# Last weekend half of Germany was solar powered



## begreen (Jun 13, 2012)

Think about that. A major industrial nation was running 50% on solar energy. Remarkable.

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/half-germany-was-powered-solar.html


----------



## fossil (Jun 13, 2012)

That's actually pretty mind-boggling.  Good for them!


----------



## daveswoodhauler (Jun 14, 2012)

I really like they way they have used solar pv for long stretches along the roadways in Europe. It bugs me that we don't do the same, instead we have Mass Highway crews weedwacking the adjacent areas' next to the highway...this area could be so much better used for solar.


----------



## semipro (Jun 14, 2012)

begreen said:


> Think about that. A major industrial nation was running 50% on solar energy. Remarkable.
> 
> http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/half-germany-was-powered-solar.html


 
It can't be done! 
Oh wait...it has.


----------



## sloeffle (Jun 14, 2012)

daveswoodhauler said:


> I really like they way they have used solar pv for long stretches along the roadways in Europe. It bugs me that we don't do the same, instead we have Mass Highway crews weedwacking the adjacent areas' next to the highway...this area could be so much better used for solar.


I would be grateful if we had trees along the highway to suck up some vehicle pollution. It would also save the tax payers money on grass mowing.


----------



## btuser (Jun 14, 2012)

semipro said:


> It can't be done!
> Oh wait...it has.


 
Godddammn hippie-talk like this is a gonna bring down the empire.


----------



## Flatbedford (Jun 14, 2012)

Some day...maybe.

Isn't it all solar energy anyway? It's just a question of how much it is processed.


----------



## Pallet Pete (Jun 15, 2012)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...s_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 15, 2012)

Nice. In round figures, if their peak output near the solstice, during unusually clear weather is 50% of (typical?) demand, then their PV is contributing ~5% of electricity on an average basis? That is, I was assuming an 900 peak hr/year harvest, Arizona it isn't.

Anyone have better figures for German PV capacity factor? Were the generous subsidies attached to a real site survey (as seems common in the US nowadays), or did anyone with a patch of blue sky get panels and a check?

Edit: Oh yeah....the subsidy is all on produced electricity, up to $0.50/kWh in the beginning IIRC. Begs the question if there were some questionable (i.e. shaded) installs.


----------



## semipro (Jun 15, 2012)

Flatbedford said:


> Isn't it all solar energy anyway? It's just a question of how much it is processed.


 
Pretty much. I consider nuclear the exception.
Some forms of tapping it have different consequences than others.


----------



## semipro (Jun 15, 2012)

btuser said:


> Godddammn hippie-talk like this is a gonna bring down the empire.


 
I wish it was that easy.


----------



## begreen (Jun 15, 2012)

Technically wouldn't tidal energy be considered more lunar than solar?


----------



## Flatbedford (Jun 15, 2012)

begreen said:


> Technically wouldn't tidal energy be considered more lunar than solar?


 
Probably gravity, along with hydro-electric.


----------



## begreen (Jun 15, 2012)

Hydro-electric indirectly depends on the sun to drive the precipitation cycle, so I was considering that a form of solar. But technically a planet could have tides without the sun. Not sure about geothermal. Would this be an indirect form of nuclear energy?


----------



## semipro (Jun 15, 2012)

begreen said:


> Hydro-electric indirectly depends on the sun to drive the precipitation cycle, so I was considering that a form of solar. But technically a planet could have tides without the sun. Not sure about geothermal. Would this be an indirect form of nuclear energy?


 
Is it for certain that the heat in the earth is driven by nuclear decay?  I was thinking a good amount was residual from the time of earths creation and some was created by friction created by movement of the earths core.


----------



## begreen (Jun 15, 2012)

Not sure semipro. That's why I posed it as a question.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 15, 2012)

semipro said:


> Is it for certain that the heat in the earth is driven by nuclear decay? I was thinking a good amount was residual from the time of earths creation and some was created by friction created by movement of the earths core.


 
My understanding was that it is both....the formation energy is easy to compute, and it is not enough to account for the heat lost over 4 billion years and the remaining heat....radioactivity fills the bill.


----------



## semipro (Jun 16, 2012)

begreen said:


> Not sure semipro. That's why I posed it as a question.


Same here.


----------



## btuser (Jun 16, 2012)

I want renewable energy to be "real". I really do. However, it seems the same promoters of nuclear power ("too cheap to meter") are now selling wind farms:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/20/the-fallacy-of-subsidized-parity-in-energy-pricing/
http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2012/wind-turbine-output-a-lie-vermont-ny/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/306468-the-real-issue-with-solar-energy-isn-t-its-cost

I know you're always going to put your best foot forward in a sale but if these things are truly competitive they wouldn't need subsidies. (I know, I know all about oil+gas subsidies) Nanotech and solar are going to happen, no doubt. But if we're going to spend a trillion dollars on getting there I'd rather spend it on R&D and get there sooner rather then blanket the country in solar panels that will be outdated in 10 years.

But if you're in to the big bad conspiracy theory against renewables:
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/01/german-utilities-fight-solars-cost-cutting-merit-order-effect/
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/29/how-german-solar-has-made-all-german-electricity-cheaper/

If we can figure out the storage problem with renewables, then we will see old money dive into it feet first.  The problem isn't making it work, but the need for an on/off switch (shutting down the mine, shutting down the gas turbine for "repairs"). That way you can  fix the price so you can charge people as much as you want!  Right now it's just too risky for them to throw a billion dollars at it without knowing for certain they will get their ounce of flesh from us all.


----------



## begreen (Jun 16, 2012)

In the U$ the problem with solar is, they don't own it.Therefore it is not feasible.


----------



## btuser (Jun 16, 2012)

begreen said:


> In the U$ the problem with solar is, they don't own it.Therefore it is not feasible.


Eventually they will. Nobody owns the internet either but eventually the economy of scale will make cloud computing worth it. People will leave the hardware biz and computers will be dummy terminals with a fat pipe.  Any type of real autonomy will be too expensive.  

Grid storage is really a great idea, and more efficient/cost effective than building out every node for 100% peak demand.  If you add electric vehicles to a smart grid it gets easy peasy.  If they can figure out a way to store it so the can depend on the market price (vs being at the mercy of the weather) I bet we will see the power companies embracing renewable energy as a way for them to cut the cord away (gas+coal).  I just hope we keep the middle man out of it (like Enron and HMOs).


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 20, 2012)

We could have done the same with half the money we've wasted in the last 10 years(and are still presently wasting) on nonsense. America does not think ahead anymore, just far enough ahead to the next election.


----------



## begreen (Jun 20, 2012)

Carter proposed this in 1979? Regan pushed this aside and we have not had a comprehensive strategic energy plan since. Instead, oil über alles has been our motto.


----------



## Jags (Jun 20, 2012)

I am just waiting for that "next" breakthrough that makes solar a no brainer.  Shortly after, I will have half an acre of panels and an electric car.


----------



## firebroad (Jun 20, 2012)

begreen said:


> In the U$ the problem with solar is, they don't own it.Therefore it is not feasible.


I don't know if you came up with that or recycled the saying, but you sure said a mouthful!


----------



## semipro (Jun 20, 2012)

begreen said:


> Carter proposed this in 1979? Regan pushed this aside and we have not had a comprehensive strategic energy plan since. Instead, oil über alles has been our motto.


 
This was (pathetically) symbolized the day that Reagan had the solar panels removed from the White House.


----------



## begreen (Jun 20, 2012)

firebroad said:


> I don't know if you came up with that or recycled the saying, but you sure said a mouthful!


 
Not originally mine. I was summarizing the opinion of an article I read recently.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jun 20, 2012)

We can do great things,but we usually pick the ones for bragging rights(go to the moon,police the world ect.)  over solving practical problems, ours and the worlds.We much rather sit back and let asia and europe (mostly germany) clean out clocks when it comes to cars,tech, and now jumbo jets. Oh but we do export an huge load of Scrap metal.My we have come a long way.


----------



## begreen (Jun 20, 2012)

Hey, at least we recycle boat loads of cardboard packaging back to China for more stuff. Doesn't that give you a warm and fuzzy, ironic feeling?


----------



## firebroad (Jun 21, 2012)

Along with all the pests that hitch a ride along with the scrap.


----------



## semipro (Jun 21, 2012)

begreen said:


> Hey, at least we recycle boat loads of cardboard packaging back to China for more stuff. Doesn't that give you a warm and fuzzy, ironic feeling?


 
I've always used the grade of packing cardboard as an indication of the quallity and origin of the contents.  The cardboard coming from China is usually inferior to domestic stuff.

I like the idea of sending it back.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Jun 23, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Nice. In round figures, if their peak output near the solstice, during unusually clear weather is 50% of (typical?) demand, then their PV is contributing ~5% of electricity on an average basis? That is, I was assuming an 900 peak hr/year harvest, Arizona it isn't.
> 
> Anyone have better figures for German PV capacity factor? Were the generous subsidies attached to a real site survey (as seems common in the US nowadays), or did anyone with a patch of blue sky get panels and a check?
> 
> Edit: Oh yeah....the subsidy is all on produced electricity, up to $0.50/kWh in the beginning IIRC. Begs the question if there were some questionable (i.e. shaded) installs.


 

Germany has nearly as much installed solar power generation capacity as the rest of the world combined and gets about four percent of its overall annual electricity needs from the sun alone.

Yup, if they add 24 times the equipment they already have and a means of storage Germany will get there.


----------



## btuser (Jun 23, 2012)

SmokeyTheBear said:


> Germany has nearly as much installed solar power generation capacity as the rest of the world combined and gets about four percent of its overall annual electricity needs from the sun alone.
> 
> Yup, if they add 24 times the equipment they already have and a means of storage Germany will get there.


The cost for 4% solar in Germany is about 100 billion euros capital cost, with subsidies adding another 100 billion over 20 years. To support Germany's current energy consumption would take 48 trillion, or approximately $750,000 UDS per every German in Germany.

When we start seeing PV manufacturing plants actually powered by PV plants (and not just a stunt like the White House) we will have arrived. EROEI of common energy sources:


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 24, 2012)

Ok. There are a lot of different EROI numbers out there. I don't know the journal that is referenced for that chart.

The chart is a bit hard to read at values near 1, but it looks like PV is 4-5.

Typical PV EROI numbers I've seen have been more like 10, but even if its 5, what's the problem with that? Its probably about where leaves come in.


----------



## jebatty (Jun 24, 2012)

Why is it that in good ol' USA there is a compulsion to reduce everything to short-term ROI or profit and ignore everything else, such as social costs, environmental costs, health costs, infrastructure costs, subsidy costs, etc.? All of these other costs are real, and if they were added into the cost of coal-fired or other fossil fuel electric, I suspect we all would either be turning out the lights or installing PV without any subsidies or tax credits incentives.

Germany has been a power house of innovation and technology for well over 100 years. By the early 1980's German citizens were recycling practically everything and proud of it. In USA most citizens were mocking recycling and throwing aluminum, glass, paper, and hazardous products either into landfills or the oceans because it was "cheap" ... and that still continues today. Same thing with electricity. Fossil fuel electric is "cheap" because its price does not include the myriad of costs that will be paid by a future generation, perhaps as soon as that of our children.

The "threat" of PV to the fossil fuel electric industry is that once it is installed, it generates electricity for free: no more monthly bills to customers, no more rate increases, no more big profits to utilities and multi-million $ salaries to CEO's, no more holding the public hostage to brown-outs or lights-off.

Kudos to Germany for investing in a future which is likely to be brighter, healthier, and safer than the path the USA fossil fuel electric profit-mongers have hood-winked many, but not all, of us into.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Jun 24, 2012)

How long do those cells last?  What is the long term maintenance cost of those units?  How much damage is done making them?  How much land is taken out of the Eco System to install them?

I have yet to see anything that is truly free.

Just sayin' .


----------



## btuser (Jun 24, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Ok. There are a lot of different EROI numbers out there. I don't know the journal that is referenced for that chart.
> 
> The chart is a bit hard to read at values near 1, but it looks like PV is 4-5.
> 
> Typical PV EROI numbers I've seen have been more like 10, but even if its 5, what's the problem with that? Its probably about where leaves come in.


 
I agree EROI numbers are fuzzy. Oil changes from country to country, coal changes from mine to mine and even hydro can change (often due to regulation). We always use the easy stuff till we start to run out. I guess if we were to put wood on the chart it would be about 3x as long. Just the energy it takes to make steel would push coal down the list.

I feel good about the math with solar at 5-10x EROI, but can't get a straight answer about the input of energy into the panels. Does that number include the manufacture of aluminum and mono-silicone, and the infrastructure to have that in place?  I'd love (and I mean LOVE) to have my own panels with no meter on my house but I'm a long way from that.


----------



## btuser (Jun 24, 2012)

jebatty said:


> .
> 
> Kudos to Germany for investing in a future which is likely to be brighter, healthier, and safer than the path the USA fossil fuel electric profit-mongers have hood-winked many, but not all, of us into.


 
Guilt isn't going to keep the lights on. Germany has no oil, doesn't want nukes and has no other choice than to try something else. They have very little option if the spigot gets turned off and other countries keep their oil/electricity for themselves. They currently import 2/3 of their energy used, and energy production for Germany has been on the decline since 2004.


----------



## woodchip (Jul 3, 2012)

The fact is that Germany were 50% self sufficient in green electricity over one weekend.

All the factories are closed over the weekend, and they have spent a fortune to achieve this.

The greenies in the EU don't mention this unfortunate fact............


----------



## begreen (Jul 3, 2012)

The fact is that they produced 22 gigawatts of power from NOON FRIDAY to noon Saturday. We have no idea how many factories were or not running during this period, though I suspect many run round the clock. You don't shut down chemical plants with a single switch.

Regardless, it is an exceptional and unparalleled accomplishment.

_"German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity – equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity – through the midday hours of Friday and Saturday, the head of a renewable energy think tank has said ... Norbert Allnoch, director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry in Muenster, said the 22 gigawatts of solar power fed into the national grid on Saturday met nearly 50% of the nation's midday electricity needs."_


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 3, 2012)

begreen said:


> The fact is that they produced 22 gigawatts of power from NOON FRIDAY to noon Saturday. We have no idea how many factories were or not running during this period, though I suspect many run round the clock. You don't shut down chemical plants with a single switch.
> 
> Regardless, it is an exceptional and unparalleled accomplishment.
> 
> _"German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity – equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity – through the midday hours of Friday and Saturday, the head of a renewable energy think tank has said ... Norbert Allnoch, director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry in Muenster, said the 22 gigawatts of solar power fed into the national grid on Saturday met nearly 50% of the nation's midday electricity needs."_


 
I read that quote differently, that the instantaneous power near noon was 22 GW on those two days, not a sustained power from noon to noon (how would that be possible?).  Or perhaps I am misreading you...


----------



## Jags (Jul 3, 2012)

woodchip said:


> ...and they have spent a fortune to achieve this.


Not arguing, but WE have spent a fortune overseas to protect oil that is just going to get burnt up. If we are gonna spend it, spend it here with a return for the foreseeable future. We subsidize tons of energy, so if we are gonna do it, why not spend it on renewable?

(I realize that the article is about Germany, but the argument against subsidization is boarder-less). If you are gonna do it (and we are) do it for the good....

It truly baffles me why we don't take every available opportunity to ween ourselves off of imported energy.


----------



## btuser (Jul 3, 2012)

Jags said:


> Not arguing, but WE have spent a fortune overseas to protect oil that is just going to get burnt up. If we are gonna spend it, spend it here with a return for the foreseeable future. We subsidize tons of energy, so if we are gonna do it, why not spend it on renewable?
> 
> (I realize that the article is about Germany, but the argument against subsidization is boarder-less). If you are gonna do it (and we are) do it for the good....
> 
> It truly baffles me why we don't take every available opportunity to ween ourselves off of imported energy.


Because you can't sell sunlight, but you can sell treasury bonds.


----------



## begreen (Jul 3, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> I read that quote differently, that the instantaneous power near noon was 22 GW on those two days, not a sustained power from noon to noon (how would that be possible?). Or perhaps I am misreading you...


 
Right, not possible at night.More correctly, it says through the mid-day hours. The point being it included Friday, a work day.


----------



## begreen (Jul 3, 2012)

Jags said:


> Not arguing, but WE have spent a fortune overseas to protect oil that is just going to get burnt up. If we are gonna spend it, spend it here with a return for the foreseeable future. We subsidize tons of energy, so if we are gonna do it, why not spend it on renewable?
> 
> (I realize that the article is about Germany, but the argument against subsidization is boarder-less). If you are gonna do it (and we are) do it for the good....
> 
> It truly baffles me why we don't take every available opportunity to ween ourselves off of imported energy.


 
Exactly. We have a fortune invested in our grid power too. So? Power infrastructure costs a lot. Is that news?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 4, 2012)

You know what they say ? It only cost a dollar more to go first class.


----------



## sesmith (Jul 5, 2012)

There's really no good excuse for not moving to renewable energy in this country.  Have you all seen this recent report from the National Renewable Energy Lab:

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/

The key finding in the report..."Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country."


----------



## btuser (Jul 8, 2012)

sesmith said:


> There's really no good excuse for not moving to renewable energy in this country. Have you all seen this recent report from the National Renewable Energy Lab:
> 
> http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/
> 
> The key finding in the report..."Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country."


There is a really really good reason not to do it. It costs more. As it gets cheaper we'll see more of it, but the same claim of solar+wind were made back in the 1970s. Are the claims of grid parity real this time, or are we faking the stats again? Solar/wind are probably 10x cheaper now vs 40 years ago, and still NH imports coal to burn in Bow NH. I'm not doubting the concept or the advantages, just the claims about costs. 50% for one day in Germany is still only 4% of their energy needs after a ton of money. If you're good with the subsidies over 80% of a solar plant's capital costs can be thrown on the backs of the taxpayer, the rest coming from "investors" who get a tax shelter and a green star for their "green" portfolio.  Get rid of the subsidies and the whole industry collapses. That's not economically sustainable.

I have faith there's going to be a breakthrough in the next 10 years that will combing some clever doping of silicone and manufacturing techniques that will shrink costs by another factor of 10. When we start seeing the hippies picketing the desert because a power company wants to blanket a canyon with enough solar panels to power New England I'll know it's really here.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/30/45184.htm
Maybe sooner than I thought!


----------



## Ehouse (Jul 8, 2012)

Jebatty said PV would mean no more monthly bills to costumers, but I 've read somewhere that at least in NY, legislation was slipped in to allow companies ( NYSEG eg.) to bill property owners a service charge whether off grid or not or even on vacant land if there is or ever was an easement or right of way.  I don't believe they're acting on this but holding it as a trump card.  Has anyone heard of this?  I can't give a source off hand.

Ehouse


----------



## Ehouse (Jul 8, 2012)

After searching for a source, I can only find " pay whether you use it or not" billing referenced for Australia.

Ehouse


----------



## Jags (Jul 9, 2012)

Well - I think Btuser is probably right about the next "great" advancement in PV. Maybe (hopefully) it doesn't take the next 10 years, but even if it does, that is really a blink of an eye.  Most hippies will be gone or too old by then, we just don't make hippies at the same rate as we used to.

My point is that we subsidize energy. Many, many facets of it. If we are gonna do it, lets do it in OUR best interests.


----------



## firebroad (Jul 9, 2012)

I am of the opinion (and it is strictly my own opinion) that there will be no advances until there is a real emergency.  Historically speaking, all great advances are the direct result of desperation.  Should the giant power producer find that they are not making enough money because people are cutting back, or heaven forbid, doing without, the new technology will be found and utilized, pronto.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 9, 2012)

I hear a lot of folks waiting for a breakthrough in Solar tech. Frankly at current Si module prices, even if a new tech appeared tomorrow that had similar eff at $0/W it wouldn't change the economic analysis that much--too much of the current cost is in installation, mounting, inverters etc. And until the 'new tech' has a decade of track record in service, most folks will not risk saving maybe 20% on an install.

IOW, Si is now effectively free, i.e. its cost is irrelevant.

New tech is a pipe dream....Si is here to stay for a generation.


----------



## Jags (Jul 9, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> IOW, Si is now effectively free, i.e. its cost is irrelevant.


 
Even if no installation costs were involved (say, like myself doing a DIY), the cost of PV panels is far from irrelevant.  When the actual electricity generated by the panels can pay themselves off in a few years - that is when you will see a jump in the market.


----------



## begreen (Jul 9, 2012)

I think we are getting close. Last weekend I spoke with a local installer and he said he can now get panels for as low as a buck a kilowatt. $2/kw is easy. That's a significant drop from last year at the same time.


----------



## Jags (Jul 9, 2012)

begreen said:


> for as low as a buck a kilowatt. $2/kw is easy.


 
Did you mean to say "kilowatt" as in 5000 watts of panels will cost $500 ?????


----------



## begreen (Jul 9, 2012)

That would be 10cents a KW. 5000KW = $5-10,000


----------



## Jags (Jul 9, 2012)

begreen said:


> That would be 10cents a KW. 5000KW = $5-10,000


 
Okay - now I get it.  I had my checkbook open and ready at $500.  When all the math gets worked out I am still betting on greater than a 10yr break even (at todays electric costs).  It is definitely getting better.


----------



## begreen (Jul 9, 2012)

True, however this does not include Federal or state incentives. In some states the payback is now at the 2-3 yr horizon. YSMMV.


----------



## Jags (Jul 9, 2012)

begreen said:


> True, this does not include Federal or state incentives.


 
Or the $2700 grid tie inverter.


----------



## begreen (Jul 9, 2012)

Also incentivized.


----------



## Jags (Jul 9, 2012)

Looks like the state of IL. is at 30% for anything that I would be looking at.

So a dollar a watt - $5000
inverter - $2700
DIY framing (ground install) ~$1000
Additional wiring - ~$1000
Add in the stuff I forgot and about $10,000 total - 30%
------------------------------
$7000
At current usage and rates and true power generation (obviously not 100% efficient, year round) - A probable "realistic" payback in about 10 yrs.


----------



## begreen (Jul 9, 2012)

Deduct the Federal 30% credit to that. Also, it looks like ISEA will buy your power at .20/KW. Together I think you will find the payback much shorter.

http://www.find-solar.org/index.php?verifycookie=1&page=taxcredit&subpage=&external_estimator=

Check the links at the bottom of this page for your utility options.

http://www.illinoissolar.org/RECAP/


----------



## Jags (Jul 9, 2012)

Now - if I just didn't have to go to a job everyday so that I could figure out all the little details...

By the way - thanks for the links, BG.  I have emailed one of their recommended installers for a rough estimate of install and payback.


----------



## begreen (Jul 9, 2012)

That's a good place to start. I'd also check to see if the incentives in IL require a licensed installer or if self-installed and inspected is accepted.


----------



## Jags (Jul 9, 2012)

Even the installers don't have to be licensed...


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 9, 2012)

Ok.  IF I can get modules at $1/W, and offset elec at $0.20/kWh, then I need to run for 5000 hours to pay it off.  In most of the country, you can get 1000 hrs per year, and simple payback for the module is 5 years.  In SoCal, figure 1250 hours and 4 years.

But the balance of system will (for non-DIY) dominate the costs and payback, and benefit from incentives.

I still think that by the time another hypothetical tech would be deemed 'safe' by the market, (>10 yrs if discovered today) Si modules will likely be down to $0.25/W.  Enjoy the silicon.  We're not going to run out of it, its 27% of the earths crust.


----------



## GaryGary (Jul 9, 2012)

woodgeek said:


> Ok. IF I can get modules at $1/W, and offset elec at $0.20/kWh, then I need to run for 5000 hours to pay it off. In most of the country, you can get 1000 hrs per year, and simple payback for the module is 5 years. In SoCal, figure 1250 hours and 4 years.
> 
> But the balance of system will (for non-DIY) dominate the costs and payback, and benefit from incentives.
> 
> I still think that by the time another hypothetical tech would be deemed 'safe' by the market, (>10 yrs if discovered today) Si modules will likely be down to $0.25/W. Enjoy the silicon. We're not going to run out of it, its 27% of the earths crust.


 
PV modules are cheap now because there is a large oversupply. From what I read, many of the companies that make them can't stay in business at these prices, and the fact that a number have gone bust seems to support this. The new tariff on China panels will also have an impact.
I'm not sure I'd count on PV dropping in the next couple years? I don't think that 25 cents/watt silicon is in the cards -- but, I've been wrong MANY time before.

Homemade solar air heating collectors cost about 5 cents per peak watt 
In MT they are basically free with the tax credit.


Gary


----------



## Vic99 (Jul 9, 2012)

I had another installer survey my house today.  He also said $1/watt for most standard 240 watt panels.  Sun Power panels are more like 2-2.5X that.  Still really cheap.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 10, 2012)

GaryGary said:


> PV modules are cheap now because there is a large oversupply. From what I read, many of the companies that make them can't stay in business at these prices, and the fact that a number have gone bust seems to support this. The new tariff on China panels will also have an impact.
> I'm not sure I'd count on PV dropping in the next couple years? I don't think that 25 cents/watt silicon is in the cards -- but, I've been wrong MANY time before.
> 
> Homemade solar air heating collectors cost about 5 cents per peak watt
> ...


 
The learning curve always drives folks out of business. Those folks always accuse the cheaper guy of dumping (and sometimes they are). And the market always wiggles prices around the learning/capital amortization curve.  The great Si shortage of a few years ago plateaued module prices for a couple years too.  On the 10 yr+ timeframe, I def expect them to be cheaper than now, and I would be surprised if they were more than $0.50/W in bulk.

I suppose, ultimately, the endpoint on price/W will be a certain multiplier on the embodied energy cost.  A car is a lot more complex than a solar panel, and it takes about 250 million BTU of process heat to make one.  If that process heat were $10/MBTU, that's about 10% of the purchase price.  If the same 10x multiplier applied to (much simpler) pv modules, and the embodied energy was 1 kWh/W, that would come out to $0.34/W using $10/MBTU process energy.


----------



## sesmith (Jul 15, 2012)

btuser said:


> There is a really really good reason not to do it. It costs more. As it gets cheaper we'll see more of it, but the same claim of solar+wind were made back in the 1970s. Are the claims of grid parity real this time, or are we faking the stats again? Solar/wind are probably 10x cheaper now vs 40 years ago, and still NH imports coal to burn in Bow NH. I'm not doubting the concept or the advantages, just the claims about costs. 50% for one day in Germany is still only 4% of their energy needs after a ton of money. If you're good with the subsidies over 80% of a solar plant's capital costs can be thrown on the backs of the taxpayer, the rest coming from "investors" who get a tax shelter and a green star for their "green" portfolio. Get rid of the subsidies and the whole industry collapses. That's not economically sustainable.


 
There are no subsidies for the fossil fuel industries?? How about we get rid of all subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and take away the exemptions that are granted to the natural gas industry that allows them to circumvent environmental law, and then take a look at the economics.

Also don't forget to add in the human health costs related to burning of fossil fuels.  That's also part of the cost of doing business as usual.


----------



## begreen (Jul 15, 2012)

What I like about Germany's (and other European nations) efforts is the commitment to changing for the better. It's a solutions based approach that is really bearing fruit. In Berlin, they now have car networks for instant short trip rentals. It's all managed on your cellphone and quite affordable. You just pick up the nearest car and leave it at your destination. With over 4000 cars in the system it works quite well. This is just one example of forward, smarter thinking. There are many other good examples that happen when a society decides collectively to better itself.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 16, 2012)

Um, we have zipcar instant rental networks.  And isn't the train lower emission for long distance travel?


----------



## begreen (Jul 16, 2012)

Seattle was one of the original zip car cities. It's a great idea, but the Car2go model appears to be similar, but a bit more flexible, affordable and with more cars. One big difference is there is no membership fee for Car2Go.

This system is setup for urban transport as a supplement. Berlin has a good public transportation also. Germany also has an excellent train system, but there are places where trains don't go. I see that Portland, OR has Car2Go. I may just have to try it the next time I go there.


----------



## begreen (Jul 16, 2012)

I see that Car2Go is around the world.
http://www.car2go.com/portland/en/affordable-rates/
vs ZipCar
http://www.zipcar.com/seattle/check-rates


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 16, 2012)

I'm sorry I'm so dense....but those two rates sheets looked like they were shockingly similar in terms of hour/daily and per mile costs. I have plenty of (<50 yo) friends in Philly who don't own a car, or families with children that own zero or one, rather than the standard 2 in the 'burbs. They are pleased with the zipcars. The costs, while less than owning a car (that you use infrequently) is still high enough that they are all motivated to do things like walk/bike/take public more often than they would if they owned a car. I think the 'pay as you go' rather than the 'sunk cost' of an owned car has a powerful psychological effect not unlike home energy monitoring.


----------



## begreen (Jul 16, 2012)

The big difference is the membership fee. car2go has none. That enables a more spontaneous subscription and usage, encouraging more use.


----------

