The Question Day 30: How Can the U.S. Solar Industry Meet Expectations?

Julie Andreasen
December 8, 2011

@john-wabel-170395 You are so right :)

Jeff Theisen
November 3, 2011

Wow lively discussion perhaps I can stimulate more creative thought with some comedy. A top ten list of ways to meet expectations for solar energy in the USA. Imagine a drum roll after each item...10. Expect less 9. Make solar energy illegal 8.Put on 24" wide tread high boy wheels and tires, add a 500 pound battery and call it a hybrid 7. Paint solar panels white and add a distinctive fruit like logo to all. 6. Susitute less costly Formica for granite and solid surface components.5. Gold plate all panels and make them limited editions.4. Sell them at QVC. 3.Have Oprah give solar panels away to the audience. 2. Put solar panels on the gift registry at the next Kardasian wedding...and the 1. Way to meet expectations...forget about solar, let's finish that wall between us and Mexico and get started on one between us and Canada.

John Wabel
October 14, 2011

To Anonymous:

The term Renewable Energy implies a certain empathy toward the planet and fellow man. It implies a future of reduced global conflicts and increase livability of the entire ecosystem.

"Picking fly shit out of the pepper" is not implied

ANONYMOUS
October 14, 2011

This should upset the solar gods in the blog who all carbon foot prints exists and carbon dioxide is bad also believe in the EPA statement below is true remind me of Al Gore.

Green power is a subset of renewable energy and represents those renewable energy resources and technologies that provide the highest environmental benefit. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines green power as electricity produced from solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, biomass, and low-impact small hydroelectric sources. Customers often buy green power for avoided environmental impacts and its greenhouse gas reduction benefits.

Next up subsides for the oil companies; good talking point but all it is a change in the tax code in 1986 (Democrats) Active vs. Passive Income; Depletion; Depreciation;
Intangible Drilling Cost Tax Deduction Tangible Drilling Cost Tax Deduction. Royalties are taxes paid per quarter to the federal government or lease payments to indivisual land holders and in most cases state lands.

All of the equipment used to harness the energy from the inconsistent sun and the wind is the same same equipment used today for energy production but with increase operating efficiencies which is being used today across all energy forms and all contain carbon by prodcuts

In the form of silica and silicates, silicon forms useful glasses, cements, and ceramics. It is also a constituent of silicones, a class-name for various synthetic plastic substances made of silicon, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen, often confused with silicon itself.

Energy from solar is a thermal dynamic reaction of two chemicals in sunlight either with oxygen or hydrogen

two links for oxides

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060918054903AASJZEh

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oxides

Finally take away all the big bad carbon in the world you will be left with to much oxygen and the world will burn away

GOOGLE OXYGEN

James Desmond
October 13, 2011

Thanks, John -- I included dirtcheapsolar here:
https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/a-look-at/best-known-10kw-grid-package-deals

And thanks, Mark -- I also grow trees, and my prototype home is hidden away within one of my forests. Hope you noticed the hanging (king sized) porch bed, btw.

The core benefit of my home and my array is that folks can come and see it, and evaluate the actual costs, not the "projections" vendors make (I'm not selling anything, and I help others free of charge).

But when folks ask "how much does it cost?" I'm finding that "cost" and related terms like "grid parity" can be quite elastic. You can see that in my revised payback cycle, which I happily revised down from 14 to 10.31 years.

It's critical that the question be answered, however, because mass consumerism in the Solar PV area (I'd like to see 50 million, 10KW arrays sold/erected by 2015) can't happen absent clear, reliable information.

More on "pricing clarity" here: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/10/solar-closes-in-on-grid-parity

Mark Hadley
October 13, 2011

James! What a wonderful place! Glad I woke up early this morning, out of a dream designing and installing solar to see your album. I had read your other posts in their crazy long list of responses. I'm as rural, only a group of Buddhists within three miles. I farm trees, adding value with a Wood-Mizer sawmill. Can't believe making sawdust has sent me around the world several times to teach and train others to repair, add value and selective harvest. Your home is reminiscent of Swiss thinking with a Romanian flare. All it lacks is a hammock for South American spice.
Earthbilly

John Bronson
October 13, 2011

Hi James,

Check these guys out: http://www.dirtcheapsolar.com/

James Desmond
October 12, 2011

... That's the GREENEST building in America, with a Solar Foil Ceiling (amps up natural day light), sourced on a FAMILY-OF-FOUR energy-consumption scale (10KW system), for $87.50 a sq.ft. -- LESS than the cost of conventional, negative-energy buildings in nearby cities.

Here's my ceiling, by the way (I got the idea from dopers -- that's the same 'grow-room' foil that they use): https://picasaweb.google.com/115162333107690986192/SolarFoilCeiling

The trade-off? Well, it ain't gonna win no Better Homes & Gardens award. I call it the new, 'neo-industrial look.' And you know it's a new fashion trend in homes -- because I'm doing it :)

I deal in facts, figures, and evidence. All of this I have freely shared. And all of it is designed to change 'mass thinking' -- to prove live, in real time, that near-zero-maintenance (30-50 warranty metal sides/roofing, see it?), virtually burn-proof (low insurance costs!) and hyper-efficient housing (1000 sq. ft. living space cooled by just one 10,000 BTU window unit in a building that sits unshaded in the hot summer sun in South Georgia) can be built for LESS than stick, conventional housing.

My bottom line: Green should, and now does, cost LESS than brown housing.

I'm living it. I'm proving it.

I'm also providing this free to all who ask, most especially Habitat for Humanity, which stick-builds negative energy, high-maintenance (wood needs painting, remember?) homes.

More photos (click from bottom up to see how my 'Positive Energy Farm' has evolved): https://picasaweb.google.com/115162333107690986192

Y'all come and visit now, h'yeh?

James Desmond
October 12, 2011

Friends,

Very interesting points made here. My rebuttal to some of them: First, please read my open letter to MAGE Solar, which sold me my 10KW Solar PV system (designed to handle the AVERAGE family of four, so hey, it's simply NOT 'excessive'). The letter contains my one-year report on output and the 'solar economics' that I've gleaned from it:

https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/my-open-letter-to-mage-solar

Bottom Line: My system outperformed MAGE's projection, and I have revised my projected payback cycle to 10.31 years (even shorter for a family of four), assuming no repairs (yes, that's a somewhat rosy, but not improbable result).

Second, both the utility's head electrician and a retired nuclear power plant engineer COMPLIMENTED my 'barn-raised' array (it's NOT that hard to do, only the overpriced solar installers scare-monge this stuff to keep a lock on their market).

Third, understand that my 10KW array sits atop a 3200 sq.ft. residence/business prototype that I designed and built. It contemplates rural Georgia living, with 100% or higher Solar PV output, for no more than $87.50 sq. ft.

Read that again: $87.50 sq. ft. For a POSITIVE energy, recyclable building that can be made of recyclable materials. Half (1600 sq.ft) is living space (2 bdrm, each with built-in, full baths, 100% ADA compliant), the other half is designed for business -- machine shop, farming, etc., and the building is 100% 'artic-foil,' 4' pouch insulated.

Pause here, please and check it out: https://picasaweb.google.com/115162333107690986192/March122011#5590462479614217570

(cont'd next post)

Mark Hadley
October 12, 2011

My understanding is anon 112 has no way to install any panels. If he feels like he needs to support renewables for whatever personal reason then he should be allowed to by buying green energy. That is the point I'm trying to make. Every situation is the basis of its own unique solution. One size does not fit all. The solution is larger than the crunch of numbers, although it is important to know how to crunch numbers. I am designing a 18 KW system as we speak, for s customer in Alabama, to run his business and home. It is what he wants. He already bought the panels. I'm not going to tell him he only needs 2 KW for the "sweet spot" so he never produces enough power. He wants to over produce most of the time. If it is his wish, it is the right system for him.
Living in a really energy conservative home is great if it is what you want to do. I have three computers on 24/7, satellite internet, satellite TV and a 42" LCD on all day and half the night. Energy star refer, Energy star freezer, two washers, two driers, on and on. So I want a system to power it all including AC. And weld steel with an arc welder and run my lapidary equipment and a 3 phase 15 HP motor all at once if needed. Not everyone wants that or needs that. I have walked into a home to do the energy audit before designing a system and all lighting was incandescent 100 watt bulbs. I'll tell them to get rid of the bulbs and buy all new appliances, before we sit down to build a system. None of those have ever called back.

Rate Crimes
October 12, 2011

re: comment #114

An investment in solar outperforms traditional investments when compared against standard utility rates. When compared against the premiums charged for a utility's 'green' energy, an investment in solar blows away other investments. Even a 1kW, on-site solar energy system will slow the long bleed of cash from your coffers into the utility's treasure house.

http://ratecrimes.blogspot.com/2009/07/green-not-so-choice-rates.html

Mark Hadley
October 12, 2011

Comment 112 solution is simple. Buy green energy from your utility. This supports all who can install wind and solar. No equipment to buy! No mad neghbors! No copper to steal!

ANONYMOUS
October 12, 2011

I am going to add a new energy alternative energy source all hydrokinetics
Last year everyone saw the Live BP 5000 ft down from remote controlled subs zipping around in 7 knot constant current.

We have the technology to harness the energy potential of the GOM from 2000 ft level on down with under water turbines; with additional engineering we could tap into the energy potential from the surface.

ANONYMOUS
October 12, 2011

A example of equilibrium
I live in a single story house surrounded by single story houses; in flat south Louisiana. My southern facing roof is surrounded the neighbors oak trees on the south and west; so now my roof see 3 hours of sun per day.
Now lets add for weather here in humid south Louisiana with its daily popcorn thunderstorms; some with hail and high winds and some times twice a day and now included outflow boundaries (clouds only); and add the uncertainty of tropical systems. Winter weather could either by wet or dry depending on
La Nina or El Nino. Add for falling leaves; branches; dust; animal droppings and roof ventilation.

Since I sell industrial inverters I would need to add an enclosed electrical room to address the hot humid climate that affects both battery and electrical equipment life not to mention the copper thieves.

My first solution would be to cut down the neighbors trees out of my pocket that should change from 3 to 6 to 8 hours per day right.

I use to live in single story house in New Orleans surround (southeast) facing roof a huge oak tree on the east; duplex (2 story house) on each side
30% of my roof saw 4 hours of day light. Add the weather and roof info from the above plus a chimney and you can not cut oak trees down in New Orleans.
Solution buy a duplex next to a single house on the south side not surrounded by trees.

ADD that you changed the heat sink configuration (reflection angle of the sun) of you southern facing roof of your house.

Historical averages in this area used by the solar people use 6 hrs per day for 250 days per year. The power is nuke and natural gas; the rate is higher in the city than in parish (county) outside the city but same parent company.

Rate Crimes
October 12, 2011

"It would be a smarter return than the latest Wall Street investments." - mark-hadley-162536

This was true a decade ago... http://ratecrimes.blogspot.com/2009/05/money-from-sun.html

Mark Hadley
October 12, 2011

If I were going to promote solar power as a viable entity to replace new brown generation plants:
1.) All leading politicians, President and down, should install and promote solar power, both utility scale and distributed residential/business.
2.) All new home construction must meet strict orientation, insulation, and energy star performance with at least grid tied (no batteries) solar array to produce, on the perfect generation days, 90% of daily normal energy usage without electric heating or AC added into the calculation. Incentives to add even more power generation.
3.) All utilities must follow a new upgraded PURPA green energy law that includes all over-generation from domestic smaller sources below 100 KW. Pay at least 6 cents for monthly over generation , promote the purchase of utility green energy at a slightly higher price to cover utility scale solar projects/domestic, business over generation, And no limit to the maximum system generation without liability as long as the grid tied inverters are UL listed.
I, for one, believe in a domestic system that provides 100% of generation during the highest usage month, and full battery backup for six days without water heater, home heating, or AC.. To limit generation to a mathematical model of premium return, automatically, without considering each individual system and homeowner is like deciding on climbing Mt. Everest by economic return on the trip. No-one would go. The economics are important, but should not be the deciding reason to limit customers' desires.
I could add 2-4 KW every year as an investment to be paid back at the same rates as the wind farm/solar farm projects. It would be a smarter return than the latest Wall Street investments. There is room here for 50 KVA, grid tied, on existing utility transformers.
My 8KW solar generates 700 KWH/Month winter, 1300 KWH/M summer. 80% of nameplate most of the time, 100% a few days a year, 100% of daily usage in heavy clouds.

Rate Crimes
October 12, 2011

"People argue their points thinking the earth's ecosystem is at equilibrium or at balance and man can manufacture perfect equipment to control and [sic] imperfect system." - Anonymous

Any statement as fuzzy (fussy?) as this one must have truth in perfect proportion to its imperfection. Or, perhaps, the sentence is itself an expression of fuzzy logic and chaos theory?

BTW, your maintenance concerns are just as fuzzy.

ANONYMOUS
October 12, 2011

OK simple truth in lower caps and yes I do mean simple

To much misinformation floating here so here comes the truth
Solar power claims are based on controlled lab results
Move the equipment to the real world of earth's heat sink and ecosystem and now you have ever changing variables

Commercial power from dessert power plants have is own set of limitations which are completely different than residential which is subdivide by urban and rural and topography and again has limitations

I notice here no one talks about maintenance issues as an added costs.

People argue their points thinking the earth's ecosystem is at equilibrium or at balance and man can manufacture perfect equipment to control and imperfect system.

Rate Crimes
October 12, 2011

Some 1st-gen modules produce 60% of their rated power after more than four decades. Design, technology, materials, and production quality have all dramatically improved since Kennedy was President; while the cost per kWh has steadily decreased.

Michael Mayhew
October 12, 2011

Solar Electric modules are rated at standard conditions and as the module's temperature changes so does its efficiency. The cool thing is that in a cool climate, typically cooler than standard conditions, the modules produce more than their rated outputs. When it's zero out, those modules are really producing, and in my climate with a 32 week heating season that has an average temp of about 30-F, the systems' peak outputs are quite impressive.
In the summer when the panels are providing very cost-efficient real-time electricity, the systems don't produce their rated output, but what is produced has a very high value.
Solar hot water systems, like any hot water heating systems have a fair amount of maintenance issues and associated expenses, but PVs have practically zero. The new inverters typically have little to no associated expenses for their rated life. I haven't had a problem with any new ones that i've sold in the last 5-6 years. I understand that some of the micro-inverters have had issues, but the manufactures are scambling to correct these problems.
The solar electric systems for unmanned lighthouses, that were set-up during the Carter administration, are still fully functioning, though I'm sure their battery packs have needed a few replacement. But all and all there isn't any talk about maintenance costs with grid-tied solar electric systems, because there isn't much to talk about.

Rate Crimes
October 12, 2011

A 'truth' rarely arrives in ALL CAPS.

