Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

Group Purchase Gets Residential Solar to Grid Parity in Los Angeles

By John Farrell
December 5, 2011   |   16 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

16 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 16
December 6, 2011
John, could you show your math here? I'm with you philosophically, but I'm not sure your numbers add up.
Comment
2 of 16
December 7, 2011
I'd also like to see the math, to cross-check my own back-of-the-envelope guesstimates.

Also, the headline is a little misleading. Group purchase brings the cost down some, but the total cost is still more than grid kWhs. It's only because taxpayers and other grid customers foot part of the bill that homeowner out-of-pocket expense achieves grid parity. Subsidies can help get a new technology scaled up, but they don't scale (we can't all subsidize each other). True grid parity will create a tipping point. We're getting closer but are not there as the headline states.
Comment
3 of 16
December 7, 2011
dogworld, when you mention we all pay subsidies so solar isn't really cost effective yet ,you forget to add the subsidies we have paid to fossil fuels and nuclear for over 30 years. If you remove all subsidies and include real world external costs like pollution and water use SOLAR IS LOWER THAN GRID electric today.

Solar is also distributed so it's made and used right where it's needed and send clean power over teh GRID to help it's closest neighbors. Then reduced transmission and transformer losses. It also is highest during the Peak Time of day hours and smoothly shuts down at night when we have excess in the GRID since use is very low at night.
Comment
4 of 16
December 7, 2011
I agree with the first two posts. I am a big supporter, but am not a fan of glossing over big issues. I have the following assumptions and numbers in my pricing model:

20 year term of PV project
7% cost of money
$4.40/W installed PV system (all in)
1500 kWh/yr/kW-p

The native (unsubsidized) LCOE is $0.297/kWh
With a 30% ITC, the LCOE is $0.194

Adding in accelerated depreciation is complex, but assuming its value, net, is 20% of the cost of the project, I get

$0.155/kWh

What this basically shows is that PV is still near $0.30/kWh in good sunlight zones. This is better than ever, but grid parity still requires about 40% of the system to be subsidized.

Solar is wonderful, but its supporters also need to keep their eye on price, and accept that intermittent DG needs additional grid support, and that daily summer peaks are near sunset.

I want lots more of this stuff, but we have to lay realistic foundations to get there.
Comment
5 of 16
December 7, 2011
$4.40/watt?
Why so high?
Must not be buying right as all in costs for us are $2.40/watt

If we marked up %40 for profit and overhead we still are under $4/watt

This assumes high volumes but is that not what these guys are doing>

Of course it is LA and there is no way we would bid anything in that city with their onerous requirements to make perfect the enemy of the good. Just dealing with LADBS adds $1.00/watt
Comment
6 of 16
December 7, 2011
spweaver has it close to what I used
- 5% cost of capital (80% debt)
- 25-year project life
- $4.40/W installed PV system (all in)
- 1500 kWh/yr/kW-p
- real discount rate of 2%
Comment
7 of 16
December 7, 2011
You folks with the math seem to have missed the part in the article that says it was installed for $2.40/W not $4.40/W. The price of $2.40/W is normal for a large volume buy.
Comment
8 of 16
December 7, 2011
@1solarlife

Actually, it is $4.40 per Watt. My apologies if that's unclear in the article. It's $2/Watt less than the national average for residential solar of $6.40 per Watt

Sincerely,
-John
Comment
9 of 16
December 7, 2011
@john Thanks for the clarification, I am moving near you if you are selling at $1920 per 300w panel.
Comment
10 of 16
December 7, 2011
John, I ran these numbers through Clean Power Finance and it looks like you were actually too conservative in your analysis:

Installer Contract Cost $17,609
Solar Incentive Program- Step 5 ($7,431)
Federal Tax Credit/Tax Impact ($3,053)
Net Cost (year of installation) $7,125 ($1.80/watt DC, $2.11/watt AC)

Utility Savings Over Initial Term $21,617
$72 / mo (avg)
Payback Period Immediate
Total Life-Cycle Payback
(Cash Flow compared to Net Cost) 232%
System Resale Value $10,132
Levelized Cost of Solar Energy $0.048 / kWh

And even without subsidies you're actually there in terms of grid parity - with one caveat. Comparing levelized cost of solar to retail grid rates ignores the cost to other ratepayers of the transmission and distribution grid (T&D), which is the subsidy provided by net metering and the fact that in CA you get the full retail rate for any solar power sent back to the grid.
Comment
11 of 16
December 7, 2011
Tam,

I respect your advocacy goals (and have PV on my home, and am a member of a state CoSEIA board), but for the purposes of keeping the discussion balanced, I also keep in mind that:

1) Future cash flows need to be discounted for inflation
2) Resale values are extremely speculative
3) Payback time is immediate only with financing, otherwise simple payback is 100 months
4) An industry that requires 60% subsidies is one that has some further development to do
5) Current PV counts on the grid for storage and support when the sun is not out, so T&D networks are still very important for reliability. Only with batteries does solar take away the need for significant transmission

I point out these issues not to criticize solar, but to keep the precariousness of the situation relative to policy front and center. Most state do not have the policy environment of California, and what the state giveth the state can also take away. We need to make sure state and Federal policy-makers understand that these subsidies are very important for continuing to develop the industry, and that the biggest subsidy that fossil fuels have is the ability to pollute our atmosphere for free. Until that enormous subsidy is internalized, we have to keep the industry focused on policy reality, not tout 'grid-parity' until it is real without subsidies.
Comment
12 of 16
December 7, 2011
I am enjoying the viewpoints on this subject as I have been around this for a very long time.
Why does everything have to be around price?
Customers of mine have enjoyed no interruption of power during natural disasters, grid problems, extended distance from grid connection and have a very normal or actually above normal lifestyle. Do not believe in the grid system. Example: house gets hit by 3 hurricanes in a month, the area is without power for 45 days, minimum, house power is run by generators if they have power at all and most likely not close to being able to power your a/c. Except a few houses had systems already in, the most that was lost was a panel or two from the last hurricane, their life was the same once the storms were over.

What is the value for peace of mind? What is the value of the 45 days of interruption? Loss of income from business? (One had a business on the property, ironically roofing) These are only a few of the questions that could be asked as well as a small example. So again why are we focusing on price?


For the record the reason I made the above comments is because on the last install it cost me $2.42w, there is noway in good conscience I could charge $6.40
Comment
13 of 16
December 7, 2011
Great article because in solar we like to make the numbers fuzzy so regular people don't understand. Then we can trick them into thinking things make sense economically. You guys are working hard to show grid parity but clearly nobody can follow the math except you. Let me show you how we do it in solar pool heating where we have the luxury of better economic viability so we can a little more clear about things.

$4.40/watt and 2000 hours of sunshine equivalent direct on the non tracking solar panel is about right isn't it? That's $2.20/kwhr/year. Let's say electricity costs $0.14/kw hr. Divide one by the other and you get a 15 year simple payback period in today's energy prices and this is after a whack of rebates. Nothing to be ashamed of there. Plenty of you paying more than that at the top tier which improves the number substantially. If electricity cost goes up over time even better but that's a risky guess. Its not really fair to assume outright the ever increasing curve of increasing electricity costs. Its a simple payback period number the average Joe can work with. Even governments and ESCO's use it. (They require a simple ten year payback period by the way for all things solar thermal) Nothing to hide except the fact that if you admit this to the average homeowner they aren't interested in participating. Take away the rebates and you kill the industry entirely because the numbers do matter. I agree we need to include the environmental cost and factor in the subsidies for oil and gas but we don't because we the people refuse to be taxed on carbon. I've been selling solar successfully without rebates in direct competition with natural gas for 25 years now. Step one is to be understandable and credible and find the niches where they exist.
Comment
14 of 16
December 7, 2011
@powerstrip Good comment, pool heating as a niche has had more advantages than some areas, hot water heating as well, plus those technologies have improved as well, in the beginning they were a nightmare sometimes. And you are right about the fuzzy part, although that is not what the author of the article was trying to get across. We do not sell on parity, never have, why put yourself through the aggravation, there are plenty of other points to sell on, it has worked well. Plus you are right about keeping it simple enough for the average joe to understand and feel comfortable with. It seems that sometimes you have to do that even for solar farms.
Comment
15 of 16
December 8, 2011
Not having a pool is even more efficient.

Counting the value of Solar during the Peak Time Of Day with no pollution or water use shows it's priceless.

With Millions of Electric Vehicles all V2G GRID conneted helping regulate power and povide back up for the little off peak use it's the complete answer. In fact all of our food comes from solar, photosynthisis.
Comment
16 of 16
December 16, 2011
Progress towards the overriding goal of grid parity is moving quickly in the right direction. I applaud all the hard work so many of us have put in over the years to ensure the success and adoption of solar PV.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

John Farrell

View John Farrell's Profile
About: John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at ILSR and he focuses on energy policy developments that best expand the benefits o... more »

Advertise With Us

Brightergy Endurance Wind Power Stoel Rives LLP Met Office ClearEnergy Inc. GreenBrilliance AWS Truepower, LLC
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters