cost of solar energy.

That's because it's irrelevant. The cost of solar power is calculated as the cost of all equipment initial purchases plus maintenance divided by lifetime kilowatts produced. Just as all other forms of energy production are calculated the same way, plus fuel costs if any.

No "nighttime primary sources" are needed; all complete solar generations systems whether large-scale commercial or home rooftop, include storage batteries to provide power during times when the sun's not out. The capacity during generation times needs to be calculated with that in mind, not just current use -- and it always is.

(Home systems aren't always "complete" and sometimes rely on net-metering rather than on-site storage; however, complete solar systems exist for use off the grid and there the principle applies.)

 

[whitehall]

Most analysts are wrong and professor Pierce is right? Prof Pierce of Ontario, Canada is hardly an impartial observor or an economic expert. He is in the business , duh, of promoting solar technology. Even if the crap was as relatively inexpensive to manufacture as Prof Pierce imagines it still doesn't work efficiently enough to make it a viable source of electricity. You need a freaking football field of the stuff to fully energize a modern house.

 

[Old Rocks]

CSI CS6P-235PX 235W Solar Panel

Panels for under $1.50 a watt. About 20 sq ft per panel, so a 24 panel installation, $7200, would give you an installation of 5 kw, covering 480 sq ft. Hardly a football field, and would handily power a normal home.

As usual, Whitey, you are full of shit.

 

[zonly1]

Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2011) — The public is being kept in the dark about the viability of solar photovoltaic energy, according to a study conducted at Queen's University.
Solar power much cheaper to produce than most analysts realize, study finds


Dr. Pearce says some studies don't consider the 70 per cent reduction in the cost of solar panels since 2009 . Furthermore, he says research now shows the productivity of top-of-the-line solar panels only drops between 0.1 and 0.2 percent annually, which is much less than the one per cent used in many cost analyses.

Equipment costs are determined based on dollars per watt of electricity produced. One 2010 study estimated the this cost at $7.61, while a 2003 study set the amount at $4.16. According to Dr. Pearce, the real cost in 2011 is under $1 per watt for solar panels purchased in bulk on the global market, though he says system and installation costs vary widely.
,

Your numbers don't coincide. In 2010 cost = $7.61 and in 2007 cost = $4.16. There is no reduction as stated as claimed based on 2009 claim, these prior 2010 vs 2007 states prices has increased by 22.3% not the 70% in 2009 reduction claimed in your report/find.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Z, you can pay $7.61 if you want, but for the more informed, you can get panels for under a $1 a watt, if you buy in bulk. This can be, and is being done, by people forming solar co-ops. And those with some reasonable amount of skill can install their own and keep there costs down to the point of a five year payback. Shorter payback yet, considering how much the utilities keep jacking up the price every year.

 

[bripat9643]

CSI CS6P-235PX 235W Solar Panel

Panels for under $1.50 a watt. About 20 sq ft per panel, so a 24 panel installation, $7200, would give you an installation of 5 kw, covering 480 sq ft. Hardly a football field, and would handily power a normal home.

As usual, Whitey, you are full of shit.

The last time I checked ads on the internet, the cost for a 2000 watt system was about $35,000, and that didn't include storage. That's enough electricity to power a hair dryer. Your estimate is way way low.

 

[Dragon]

The last time I checked ads on the internet, the cost for a 2000 watt system was about $35,000, and that didn't include storage.

You didn't look very hard. Neither did I, actually, but I found::

Solar Panels - Buy Solar Power Panels for Your Home or Business

A complete 2000-watt net-metering rooftop solar system from this site would consist of:

Panels at $1.28/watt -- $2,560
Grid tie inverter -- $165

Plus some wiring; total cost of components should not exceed $3k. That's installing it yourself, but even with installation charges you're going to go nowhere near $35k. That's outrageous.

Or you can get a 2000-watt inverter kit for under $5,000 that has everything you need.

That's enough electricity to power a hair dryer. Your estimate is way way low.

Two hair dryers: Average Power Consumption of Household Appliances | Alternative & Renewable Energy - ABS Alaskan, Inc.

Every appliance on this page uses less than 2000 watts except an air conditioner. But the kit I referred to above costs $2.50 per watt, so if you wanted to double that 2k wattage you're still only talking about $10k. And that's going to convenient-but-more-expensive route.

Solar keeps coming down while grid electricity keeps going up, and we're just about at crossing point now. You should applaud this, actually. Solar lends itself to a decentralized approach to energy production.

 

[ShackledNation]

I think solar power is a very promising energy source. But that does not justify using government to subsidize it. These subsidies interfere with the price of solar power, so it is hard to say for sure how beneficial solar power is in its current state. People innovate primarily to make a product cheaper so more people will buy it. If a product is cheap and bought en mass, there is little reason to innovate. Subsidies manipulate price, and can only serve to discourage innovation and rather encourage more and more subsidies to compete with other products, rather than new inventions.

 

[zonly1]

Well Z, you can pay $7.61 if you want, but for the more informed, you can get panels for under a $1 a watt, if you buy in bulk. This can be, and is being done, by people forming solar co-ops. And those with some reasonable amount of skill can install their own and keep there costs down to the point of a five year payback. Shorter payback yet, considering how much the utilities keep jacking up the price every year.

well oldman, i would like discussing problems and solutions but you are only offer rhetoric with tx payer subs. When you can remove the tax payer subs, you might have something to work with but l could help in implementation startup since i have a back ground in EE.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes I looked at wind and solar about three months ago. Neither can live up to their output claims unless your in an area that has sun more than here or sustained winds over 25 mph. The ROI was over 20 years and that included the tax credits. Problem is, most of the companies that sell this stuff admit the product has a fifteenn year or less lifetime.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fucking bullshit. Most solar is gaurenteed for 20 years. Many older panels are still putting out juice, albeit at a lower rate than new.

A coal fired plant is only good for about 20 years before it has to be completely rebuilt. And it is far easier to rebuilt a wind turbine than a coal fired plant.

It is so strange that all these 'Conservatives' are so against anything that would make an individual independent of corperations for their own energy to power their home and vehicle. Against wind power in any form, against solar in any form, against the idea of an EV. They seem to like to be at the mercy of autocratic corperations, and just beg to be allowed to pay more each year for the energy neccessary for the life style that we enjoy. Stange, strange people.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity

42 gw of wind power installed in the US so far. Up from 2 gw in 1992. A bunch more to come as we build grid to the windy areas of the US.

 

[daveman]

Most analysts are wrong and professor Pierce is right? Prof Pierce of Ontario, Canada is hardly an impartial observor or an economic expert. He is in the business , duh, of promoting solar technology. Even if the crap was as relatively inexpensive to manufacture as Prof Pierce imagines it still doesn't work efficiently enough to make it a viable source of electricity. You need a freaking football field of the stuff to fully energize a modern house.

No, no, he's right. We should shut down all coal-fired power plants immediately.

 

[daveman]

The last time I checked ads on the internet, the cost for a 2000 watt system was about $35,000, and that didn't include storage.

You didn't look very hard. Neither did I, actually, but I found::

Solar Panels - Buy Solar Power Panels for Your Home or Business

A complete 2000-watt net-metering rooftop solar system from this site would consist of:

Panels at $1.28/watt -- $2,560
Grid tie inverter -- $165

Plus some wiring; total cost of components should not exceed $3k. That's installing it yourself, but even with installation charges you're going to go nowhere near $35k. That's outrageous.

Or you can get a 2000-watt inverter kit for under $5,000 that has everything you need.

That's enough electricity to power a hair dryer. Your estimate is way way low.

Two hair dryers: Average Power Consumption of Household Appliances | Alternative & Renewable Energy - ABS Alaskan, Inc.

Every appliance on this page uses less than 2000 watts except an air conditioner. But the kit I referred to above costs $2.50 per watt, so if you wanted to double that 2k wattage you're still only talking about $10k. And that's going to convenient-but-more-expensive route.

Solar keeps coming down while grid electricity keeps going up, and we're just about at crossing point now. You should applaud this, actually. Solar lends itself to a decentralized approach to energy production.

Does your per-watt figure include the cost of the half-billion dollars Obama flushed down the low-flow toilet on Solyndra?

 

[daveman]

Fucking bullshit. Most solar is gaurenteed for 20 years. Many older panels are still putting out juice, albeit at a lower rate than new.

A coal fired plant is only good for about 20 years before it has to be completely rebuilt. And it is far easier to rebuilt a wind turbine than a coal fired plant.

It is so strange that all these 'Conservatives' are so against anything that would make an individual independent of corperations for their own energy to power their home and vehicle. Against wind power in any form, against solar in any form, against the idea of an EV. They seem to like to be at the mercy of autocratic corperations, and just beg to be allowed to pay more each year for the energy neccessary for the life style that we enjoy. Stange, strange people.

You want to get off the grid? Fine. Go for it.

But don't insist that I help you pay for it.