Comments on: The NY Times blows the solar PV story http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:48:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Richard Mercer http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-33902 Richard Mercer Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:01:13 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-33902 Richard "If first generation PV costs 30 cents/kW how much does second generation built using PV power cost, or third?" That's the whole point I think. Use the fossil fuels now to create the power systems of the future, while we still have them. So far solar is about 0.4% of total U.S. generating capacity, so it is hardly a factor in the cost of producing anything. Also, I think you are underestimating how fast the cost of solar has fallen and continues to fall. Solar should be at grid parity over 40% of the country in five years and nationwide in ten years. This is especially true at peak demand, when solar shines the best. David The cost of solar panels is not going up. In fact, the falling prices are hurting gross margins of solar companies. Yes, raw material costs are falling but many companies pre-purchased quantities at higher prices during recent shortages of poly-silicon to insure that they had enough, and are now being squeezed. Eventually lower silicon prices will translate into even lower panel prices, making solar more attractive in the long run. We also have several new solar companies with low cost solutions that are just getting started in commercial production, like Nanosolar for instance. They say they can build a complete solar system at $2/watt, compared with $2.10/watt for a coal plant. And that is conventional coal, not coal with expensive CCS technology. And Nanosolar won't need no stinkin coal. First Solar has recently broken the $1/watt barrier for their solar panels. Richard

“If first generation PV costs 30 cents/kW how much does second generation built using PV power cost, or third?”

That’s the whole point I think. Use the fossil fuels now to create the power systems of the future, while we still have them. So far solar is about 0.4% of total U.S. generating capacity, so it is hardly a factor in the cost of producing anything.

Also, I think you are underestimating how fast the cost of solar has fallen and continues to fall. Solar should be at grid parity over 40% of the country in five years and nationwide in ten years. This is especially true at peak demand, when solar shines the best.

David
The cost of solar panels is not going up. In fact, the falling prices are hurting gross margins of solar companies.
Yes, raw material costs are falling but many companies pre-purchased quantities at higher prices during recent shortages of poly-silicon to insure that they had enough, and are now being squeezed. Eventually lower silicon prices will translate into even lower panel prices, making solar more attractive in the long run.

We also have several new solar companies with low cost solutions that are just getting started in commercial production, like Nanosolar for instance. They say they can build a complete solar system at $2/watt, compared with $2.10/watt for a coal plant. And that is conventional coal, not coal with expensive CCS technology. And Nanosolar won’t need no stinkin coal.

First Solar has recently broken the $1/watt barrier for their solar panels.

]]> By: David Llorens http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-31136 David Llorens Mon, 02 Mar 2009 03:22:59 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-31136 Good analysis. I think media gets in trouble often when it comes to the hard numbers on stats and pricing behind renewables. It's tough to convey them in a salient format, and getting into net-metering and peak-time electricity costs are just not in the scope of the article. They are, unfortunately, necessary to make these kinds of evaluations. The reader is simply comparing 6 cents to 30 cents, which if of course, ludicrous. You can't make it that simple no matter how hard you try. Good analysis. I think media gets in trouble often when it comes to the hard numbers on stats and pricing behind renewables. It’s tough to convey them in a salient format, and getting into net-metering and peak-time electricity costs are just not in the scope of the article. They are, unfortunately, necessary to make these kinds of evaluations. The reader is simply comparing 6 cents to 30 cents, which if of course, ludicrous. You can’t make it that simple no matter how hard you try.

]]> By: shop http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-28035 shop Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:46:49 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-28035 Booming demand in recent years has driven up the price of solar panels, and analysts say it costs far more to generate electricity from solar energy than from coal. Booming demand in recent years has driven up the price of solar panels, and analysts say it costs far more to generate electricity from solar energy than from coal.

]]> By: Kaboonfootprint http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-18779 Kaboonfootprint Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:51:08 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-18779 Cool site more power. <a href="http://alaminos.net" rel="nofollow"> Kabonfootprint </a> Cool site more power.
Kabonfootprint

]]> By: Michael Hoexter http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17619 Michael Hoexter Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:44:25 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17619 Daylighting of buildings or under canopies is enabled by developments in low-emissivity and insulated glass and transparent materials like Lexan that are more durable than glass. Without these materials a building with large skylights would experience too much solar gain during summer days and too much heat loss during cold months of the year. As these materials continue to become more common, more sophisticated, and cheaper, we may see more buildings with larger skylights, reducing the need for lighting during the day. You already see this in newer big box warehouses that are built now with larger skylights. Daylighting of buildings or under canopies is enabled by developments in low-emissivity and insulated glass and transparent materials like Lexan that are more durable than glass. Without these materials a building with large skylights would experience too much solar gain during summer days and too much heat loss during cold months of the year. As these materials continue to become more common, more sophisticated, and cheaper, we may see more buildings with larger skylights, reducing the need for lighting during the day. You already see this in newer big box warehouses that are built now with larger skylights.

]]> By: Ronald http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17597 Ronald Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:56:30 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17597 Maybe something should be said about daylighting or using the sun to light interior space with the sun. I was in a Wal mart during a hot afternoon when most air conditioners in the city would be running full blast and the lights in the Wal mart were off. The store was lit by only skylights. I’m guessing the store was in some program with the electrical power company to use less power on just such occasions. The lighting was low, but it was more than enough to get things done . The store didn’t have many skylights either. I don’t have any special knowledge about the level of retail lighting needed, but it would seem that with more skylights, more of the store lighting could have been done with skylights. I drive to gas stations and they will have a canopy over the fueling area which makes sense, but they they will have the lights on even when there is bright sun light. A lighted area does make it more attractive to pump gas than a non lighted area, but I thought a canopy that allowed the light thru would be better than a solid canopy and then having the lights on. British Petroleum advertises that they will be putting PV’s at most stations, but if they handled the canopy better and not have the lights on during the day, they might be better off energy wise. Buildings can and should be designed better to make use of sun light. The amount of electrical energy, lights and money saved could be huge. Maybe something should be said about daylighting or using the sun to light interior space with the sun.

I was in a Wal mart during a hot afternoon when most air conditioners in the city would be running full blast and the lights in the Wal mart were off. The store was lit by only skylights. I’m guessing the store was in some program with the electrical power company to use less power on just such occasions. The lighting was low, but it was more than enough to get things done . The store didn’t have many skylights either. I don’t have any special knowledge about the level of retail lighting needed, but it would seem that with more skylights, more of the store lighting could have been done with skylights.

I drive to gas stations and they will have a canopy over the fueling area which makes sense, but they they will have the lights on even when there is bright sun light. A lighted area does make it more attractive to pump gas than a non lighted area, but I thought a canopy that allowed the light thru would be better than a solid canopy and then having the lights on. British Petroleum advertises that they will be putting PV’s at most stations, but if they handled the canopy better and not have the lights on during the day, they might be better off energy wise.

Buildings can and should be designed better to make use of sun light. The amount of electrical energy, lights and money saved could be huge.

]]> By: Busby SEO Challenge http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17589 Busby SEO Challenge Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:25:45 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17589 Good Luck nice site.<a href="http://pinayspeak.com" rel="nofollow"> Busby SEO Challenge</a> Good Luck nice site. Busby SEO Challenge

]]> By: charlesH http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17583 charlesH Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:04:34 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17583 OK, I see two issues. First, retail vs wholesale rates. Retail rates are of course higher than wholesales rates. There may also be a time of day rate. Afternoon (when PV is effective) being higher than eve, night, or morning. So yes, Walmart (retail buyer) may see benefit from PV before a utiltiy company (wholesale buyer). In CA the comparison is 30c PV vs 20c retail (homeowner). Much closer than a 6c vs 30c comparison in the article. Second, taking capital cost and its debt service requirements out of the financial analysis? I can't see any justification for this at all. If capital costs are not to be taken into account then nuclear blows every other alternative out of the water. Don't you agree? OK,

I see two issues.

First, retail vs wholesale rates. Retail rates are of course higher than wholesales rates. There may also be a time of day rate. Afternoon (when PV is effective) being higher than eve, night, or morning. So yes, Walmart (retail buyer) may see benefit from PV before a utiltiy company (wholesale buyer). In CA the comparison is 30c PV vs 20c retail (homeowner). Much closer than a 6c vs 30c comparison in the article.

Second, taking capital cost and its debt service requirements out of the financial analysis? I can’t see any justification for this at all. If capital costs are not to be taken into account then nuclear blows every other alternative out of the water. Don’t you agree?

]]> By: Venu G. http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17580 Venu G. Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:17:28 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17580 Joe, I read this article around noon today and was completely dumbfounded. I'm glad you took a break from your vacation to post about it. What's the point of comparing the cost per kwh for coal versus solar PV? Are they buying solar PV from the grid? Of course not. This article should have just stated the break-even time for PV and been done with it. Why else would they see their "immense, flat roofs as an untapped resource"? They would have to be pretty dumb to convert their roofs from nothing at all to PV just do they could lose money! [<em>JR: Outrage never takes a vacation much as I'd like it to!</em>] Joe,

I read this article around noon today and was completely dumbfounded. I’m glad you took a break from your vacation to post about it.

What’s the point of comparing the cost per kwh for coal versus solar PV? Are they buying solar PV from the grid? Of course not. This article should have just stated the break-even time for PV and been done with it. Why else would they see their “immense, flat roofs as an untapped resource”? They would have to be pretty dumb to convert their roofs from nothing at all to PV just do they could lose money!

[JR: Outrage never takes a vacation much as I'd like it to!]

]]> By: Richard http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17579 Richard Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:01:22 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/12/the-ny-times-blows-the-solar-pv-story/#comment-17579 What really, and seriously, I mean really pisses me off about analysts and renewable energy is the absolute focus on the immediate and the lack of joined up thinking. If first generation PV costs 30 cents/kW how much does second generation built using PV power cost, or third? And on a tangent, wind is bad because you can't guarantee the wind. Excuse me, but what country in the world uses a single fuel source? We can and do store fuel everywhere, whether it be coal, gas, oil or petrol, we can store energy and already do in some places. So why can't we use a mix of renewables and storage technologies? Analysts fixated on single issues are what is preventing us moving on to better technologies. What really, and seriously, I mean really pisses me off about analysts and renewable energy is the absolute focus on the immediate and the lack of joined up thinking. If first generation PV costs 30 cents/kW how much does second generation built using PV power cost, or third?
And on a tangent, wind is bad because you can’t guarantee the wind. Excuse me, but what country in the world uses a single fuel source? We can and do store fuel everywhere, whether it be coal, gas, oil or petrol, we can store energy and already do in some places. So why can’t we use a mix of renewables and storage technologies? Analysts fixated on single issues are what is preventing us moving on to better technologies.

]]>