Could solar panels ever be feasible?

This series covers all the renewables....very well balanced presentation of pros and cons


http://www.planetforward.org/

Excellent - this week has a terrific panel on including the current Energy Secretary Carol Brownerand the previous one also an eye opener, the head of the Better Place ( the electric car infrastructure start up ) and others in a free form discussion.
Real people, real project, real problems and solutions and all the issues we are going around here.

Incredibly informative as usual for PBS.
 
Mitchell314 said:
...For common everyday electricity use (say, at least 30-40% homes) to contribute significantly (at least 40% of energy demand) to society?
Click to expand...

Last year I watched a very interesting documentary on the city of Malmo in Sweden, which made a major investment to take part of the city off the grid, SWEDEN. Now I don't know what the financial statements look like on that, but electrically speaking, everything is doing just fine, corporations, internet, television, etc. no compromises.

As for the USA, it is my understanding from reading in magazines that most solar powered air conditioners / hot water heaters become cost efficient within 5 years. That is not bad at all for home owners.

The most promising way to make alternative energy viable on a large scale is to allow for 'negative billing', where any energy voluntarily produced (residential or business) is fed back into the network and the owner's bill is reduced by that amount or at a certain agreed upon price. These laws are already in place in Florida and in various states/provinces and function well. This way local peaks and dips even themselves out over a large geographic area and the electrical company benefits by not having to build new mega infrastructures.
 
project cost 50k...State of NJ at the time came up with 35k as an incentive/rebate
(70%). This money came from all PSE&G ratepayers who had as equal an opportunity as I did to take advantage of the program...Some did, some didn't. The fact is all had a chance! Rebate has largely gone away now. However, you now get over $600 evertime you produce 1000 kwhours of clean solar energy. (I produce a little over 8 'SRECs' as they are called/per year) Hope that helps. Regards, Frank Corradi
 
Frank Corradi said:
project cost 50k...State of NJ at the time came up with 35k as an incentive/rebate
(70%). This money came from all PSE&G ratepayers who had as equal an opportunity as I did to take advantage of the program...Some did, some didn't. The fact is all had a chance!
Click to expand...

In all fairness, not everyone can afford 15k. A 70% rebate will certainly make it possible for more people, but it won't make it possible for all.
 
Energy consumption efficiency has a long way to go. As we make inroads, the use of pv will make more sense, as will other alternative power sources.

Part of the problem is the standard of consumption we've gotten used to.
It would help if we could dry our hair with a towel and hang clothes on a line...like in days of old. Other enabling tech is less luddite, such as smart lighting, that knows when to go on and off.

At this point, I'd argue that the need for power is largely exaggerated. For people that leave a tv on when they aren't home, or can't handle ambient temps other than 72 F, they will be disapointed with solar power. Sane useage will gradually make alternatives more appealing...however, incentives will be required, including sharp rises in fossil fuel costs.

As it is now, we don't pay for the cost of enviornmental degradation implied in our energy use, much less the cost of wars associated with oil procurement.
In a way, its unfair to compare pv to fossil fuels in a purely economic sense.
 
Cuddles said:
In all fairness, not everyone can afford 15k. A 70% rebate will certainly make it possible for more people, but it won't make it possible for all.
Click to expand...
Reply to Cuddles,

Actually, that is not the corrrect way to look at such. I would say that if the cashflow is positive, which it certainly is on the 15k portion, than you cannot afford NOT to act, especially in light of the fact that the proof of concept and risks are well behind us. No one argues, that at the right price, and under the right conditions, solar is very viable. The REAL and CRITICAL questions is whether or not your property, be it your roof or property area are suitable for a ground mount, allowing a sufficient southern exposure unencumbered by shading for 4-6 hours of the day.

Then it is simply a matter of letting the project self fund ITSELF. Which it will by far.
 
Any excess money that you would get (or save) would have to be more than the interest paid though.
 
:thumbsup: much of the key to this is

a) suitable application

b) available long term funding...

Ironic that you can finance a depreciating SUV in a heartbeat but not a 30 year solar panel that will provide positive cashflow :mgbanghead

I'm in the position of not owning so I choose to buy carbon neutral electricity which costs me a small premium.
People do need choice and if we are to see urban density rise, as it must, it will require more cooperative and municipal solar setups to power the small dwellings.

Whoever said "retrofit" houses and buildings for energy??
- absolutely that should be Job 1 - then it makes the carbon neutral sources go further.
 
Last edited:
linusrichard said:
Sort of like this, yes, but sort of in reverse. Half in reverse, maybe. The way I imagine it is that the agreement between the utility and the homeowner gives the utility the right to put its panels on the homeowner's roof, and then the utility is responsible for the homeowner's roof maintenance. No money would actually change hands. The electricity generated belongs to the utility, and the utility would sell it the same way it already does. This would be done city-wide or state-wide, wherever it's sunny enough to be at all efficient. Which, as technology develops, may well be everywhere.

I don't really see why this wouldn't work really well.
Click to expand...

1. What if the utility causes damage to the roof, or needs regular access? That would turn-off homeowners.

2. What if a homeowner stole the equipment, i.e. stealing copper wiring from a foreclosed house?

3. What if a roofer or homeowner was electrocuted, or otherwise injured by the equipment? Who is liable?

Of course, these are just 3 issues off the top of my head.

The bigger issue- where do we get power at night? Even if every house in America had solar panels, this remains unresolved.

Here are some numbers to consider:

45-watt solar panels for $200, or $4.44 / watt. Approx. 1 foot by 3 feet in dimension. My house has ~1700 sq feet of roof, divided by 3 sq ft per 45-watt set, I could fit about 566 of these on my roof.

In peak sun, I would generate approx ~25 kilowatts per hour. Assuming I got at least 6 hours of peak performance out of every panel, every day, a 30-day month would yield (6 * 25kw * 30) = 4,500 kilowatts, which is roughly TWICE what I use in the middle of summer with the A/C on and the pool pump running 12 hours / day.

Of course, I live in "The Sunshine State". YMMV.

So why not do this?

Reason #1. 566 x $200 = $113,200 for the panels alone.

Reason #2. Because FPL (our power co.) does not yet offer a "buyback" program, I would have to do *something* with this power on a typical afternoon when I'm not using any juice. The currently preferred method is to store the power in a bunch of parallel 12v DC batteries. Not only is that another major expense, but batteries are probably the most anti-green piece of the puzzle right now. I.e. It would be great to have 200% of my energy needs coming from zero-emission sources, but buying a hundred acid batteries (that will eventually need to be replaced) would offset any potential environmental gains.

To answer the OP: YES, solar will be feasible, and within my lifetime.

A: panels will get cheaper

B: panels will get more efficient

C: utilities will begin offering more "buy back" programs, solving the storage issue

D: improved appliances will increase conservation/lower demand by working more efficiently

Some combination of these factors will change the game. Add some more nuclear plants for nighttime demand, or find a better storage mechanism for solar, and the "sun belt" will be squeaky clean, energy-wise, by the time I am dead.
 
More numbers to consider:

The day a $10,000 roof can generate 100% of a typical household's power, and the equipment can survive a 15-year lifespan, we will see mass-adoption of solar.

Assume you financed your $10,000 solar roof at 7% for 15 years. You would pay $89.88 per month for power, which is LESS than you (a typical household in FL w/ FPL) are paying now. After 15 years, you would either replace the equipment, or enjoy a period of "free juice" until the equipment depreciated.

Paying $4.44 / watt, it would cost me about $56,000 for this roof today. Expecting a 15-year lifespan is a bit optimistic, but not outrageously so.

At $56k, the numbers don't make sense (over 15yrs @ 7% = $503.34 /mo)

At $30k, the numbers might make sense (over 15yrs @ 7% = $269.65 /mo)

At $20k (over 15yrs @ 7% = $179.77 /mo)

At $10k (over 15yrs @ 7% = $89.88 /mo)

So I stand by my original claim: YES, solar is feasible. WHEN it will be feasible is a tougher question. And, as stated, solar alone cannot solve the problem (what about night time?).
 
Most solar lasts 30-50 years and are guaranteed to. Most home installations are in the $10k - 25k range - not + 50.

The Florida solar rebate program was created in 2006. Any resident of Florida who purchases and installs a new solar-energy system between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2010, is eligible for a $4-per-watt rebate, according to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Find out more online at the state's Web site.
Click to expand...

You can do calculations here

http://www.getsolar.com/

This is current and typical

Review your state’s rebates and incentives for installing solar. After reading through your state's incentives on the DSIRE database--or at least checking out our handy reference map--you should have some idea of how receptive your state is for solar.

The most standard incentives are tax credits, sometimes as high as 35% of system cost, and rebates. Rebates are usually calculated per watt of system size (good ones are between $2 and $5--with a national cost average of $8/per installed watt of system size, even a $2/watt rebate is equal to a savings of 25%).

Rebates are the most attractive form of incentive but tax credits are helpful, too. They just don't reduce your out of pocket expenses. If you live in a state with few or no incentives, think about waiting a year or two. The trend is toward renewables rather than away, and your state might institute incentives soon. Contact your state senators and representatives and tell them about your desire for solar: they'll listen.

Net metering, which is available pretty much everywhere, should not entice you to a PV system on its own. This is the process through which excess energy created by your system is purchased by your utility; it's a great program but on its own, it doesn't get your system to pay for itself.

So let's recap. If you're prepared to spend more than $10k and preferably up to $25k, spend more than $100 per month on electricity, have a large expanse of roof that receives full sun, and live in a state that provides financial incentives for PV systems, you're an ideal candidate for solar.
If you don't meet this criteria, you can still pursue solar: but be aware that the time to system payback might be much longer than ideal for you, and that you might be facing higher out of pocket expenses
Click to expand...
http://www.getsolar.com/residential_is-solar-right-for-you.php

and that is right now.
 
macdoc said:
Most solar lasts 30-50 years and are guaranteed to. Most home installations are in the $10k - 25k range - not + 50.
Click to expand...

From Get Solar:

A typical residential solar system has about 3500 watts, with a price tag (before rebates and subsidies) of about $35,000 ($10 x 3500 W). The actual, upfront price of the system is usually lower than this. From this installed price, you can apply various state and federal rebates and incentives to lower the purchase price of the system depending on where you live.
Click to expand...

But...

The Solar Energy System Incentives Program was set up in June 2006 and provides a rebate to homeowners worth up to $4.00 per watt of installed PV power -- up to $20,000 [...] NOTE: the program's budget for FY 2008-09 has been exhausted. As of March 2009, the state was accepting applications that could, pending authorization by lawmakers, be funded in FY 2009-2010. Be sure to check the program's website for full, up-to-date details.
Click to expand...

So the true, non-subsidized price is still around $35k; about half my assumption, but not quite the $10k-$25k you suggested either.

And the durability on these PVs is incredible. I had no idea they lasted so long reliably (the older panels I played with would crap-out after a short while).

Thanks for the info. Have you installed any PV systems yourself yet?
 
Last edited:
The idea of trying to meet typical American middle class consumption of energy, with pv solar panels and batteries, is where the mistake begins. Forget all that. Even if it was do-able, with an investment of 50k, and everyone started to do it, how could production hope to keep abreast? To produce and distribute such vast quantities of panels would be very energy intensive, at least at first.

Imagine 5 billion panels, and a boat load of batteries.

America could cut its use in half, tomorrow, without any fancy tech or retrofitting.
Think about this possibility in your own life: There is massive potential in honing in on how one uses their fuel. There are civilized countries that manage with half the U.S. average daily ,per person use.

The problem is, the orgy of cheap fuel has fostered an economic boom in America, which may suffer if sanity prevails.

Even something as benign as not making un-necessary trips in your car, or at least doing it with a neighbor, so you both don't drive to the liquor store after work...

This would hurt the economy. You'd make half as many stops at the Quicky Mart. If it caught on, the place would go under, as well as your old lady's job.

Retrofitting is a curse.
Re-designing almost everything would be much cheaper than forcing elegance out of a bad design. Mean while, we could cut it in half, almost overnight, without sacrificing anything. If we had the will, and if capitalism was flexible enough, the U.S. could have a boom in its economy, building the infrastructure that would enable a more sustainable model, even though it would eventually crap out, once the stuff was made...assuming it had some built-in longevity.
 
quarky said:
...Re-designing almost everything would be much cheaper than forcing elegance out of a bad design. Mean while, we could cut it in half, almost overnight, without sacrificing anything. If we had the will, and if capitalism was flexible enough, the U.S. could have a boom in its economy, building the infrastructure that would enable a more sustainable model, even though it would eventually crap out, once the stuff was made...assuming it had some built-in longevity.
Click to expand...

This approach is something I appreciate, though to hope for something to actually happen on a national scale seems utopistic. People too lazy/afraid/ignorant/indifferent to act. But there are some regional re-designing experiments going on all around the world, some with quite an extensive and succesfull history...this is interesting stuff.

Deserves it's own thread (coming next week...).
 
Here is a previous post that I made on this subject:

check out the graph in the first article (won't hotlink because of copyright)
Photovoltaics: Grid Competitive in Five Years


The subsequent recession won't alter these fundamentals that much...

jimbob said:
Matteo, The figures have to exclude the car consumption, as 16kW for 2hours, gives 32kWh. I think the assumption is domestic energy usage.

Anyway the figures show why a solar-powered car won't be feasible, even if the it can use stored energy that was ultimately generated photovoltaically.

On to the economics, this article has some interesting figures:

Photovoltaics: Grid Competitive in Five Years

It includes a graph with different scenarios on cost and what seems like reasonable extrapolations (as well as the usual guff aka "wildcard technology currve"). From Deutche Bank.

And another blog entry with quite a long discussion comming to a similar conclusion.

The interesting thing is that the concensus is not if solar generation is going to be economically viable, but when and by how much...

We are at the beginning of an exponential growth in the solar, and other renewable energy usage.

Wind power for example is also growing fast: Installed U.S. Wind Power Capacity Surged 45% In 2007 According To AWEA
Click to expand...
 
UNfortunately the growth is from nothing to a little more than nothing.

It won't even keep pace with rising demand. Only nukes can knock off growth in coal.

Wind and solar have their place but not ( except solar steam ) as base load.
Realize when you you talk a 100 MW wind farm the actual realized output is about 1/3 of that.

A 2 GW (2000 MW ) nuke is 97% of that 24/7/365.
 
zaphod2016 said:
45-watt solar panels for $200, or $4.44 / watt. Approx. 1 foot by 3 feet in dimension. My house has ~1700 sq feet of roof, divided by 3 sq ft per 45-watt set, I could fit about 566 of these on my roof.

In peak sun, I would generate approx ~25 kilowatts per hour. Assuming I got at least 6 hours of peak performance out of every panel, every day, a 30-day month would yield (6 * 25kw * 30) = 4,500 kilowatts, which is roughly TWICE what I use in the middle of summer with the A/C on and the pool pump running 12 hours / day.
Click to expand...


Your math is sound; your use of units is wrong.

There's no such thing as “kilowatts per hour”. With 366 of those 45-watt panels, you would be generating 25 kilowatts. The panels are rated in watts, not in “watts per hour”, and you are not introducing any time factor in multiplying this panel out by how many will fit on your roof.

You do introduce a time factor when you multiply it out to a month. 6 hours a day, multiplied by thirty days, gives you 180 hours. When you multiply the 180 by 25000, you also multiply the watts by the hours, giving you watt hours, so in a month, you would not generate 4500 kilowatts, but 4500 kilowatt hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom