GE pushing into the solar industry.

[lothar]

Sure the grid is taxed during the times when most Americans are home doing stuff. Yes that would be around the hours of say 6-10 everyday. That's 4 hours, maybe some of that in darkness, meaning batteries. The rest of the night they are sleeping and consuming no energy so the batteries work fine here. Then they charge during the day when they are at work consuming little energy at home again. That's why there is an overall surplus that can charge batteries and then get sold back to the grid.

You made the argument that you can't get rid of your electric bill when going solar. You haven't proven this is true. All you have done is say that power is more expensive at night, so what. If you are on solar, who gives a shit what others pay from the grid.

I stated in an earlier post that solar has a ways to go to become viable for the masses. I haven't contradicted that statement in any way. If you can afford the equipment and have the capability to go solar then its out there. It will eventually pay for itself, its just a matter of how long that return takes. You were trying to say that solar is crap because you still have to pay for electricity. This is simply not true and is not a reason at all for not going solar. If you think it is still not efficient enough to warrant the cost, fine, but that's just your opinion. The effectiveness of solar is left to each consumer to decide for himself.

No, I did not.
Please show proof of where I stated this.

Yes, that's what we've calculated based on our location both with and without government subsidization.

 

[lothar]

A lot depends on location. If you live in a region that receives a lot of sun every year with minimal cloud cover (much of the southwest) you'll reach payback and then some. In Montana....probably not so much.

Surburbia, Maryland.

 

[K1052]

Surburbia, Maryland.

probably not cost effective depending on the system installed due to low solar radiation average

 

[xBiffx]

No, I did not.
Please show proof of where I stated this.

Yes, that's what we've calculated based on our location both with and without government subsidization.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Energy costs more at night than during the day. Solar only provides energy during the day(before someone brings up storage or batteries, those things are highly inefficient).
If 65-80% of energy use comes from evening, night time, and early morning hours like it is for most people(typical American works a 9-5 job right?), solar panels won't take 100% off your bill.

Solar panels doesn't have enough efficiency for me yet.

 

[lothar]

Seems pretty clear to me.

You're missing the "and therefore it's crap" conclusion that you claimed I reached based on that statement.
You haven't proved that yet.

Some people I know with panels don't have 100% of their electricity bill paid for.
Whether they're stupid and such, etc...is another thing to ask them all together.

 

[lothar]

probably not cost effective depending on the system installed due to low solar radiation average

SunPower PV panel was what we used in our calculation last year after reading about Adul's system. Not sure if there are better or more cost effective panels around now.

 

[xBiffx]

You're missing the "and therefore it's crap" conclusion that you claimed I reached based on that statement.
You haven't proved that yet.

Some people I know with panels don't have 100% of their electricity bill paid for.
Whether they're stupid and such, etc...is another thing to ask them all together.

Yeah I guess I missed how you bringing up solar not paying 100% of the electricity was somehow a good thing for solar.

 

[xj0hnx]

Because if you have solar panels installed, you still won't have to pay an electric bill?

You seem to be missing that big part.
Energy costs more at night than during the day. Solar only provides energy during the day(before someone brings up storage or batteries, those things are highly inefficient).
If 65-80% of energy use comes from evening, night time, and early morning hours like it is for most people(typical American works a 9-5 job right?), solar panels won't take 100% off your bill.

Maybe where you are at, but here it cost a lot more during the day, AC is a killer.

 

[Darwin333]

It is the absolute worst way to generate power for the cost. Initial investment cost takes 15-20 years to recoup at which time the panels have outlived their lifespan and have to be replaced. Spend $30K for power for 20 years to spend another $30k for the next 20 years. No thanks.

Edit:

forgot the additional $4K every 5 years for replacing of the battery banks, that is another $16K added to the bill every 20 years.

Just about any solar panel you purchase has a 25 year power production warranty (80-85% rated power at year 25) and beyond that they still don't really go bad. There isn't anything in them to break aside from physical damage (baseballs, tornadoes, etc..). The first solar cell ever made still works to this day.

 

[Darwin333]

Because if you have solar panels installed, you still won't have to pay an electric bill?

You seem to be missing that big part.
Energy costs more at night than during the day. Solar only provides energy during the day(before someone brings up storage or batteries, those things are highly inefficient).
If 65-80% of energy use comes from evening, night time, and early morning hours like it is for most people(typical American works a 9-5 job right?), solar panels won't take 100% off your bill.

In almost every place that has time of use billing it costs more during the day than at night. We use much more power during the day than at night because business and industry are using power during the day and HVAC use is higher during the day.

And you use the grid as your "battery" these days by selling them the power you generate during the day (at a higher price in places with time of use) and buy it back at night.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

It is the absolute worst way to generate power for the cost. Initial investment cost takes 15-20 years to recoup at which time the panels have outlived their lifespan and have to be replaced. Spend $30K for power for 20 years to spend another $30k for the next 20 years. No thanks.

Edit:

forgot the additional $4K every 5 years for replacing of the battery banks, that is another $16K added to the bill every 20 years.

not to mention climate rules out a big portion of the country.

 

[xBiffx]

not to mention climate rules out a big portion of the country.

I wouldn't say climate as much as latitude.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I wouldn't say climate as much as latitude.

ok, that too, but the pacific northwest for instance doesn't get a lot of sunshine due to oceanic climate as well.
i know the same holds true for parts of the northeast during the winter.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It is the absolute worst way to generate power for the cost. Initial investment cost takes 15-20 years to recoup at which time the panels have outlived their lifespan and have to be replaced. Spend $30K for power for 20 years to spend another $30k for the next 20 years. No thanks.

Edit:

forgot the additional $4K every 5 years for replacing of the battery banks, that is another $16K added to the bill every 20 years.

If the costs of solar could not come down then you would have a point. Part of the problem has been supply and demand. If the production were to increase combined with lower cost production technologies already possible then the costs shoot downwards. As far as batteries go, yes if you are completely off the grid then you are going to have to deal with them, however we have possible alternatives even there. It's a matter of bring them to market and if that's substantial then it's far more likely come sooner and cheaper.

 

[Modelworks]

Just about any solar panel you purchase has a 25 year power production warranty (80-85% rated power at year 25) and beyond that they still don't really go bad. There isn't anything in them to break aside from physical damage (baseballs, tornadoes, etc..). The first solar cell ever made still works to this day.

The longer the cells are in use the lower the output will become. It is a fact of the technology and nothing found so far can change that. You may think that 80% after year 25 is great but that also means you have to overbuild your original install or add more capacity as the panels age.

The problem with solar panels is the materials they are made from was in strong demand before solar panels became an industry. Now that the green crowd thinks it is free energy the cost for those materials is even more because panel manufacturers increased demand for the materials.

Anyone considering solar , go to the site for planning a solar system and let it calculate what it cost to equal what you use now.http://www.solar-estimate.org/

For me it is:
564 square feet of roof space
5.64KW /hour capacity in panels
$45,000 to install
normal cost of my util is $125 per month.

The only way they can make it appear reasonable is by tossing in government rebates of $25K.

without that is $45,000 /125 = 30 Years


I have been into alternative energy for 20+ years. I was here when they started the whole solar water heating craze, what a disaster that was. Hot water for 10 minutes unless you live in the hottest places on earth.

The only viable, low cost means for green power is water, wind, geothermal.

For wind I can do my home for $25K with no government funds needed.

 

[Modelworks]

If the costs of solar could not come down then you would have a point. Part of the problem has been supply and demand. If the production were to increase combined with lower cost production technologies already possible then the costs shoot downwards.

The problem isn't manufacturing cost. It is a raw material cost. The materials used are in high demand for other industries. Polysilicon is used in memory chips and other semiconductors and unfortunately both solar and chips need the high quality type for the best performance. Prices on the raw material drop from time to time but it still isn't cost effective.

http://guntherportfolio.com/2011/05/photovoltaic-polysilicon-conundrum/

 

[Darwin333]

The longer the cells are in use the lower the output will become. It is a fact of the technology and nothing found so far can change that. You may think that 80% after year 25 is great but that also means you have to overbuild your original install or add more capacity as the panels age.

The idea isn't to necessarily zero your electric bill it is to offset as much as you can. If the system paid for itself long ago then even 75% of the power they used to make is free power. And frankly, in 25 years I imagine it will be better to upgrade your panels to the latest, greatest, and vastly cheaper (if the last 25 years are any indicator) panels on the market. But like I said, even if you don't the system, which you should paid for itself long ago, will continue to produce power that is essentially free at that point. 80% for free is a hell of a lot better than nothing.

I think a lot of people think that the goal is to go "off grid" and, other than a few exceptions, that simply isn't the case. Grid-tied systems are the best of both worlds and what almost everyone should be considering. Basically the grid becomes your "battery" and you never have to worry about running out of juice (unless the grid goes down obviously).

The problem with solar panels is the materials they are made from was in strong demand before solar panels became an industry. Now that the green crowd thinks it is free energy the cost for those materials is even more because panel manufacturers increased demand for the materials.

Have you checked the price of panels lately? They have gotten cheaper faster then anyone ever imagined. Inverters haven't gotten much cheaper but there is a lot of new technology in some of them that increases power production.

Anyone considering solar , go to the site for planning a solar system and let it calculate what it cost to equal what you use now.

For me it is:
564 square feet of roof space
5.64KW /hour capacity in panels
$45,000 to install
normal cost of my util is $125 per month.

The only way they can make it appear reasonable is by tossing in government rebates of $25K.

without that is $45,000 /125 = 30 Years


I have been into alternative energy for 20+ years. I was here when they started the whole solar water heating craze, what a disaster that was. Hot water for 10 minutes unless you live in the hottest places on earth.

The only viable, low cost means for green power is water, wind, geothermal.

Holy crap! I really really hope that is an old quote because $8 a watt is really really expensive right now. $6ish a watt is much more reasonable today, mostly due to the huge price drops in solar panels over the last year or two. Hell, I can buy the entire package (panels, inverter, mounting, grounding, etc..) for under $3 a watt. Installation and electrical should be between $1-1.50 (very high end), throw in a bit for permits and misc..... $8 a watt is rape and pillage right now.

Would you mind pm'ing me a link to the companies website you are using or who and when they gave you a quote?

For refrence, here in Louisiana the typical payback period for a solar system is 5-6 years after state and fed. The ROI is absurdly great but of course that is with subsidies.

 

[Darwin333]

The problem isn't manufacturing cost. It is a raw material cost. The materials used are in high demand for other industries. Polysilicon is used in memory chips and other semiconductors and unfortunately both solar and chips need the high quality type for the best performance. Prices on the raw material drop from time to time but it still isn't cost effective.

http://guntherportfolio.com/2011/05/photovoltaic-polysilicon-conundrum/

Quite a few new technologies are coming out that address that problem. Check out the new CIGs panels that nanosolar is "printing". There are also quite a few technologies that we can expect to be introduced rather soon that vastly increases the efficiency of traditional C-SI panels.

As it is we are already seeing panels at below $1 a watt. If these prices continue, and inverters continue their downward trend, it won't take much of an efficiency bump to reach "grid parity".

Edit:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110626145423.htm

quantum dots, pretty cool stuff but probably 5-10 years from production

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111012113349.htm

Huge efficiency gains for A-SI (Amorphous Silicon) thin film which is a lot cheaper than the high quality C-SI required for traditional "glass" panels.

 

[PeshakJang]

Yea, just ask Germany how stupid it is. Currently now, a net exporter of energy in Europe.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/pow-gen-ger.htm

Power Generation in Germany

In case you can't see that, solar is about .7%

Hell, they make .8% of their power by burning garbage!

23% Nuclear, 43% coal, 13% NG.

 

[PeshakJang]

At $30,000 for 20 years that comes out to $125 a month, which is a hell of a lot lower than most people's electric bill. Even if you had to spend the extra $14K it still averages to less than $200 a month.

Not even close. With only the $30,000 and a modest 3% annual inflation, its cost is closer to $170/month.

At $45,000 you're over $250 per month.

If you are looking at it as a financial decision, it fails every time.

 

[PeshakJang]

Quite a few new technologies are coming out that address that problem. Check out the new CIGs panels that nanosolar is "printing". There are also quite a few technologies that we can expect to be introduced rather soon that vastly increases the efficiency of traditional C-SI panels.

As it is we are already seeing panels at below $1 a watt. If these prices continue, and inverters continue their downward trend, it won't take much of an efficiency bump to reach "grid parity".

Edit:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110626145423.htm

quantum dots, pretty cool stuff but probably 5-10 years from production

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111012113349.htm

Huge efficiency gains for A-SI (Amorphous Silicon) thin film which is a lot cheaper than the high quality C-SI required for traditional "glass" panels.

Bullshit. I was told that technology would not advance without my tax dollars.

But hey... like Obama said, for every business success (in Asia) there are going to be 10 failures (in America), so the only thing to do is throw money at people and hope for the best!

 

[Lemon law]

A big problem with solar is in the cost, inefficiencies, and the life span of solar panels.
Yet in terms of R&D to improve solar panel yields, the most promising technologies are in Nano technologies. Meaning its going to take big companies with a large R&D budget to make solar panels practical. Now to do we want to deal with a mainly US company like GE, or rely on only Chinese companies to do the same.

The other thing to mention, is that it takes 2 watts of electricity for a distant power plant to deliver just to deliver one 1 watt at your home. The rest is lost in transmitting that power. But to really reduce costs, takes mass production of proven technologies to reduce per unit costs.

Nor should we rely on just the solar power of our only sun, when we can use cheaper mirrors to direct even more solar energy on each expensive solar panel.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I have a better idea, they should fucking pay income tax.

Then ask Obama and the Dem's to fight for the removal of the "Green Energy" tax deductions that GE has been using.

 

[Darwin333]

Bullshit. I was told that technology would not advance without my tax dollars.

But hey... like Obama said, for every business success (in Asia) there are going to be 10 failures (in America), so the only thing to do is throw money at people and hope for the best!

A ton of this is science done by universities. MIT not long ago developed a method that could potentially double the efficiency of C-SI.

 

[Darwin333]

A big problem with solar is in the cost, inefficiencies, and the life span of solar panels.

I honestly do not know where this idea that the "life span of solar panels" is such a problem. Yes they do lose efficiency during their lives but there is nothing in them to actually break. Something that works almost every day for 25 years and still works at least 80% as good as it did the day it was made has a pretty damn good life span in my book.

Yet in terms of R&D to improve solar panel yields, the most promising technologies are in Nano technologies. Meaning its going to take big companies with a large R&D budget to make solar panels practical. Now to do we want to deal with a mainly US company like GE, or rely on only Chinese companies to do the same.

Quantum dots are a really exciting technology but in the near term I think developments in thin films such as A-SI and CIGS is going to be where we see real gains as well along with inverter technologies. I have heard rumblings that a major A-SI company is going to release a new system with a micro-inverter pre-installed in the wire tray. With glass so cheap right now the best place we can reduce costs is in the BOS (Balance of System) and labor. Luckily reducing the cost of one usually reduces the cost of the other.

The cool thing about what I was just talking about is how absurdly quick it would install. The panels come in big rolls that peel and stick to the roof, takes a few minutes per 144W panel. Then comes the wire management tray with the inverters already wired together that peels and sticks in between rows of panels. Plug the panels in to the inverters (that we installed by sticking the wire management tray to the roof) and viola, you are done except for running a conduit to the MDP or a line side tap and pulling a few wires.

The other thing to mention, is that it takes 2 watts of electricity for a distant power plant to deliver just to deliver one 1 watt at your home. The rest is lost in transmitting that power. But to really reduce costs, takes mass production of proven technologies to reduce per unit costs.

Is it really a 50% loss due solely to transmission? I didn't think it was quite that high but I could definitely be wrong about that.

Nor should we rely on just the solar power of our only sun, when we can use cheaper mirrors to direct even more solar energy on each expensive solar panel.

Mirrors aren't so good for PV, they can work but at least so far have been a serious PITA. They do work great for CSP (Concentrating solar power) which produces solar thermal energy. I just read about a new massive solar thermal power generating plant getting ready to be built in the West. It was actually really cool because I believe it acts as a big ass battery too. The mirrors (a metric fuckton of them) concentrate heat at the top of a huge tower that heats up molten salt to some absurd temp which is then either stored or used to run the generator as needed. Typically CSP has been more expensive than PV but I read that a new way of making the mirrors has significantly reduced their costs, not sure if it brings it inline with PV but it is still progress.

The problem with mirrors is that they require some sort of tracker to continually focus light where it is needed. Generally it is cheaper and more efficient to simply put the trackers on the PV panels themselves. These days putting the trackers on the panels isn't very cost effective either because of how cheap glass is. Its cheaper just to throw up more panels that would equal the efficiency gained from the tracker.