ANONYMOUS
October 12, 2011

TO MUCH MISINFORMATION FLOATING HERE SO HERE COMES THE TRUTH
SOLOR POWER CLAIMS ARE BASED ON CONTROLLED LAB RESULTS
MOVE THE EQUIPMENT TO THE REAL WORLD OF EARTH'S HEAT SINK AND ECOSYSTEM AND NOW YOU HAVE EVER CHANGING VARIABLES

COMMERCIAL POWER FROM DESSERT POWER PLANTS HAVE IS OWN SET OF LIMITATIONS WHICH ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS SUBDIVIDE BY URBAN AND RURAL AND TOPOGRAPHY AND AGAIN HAS LIMITATIONS

I NOTICE HERE NO ONE TALKS ABOUT MAINTENANCE ISSUES AS AN ADDED COSTS.

Gary Richardson
October 11, 2011

In Washington State our government offered cheap or free electricity as one of the bargaining chips used to keep airplanes built here.
Excess power from rooftop systems may help lower clean drinking water costs, attract jobs, cheaper transportation or other benefits. Perhaps someday you can go online to your energy profile and select credits or discounts toward services or purchases.

Michael Mayhew
October 11, 2011

Before I had a pV system, I purchased the green power option, which cost $0.015/kWh more than the grid mix. This green power option allows commercial green power generators to earn a decent return on their investment. I think that there needs to be a bit of a pull to get more green power on the grid, which this premium provides. I don't believe that it's cost effective to just oversize clients systems and flood the grid with green power. I believe that it'd be better if we could everyone to use less energy, which uncludes manufacturing processes, and have a green power option available to people that are renting, have impossible solar orientation, or are not yet financially ready to purchase their own system.

Phil Manke
October 10, 2011

To Solartecmike, way up the list; When people don't like the way something looks, it is nearly always for reasons other than the obvious, or the reasons they say. The 'way they look' is not a reason for not liking solar panels at all, but an excuse for not accepting, based on an irrelavent association.
A basic tenant of the affluent levels of US culture seems to be the priviledge of 'waste' and allowing others to make up for it. Most aspiring middle class 'urban dreamers' adopt this attitude, IMO, and seldom question it further. The economic compression going on in the USA now is necessary to facilitate the questioning of our basic values, which were not initially brought about by the valuing of wisdom, but by 'getting mechanisms', which is further defined as the ego. The current day wilderness, or frontier, in the USA may well be the one of self understanding.
I like the way solar panels and CVT's look because of what they represent to me. This appreciation did not develope over night, but a much longer time and for many associated realizations and discoveries.

Phil Manke
October 10, 2011

TWIMC; What is visible is changeable, and therefore not real. Only what cannot be threatened can be real. What is unreal does not exist.
Believing in illusions (what is not real) will bring suffering and death. These laws are not debatable, but are often denied.
Honor the sun, but do not pray to it. Orient your higher mind to see only what is true, and the rest is given you.

Gary Richardson
October 10, 2011

Any numbers which reveal who buys our exports and incomes created from it?
Also, profits made overseas and brought back home.
This information may be helpful in deciding the affordabity of solar given to our most disadvantaged.

Dr OM NANGIA
October 6, 2011

In my opinion, all over the GLOBE including the US citizens led by President Obama should offer early morning (rising sun )prayers (Chant Om Suryo Namah three times)to Lord Sun (the only visible God)by offering water while standing facing the SUN in East direction.

Thereby the US and all other nations can see the progress on the Solar Power / Industry Front.Just try with clean heart and full faith & devotion and see the impact in a short period.
Om Nangia,Sr Member-IEEE, Sr.Solar Consultant(6th Oct'2011)New Delhi,India

Michael Mayhew
October 5, 2011

To Gregory: No I haven't, and don't usually suggest that people purchase 110% of their historic energy consumption. In Maine, though we have NET metering, the utility charges a minimum $8.40 customer service charge that includes a small # of kWh/month, with that charge.
My goal is to get people to reduce their energy consumption, as well as switch to renewables, which is a cost-efficient way to go. A little education and attention to what is increasing their bills, that could be low-hanging energy conservation projects and fuel-switching options, can help reduce the size of the systems, and increase their ROI. Typically people who are 'into their RE energy systems' tend to notice how they use energy and will reduce their consumption given the oportunity. So I am more of an 80-20 type of guy. The local utility will charge them for ~10% of their energy usage which is included in the minimum customer service charge, and the other 10% is there to handle the client's reduction of energy, or has the potential rom changes in habits to more energy efficient practices. If you size for 110% they get no return for their last 20%.
I'm trying to change the world, for the better.

Mark Hadley
October 5, 2011

If one compares the economics of automobile ownership with the same ferocity as some would focus on energy supply, which is as important, no one would ever buy or lease a car, but would install RE on their home or business.
Earthbilly

John Wabel
October 5, 2011

Kudos mark-hadley, you are doing what everyone with means should be doing. Your commitment in deeds is quite commendable, keep going.

Rate Crimes
October 5, 2011

mark-hadley-162536, I was trying to ascertain the economics of such a large 'residential' system. Thank you for clarifying that your power generation system is for commercial purposes as well.

Mark Hadley
October 5, 2011

Hi Rate Crimes,
Incentives? Financially, only the fact that since the system was geared to my sawmill business, both energy supply and as a working model for our effort to diversify into RE installation, I could take 75% of the completed cost amortized over 7 years as a business deduction. We had to work as an off grid system for two years while our local utility figured out that the excess power could flow backwards without blowing up their grid. We were the first in our area to comply with the utility co-generation contract. Now I help others to comply. Also, the return in income by getting jobs installing other systems has helped pay back my system.
The euphoric feeling of satisfaction upon system commissioning and the first meal completely cooked by electricity from the sun was priceless.
The gain in knowledge, data to share with others, and recognition, compared to the cost of university tuition repaid me 50% of the initial installation alone. Now I am protected for life from electric price increases. Our grid power was lost for 30 days two years ago but my lights never blinked and I put all the neighborhood's frozen food in my freezers.
I suppose my main incentive is it is the right thing to do and I recognized this 35 years ago. It was time to do it. I designed the system to expand easily, in power and a third phase. (SMA). I had just designed a self-powered steel fabrication plant to test the needs for a fabrication base on Mars. Didn't win the contract, but fell into building what I researched, here at home.
Earthbilly
www.earthbilly.com

Rate Crimes
October 5, 2011

mark-hadley-162536, in your solo attempt to emulate the central generation model, what incentives did/do you leverage?

Mike Mendes
October 5, 2011

Colorado does not charge a small fee for grid tide systems, yet. They tried to get something passed a couple months ago, but the PUC turned it down. There IS a fee for every user for the immense privilege of being connected to their monopolistic utility. (But that's just me being sarcastic.) So even if the PV system eliminates their kWh's, they still have to pay a connect fee.

Usually putting in an oversized system doesn't make econmic sense for one reason - the utilities will pay the amount of production over 100% at the wholesale rate, not the retail. So in Denver metro, we pay about 12 cents/kWh. In a 12 month period, they pay only about 4 cents for anything over 100% of usage. They don't worry about the "over and under" in any given month.

Gregory L Smith
October 5, 2011

First of all Kudus for Mark-Hadley! That is great news! I will be glad to use you as an example of a successful combination of efforts to get solar going in your locality. As for Cool-Solar-Guy I am curious if you use the 10% rule as most installer-salesmen do, when sizing a system for optimum return on Investment? If the system is undersized you do not reach optimum return on investment, but if it is slightly over, it is likely that without Feed-in Tarriffs that you will be helping the local Utility reduce their need for future electrical plants by over-paying your bill each month. I know in Colorado, the Utility even charges a small fee for Grid tied systems, since they alledge they lose some power due to redistribution, which is possible but less likely than getting benefits from the Solar system connection, since solar systems tend to even out spikes and massage energy waves so that appliances run without overheating and excess noise/higher/lower voltage than is required. My own home will take a 3-5 Kwh system, since if it is determined by the rate of current electricity, it would tend down to the 3 Kwh range, but I intend to increase the size of my home, so a 5 Kwh system will be more optimum, as the costs might be more or less after I buy the system, and an additional Inverter might have to be added, thus raising the costs over an innitially larger sized system. And while the Utility might get a benefit from over-production, from my system, the controller and the electronics installed at installation can optimize my own use of that power over time, so I do not either under produce or over produce to such an extent that the electric utility decides to change my metering process to take advantage of the excess power output, ergo, distributed power advantages. I suspect that the laws will soon change in Oklahoma as more and more systems approach just such issues. Since it is new here, they do not have reason to even discuss it, except where solar already is.

Mark Hadley
October 5, 2011

I am proud to have a 8 KW solar and 5 KW wind hybrid system. I'd like to add 2 KW more PV, .5 KW hydro, and 2 KW steam. It should be everyone's desire to create four times more power than needed during perfect weather. That is what could make America strong and independent again.
Now I want to be able to grow 40 acres of sunflowers and trade them to a local biodiesel plant for the fuel I need to run my business equipment and hybrid diesel/electric auto. Maybe that should be next.

Rate Crimes
October 3, 2011

coolsolarguy is justified in his lack of 'respect' for 10kW homes for several reasons: First, it is likely that the McMansions are wasting power and will waste more power as they age. Second, the grid would be happier and more resilient if a portion of the bloated system was distributed onto a few of their neighbors' roofs. Third, coolsolarguy is setting an example that allows for some pleasurable scorn.

Thanks, coolsolarguy.

P.S. Who subsidizes these 10kW systems?

http://ratecrimes.blogspot.com/2009/12/solar-phunny.html

Rate Crimes
October 3, 2011

I think it can be agreed that a 10+kW residential system is the exception; not the rule. In the absence of strong net-metering or similar compensatory programs, grid-tied systems attain the optimal economic benefits somewhere around 2kW, depending on climate, rate schedules, and lesser factors.

Michael Mayhew
October 3, 2011

To tekMike. - let me ask coolsolarguy. How many children do you have? How many total people in the home? How are you heating your home?
I have 4 children, 3- Irish triplets and my youngest son, who this year is a senior at college. My solar hot water system was designed (2 module Heliodyne system) to provide ~60% SF for the family load of 6. My 3 oldests have left home last year, but the summer before last we replaced them w/ Bulgarian exchange students. My youngest son and his girl friend spent this past summer until a couple of weeks ago, here.
Typically I have an engineering assistant, or intern working for me. So the house until a year ago had 6 in it, in the future it will likely have my wife & I living in it and a couple of foriegn exchange / or engineering interns students in the summer). (My children attended college in Maine so most of the past 4-5 years several were home each weekend, often with friends, always with weeks worth of laundry to wash.)
~75% of my heat is through passive solar with a very well insulated building and a great deal of thermal mass. This is complemented primarily with wood (DuraBriques), LPG and a few gallons of K-1.
Here's a link to a write-up from Saturday's Green Home Open House.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/ideas-to-button-up-by_2011-10-01.html
You can also find some short movies on web on it if you're really interested. In an expensive oceanfront neighborhood, this is a home that is marvelled at, but didn't cost a fortune to make very efficient, fun to live and work in, and has a very small environmental footprint.

Will Wilkin
October 3, 2011

In CT, I find a 10kw system to be a bit small for affluent residential customers; I'm bidding on 2 now that by coincidence both came out to about 11.3kw. One has a monthly average electric bill (metered charges only) of $190, the other $200. June, July and August are typically 3x the bill of the lowest months of the year. I'm using Solar Pathfinder & Assistant to size these systems, aiming for 90-95% of annual consumption (both claim to expect no significant lifestyle/energy use changes in next 10 years).

Other systems range from 3kw to, again, over 10kw. Most common system is probably right in the middle, about 5kw, but a lot are larger.

I think Mr Freemarketer's daydreams about installed costs would mean slave labor and shoddy work, his suggestions of eliminating permits/inspections (and therefore code-compliance) would mean fires and deaths, and his free-trade ideology means the continued sell-out of America to Big Business. But he is perfectly reasonable in expecting at least our more affluent residential customers to want 10kw systems.

The rest, including myself, will want the Toyota solar systems described above, which will also be a huge market, especially as efficiency and green lifestyles become more expected by the younger generations (at any income level, not just affluent) becoming conscious of how screwed their earth is getting by fossil fuels.

Mike Mendes
October 3, 2011

Also agreed. However - let me ask coolsolarguy. How many children do you have? How many total people in the home? How are you heating your home? (Not with electricity, obviously.) To say that you have no respect for a 10kW system is the kind of arrogance we as an industry need to avoid. I do not lecture or preach to my prospects. MOST are tuned into conservation, and I make sure that is part of our conversation. And not just about electricity, but also insulation, weatherization, windows, doors, lifestyle, etc.

"It's about priorities and education." Also agreed. Solar systems with a 5 year payback move up on most people's priority list!

Rate Crimes
October 2, 2011

Well said, coolsolarguy. :)

Michael Mayhew
October 2, 2011

Yes, a residential 10 kW system says to me that doing more with less isn't what you're about. 10 kW is 7 Xs larger than my system that produces a solar fractor of 75% for my 2,900 sf home and energy engineering office.
It's true that I live in an area with limited cooling degree days, but we make-up for it with heating degree days. We have S.F. of ~70% of heating as well. (My PV system met 60% of my needs when I installed it a few years ago, and hopefully in a few year, it will supply 100% for my future net zero home.)
So I can't relate to, nor respect 10 kW residential solar electric systems; but people do finance $35K autos and boats, and the cars and vessels provide no paypacks and have very lousy resale values.
Adding a 2 kW solar system to an energy efficient home, costs less than an economy car, and almost every house in America seems to have a couple of cars parked in the driveway. It's just about priorities, and education.
Energy conservation creates projects with the best paybacks, and then supplying solar power to meet the remaining energy supply needs is very affordable to home and business owners. Combining energy efficiency, and cost-effective fuel switching with renewable energy projects allows for facility upgrades, new efficient appliances,better cashflow and reduced financial risk, and better projects to engineer and sell. Solar is ready, today, to meet the demands, but the energy demands should be reduced to create cost-effective synergistic projects.

Rate Crimes
October 2, 2011

Payback is simply a crossover point on a more interesting and telling analysis.

http://ratecrimes.blogspot.com/2009/05/money-from-sun.html

Mike Mendes
October 2, 2011

When calculating payback, you need to assume some sort of electricty inflation. It makes a huge difference. Even 4% a year, which I think is absurdly modest, will reduce your payback by a number of years.

The average electricity user in the Denver metro area uses about 600 kWh/mo. MOST prospects I talk to are more affluent, have larger homes and use more in the range of 800 - 1500 kWh/mo. Central A/C is the huge energy hog. (Hot tubs are close behind.)

Rate Crimes
October 2, 2011

What is the "variability factor" of Fukushima Daiichi? It would appear to be a cliff function.

Rate Crimes
October 2, 2011

'I'm focusing on 10KW' - Free-Marketeer

You're killing an anorexic mosquito with an elephant swatter.

You are far (~8kW!) beyond the point of optimal economic benefit of a grid-tied (batteryless) system. Whoever was responsible for the analysis and planning of this energy system should not be trusted with anyone's funds.

Gregory L Smith
October 2, 2011

Wow Free-marketer, that was some interesting commentary. I wonder a lot about the mechanisms of solar-loan products, because if what you say is true and people do not buy 5 Kwh systems, but double that size, it would seem they could afford those systems without any difference between their normal billings and their payments on the loan, since if it takes 14 years to pay the loan back,why would it matter to the owner, since they are getting their electricity paid in full, and you have a yearly tax credit or tax reduction, based on depreciation, not just subsidies. So your monthly costs are basically the same for about three years, and then suddenly, you are paying less than the electricity costs your neighbors, and then five years go by and you're paying far less, perhaps half of what they are paying! So as time goes by, the value actually increases your asset value, you are getting a break in your monthly expenses, and suddenly, you realize you were worried about the wrong thing, which is, quality, durability, and improvement potential, since you discover you have a money machine, when you just thought you had an efficient system. The Utility is happy, because they can use your home as a battery when they wish, via distributed energy systems, ergo smart meters. So who and what are the issues for those without solar? Where can I get it? Why? Generally, the public realizes they are stuck paying for energy as a lifelong expense, so the duration of payments means less and less as time goes by. In fact, it improves and reenforces the reasons to buy it as soon as possible. Free energy in 14 years! Independence! Incredible potential as long as I can get a loan! Who did you partner to get that loan? I want a part of their business! Solar can do it with just what is in place, 30% rebates, local rebates or tax credits, manufacturer's discounts, and Utility Feed in tarriffs to recover the original cost of investment, instead of deeding it to them. That's Exciting! Thanks!

James Desmond
October 2, 2011

And that's another example of gov't interference in a market sector -- an interference that clouds the market (I don't know if my utility's general manager 'really' wants my power or is just playing along because the law forces it on him; hence, why invest in more Solar PV if it's just one big forced-circle-jerk?).

The information-polluting gov't interference (at both the subsidy and forced-transaction levels) is what's deep-core wrong with the current 'green' energy market, and why no one wants to invest (hence, photo-opp hungry politicians and their bureaucrats just gave billions more of our money away last week to yet more Corporate Solar Welfare Queens).

I say this as a Solar PV producer (yes, who hypocritically copped enormous subsidies): Get the gov't OUT of this sector and let the millions of private investors/consumers pick the winners and losers. When that happens, I believe Solar PV will predominate (and thanks, China, for that historic wealth transfer to the U.S., and for kick-starting our Solar PV market by producing myriad Balance-of-System based jobs!).

But I still don't know if the variability factor will be solved, even with millions of 10KW arrays. And thus if after all that we've still got to run large numbers of brown power plants, then what will we have accomplished? Will vast numbers of 10KW arrays, spread wide and grid-tied, naturally smooth out the flow?

These are questions that need answers, and until then the pols and `crats will be risking OUR money on green power, not private investors. And when you see a Queen feeding at the public trough, view that as a litmus test -- she's telling you that private investors have REJECTED her product. I welcome answers here.

More on solar economics here: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/

James Desmond
October 2, 2011

I'm focusing on 10KW because a 10KW array serves the average family of four (they consume 12,000 KWH a year, mine just produced 15,000 KWH in 11.7 months), and with few technical skills I 'barn-raised' mine in 2 weekends. Plus I'm here to tell you -- there are no moving parts and nothing to do -- rain keeps my panels clean.

Anyway, my question is this: If 100 million 10KW arrays were set up by 2018, and thousands thus dotted the 5 county, Central Georgia area where I live, how many fewer brown power (coal, nukes, gas) would be built? How would the Eastern Grid COST-FEASIBLY handle the variability flowing off those arrays with proven, currently available technology that does NOT need to be subsidized?

Depending on the answers, I've got some money to invest. Friends, too.

But I've yet to see proven, working examples of utility systems that are able to efficiently handle such randomly sited, inescapably variable, solar PV power. And there is NO cost-feasible energy storage system on the horizon, only "website plans" and "visions" (like windfuels.com).

What I do see are utilities (like mine) FORCED by state law to buy power like mine, whether they want it or not.

(con't next post)

James Desmond
October 2, 2011

Here's my 10KW system, installed at $3.5/watt, $1.4/watt subsidized:

https://picasaweb.google.com/115162333107690986192/A54KWHDay

It cost $35,000 up front, $14,000 after tax credits, and with $.07 reverse meter credits and $.13/KWH standard power rates, it makes/saves me $1000/year. Hence, a 14 year payback cycle.

'Joe Six Pack' won't go for that.

Maybe 7, though, as that's the longest he's used to going out on for a car loan.

We're talking mass psychology, mass-consumerism here, OK?

Meantime, if we quit fighting the Chinese and welcome their awesome transfer of net wealth to us (via hyper-subsidized solar panels), and free up the $2,000 average permit/red-tape costs of such systems (mine was largely Do It Yourself in a no-code, no-zoning county), Solar PV prices can fall substantially. How far? Don't know for sure.

But I do know this: $.70/watt (half of what I paid a year ago for my system) would translate into a 7-year payback cycle. Hence, I'd be able to brag to my neighbor that I'll never pay a power bill again for 30 years and after 7 I'll save/make $1000/year, tax free, for the 23 years after that.

He'll then immediately scramble to the Home Depot 'Solar Aisle' to get his, and that's how we get 10 million 10KW arrays erected by 2015, 50 million in 2016, etc.

Because it makes economic sense, puts money in his pocket, and raises his home's value (another dose of wealth dealt him).

(con't next post)

Rate Crimes
October 1, 2011

So, "average Joe building owner" can afford to have his wealth slowly bled by rising utility bills, but cannot afford to slow the bleeding with an investment in solar? How did your "average Joe" ever come to own a building if he is unable to perform simple math?

'This is not a time for elitist narrow focused best-practices' - john-wabel-170395

You will have to define 'elitist' and 'narrow focused' [sic]. Of course, best practices should be followed. Unless, of course they have degraded into a simple recipe for slack minds.

'frikin do things that work' - john-wabel-170395

Is it possible to say anything more fuzzy? This sounds like a line from 'Idiocracy', or 'Git 'er done!'

'I do agree with you though on the fast food things.' - john-wabel-170395

Again, fuzzy. What 'fast food things' do you mean?

John Wabel
October 1, 2011

Rate Crimes.

To go back to my auto analogy. We don't need Duesenburgs we need Model T's. We need American made renewable products that are locally manufactured and install by American from American made materials that average Joe building owner can afford even without incentives.

That is what the fabric transpired solar collector represents a cost-effective renewable energy product that will,yes, need to be maintained and refurbished just like any other product that is constantly exposed to the elements.

This is not a time for elitist narrow focused best-practices, this is the time of "frikin do things that work" and are affordable to the masses.

I do agree with you though on the fast food things.

Rate Crimes
October 1, 2011

Sorry, john-wabel-170395. I too live in a place that we call "America". It does not resemble your nation. Neither I nor my friends visit fast food restaurants.

Where I live, an investment in solar has long outperformed traditional investments. We are all the wealthier for it. Therefore, we can afford healthier fare.

John Wabel
October 1, 2011

To Rate Crimes.

Yes, low life cycles for replaceable elements of a product is what our society runs on. Make it work, make it affordable and make a helluva lot of them. That is exactly Not what solar is now but what it has to become, ubiquitous and cheap. Truly All American, McSolar.

Rate Crimes
October 1, 2011

john-wabel-170395,

First, your car analogy is a very, very poor one.

Second, any building owner who cares only about NOW (or the next 5 years) will be too soon scrambling over their rubble pile in search of scrap metal, or languishing in a poor market while the efficient buildings continue to sell.

Third, I contend your assertion: 'High quality is only a concern to those who don't make the purchase.'

'High quality' must be defined. Then, the costs for that quality must be assessed. Today, the additional costs for performance qualification are negligible. Though, it can significantly effect time-to-market.

Those making the purchase, as well as those selling the goods, should be highly concerned about quality. In fact, all stakeholders, i.e. all of us, should be concerned. Requiring all products to be qualified for performance protects consumers now, and future markets.

Your conclusion, 'Simple, rugged and cheap', is a distilled version of 'low life-cycle costs'.

Your statement, 'Building owners don't give a damn about renewables unless it costs them little upfront and the payback is under 5 years.', is generally true, but begs the question:
Why must solar and other emerging power generation technologies pretend to play in a fictional 'free market' after conventional energy sources have received gargantuan subsidies since there inception decades ago, and continue to enjoy them now?

John Wabel
October 1, 2011

Response to Wil Wilkins on efficiency vs durability.

Replacement costs and reasonable durability is the real question.

Take for example a fabric transpired solar collector. If it cost 25% a metal collector installation but needs a surface replaced every 10 years is that a better deal than installing a metal collector that will last 30?

If the product does not get installed in the first place because the initial upfront costs are simply too high (the metal) then what value is a 30 year life expectancy?

Also if the replacement cost of the less expensive collector is reasonable it can simply be looked on as a every 10 year maintenance cost. Like changing the timing chain at 100,000 miles on cars. In the circumstances of a fabric transpired collector the surface replacement cost is about $1.00 a sq. ft. and most of that is labor. Since the collectors, in Seattle produce about $1.50 a year of energy the trade off is pretty good every ten years.

Building owners don't give a damn about renewables unless it costs them little upfront and the payback is under 5 years. They don't care that a product will last 30 years without an upgrade or 20 with one upgrade. They will either be dead or not own the building in 20 years, they care about NOW, and at the most they only see 5 years down the road. Having something solar on their roof compared to nothing is a good thing for them when it comes to resale and truly that is their first concern, themselves and their bottom line.

High quality is only a concern to those who don't make the purchase. Yes, there are many Mercedes on the road but compared to Toyota Corrollas they are few. The solar industry needs Corrollas and that is what the fabric transpired solar collector is. Simple, rugged and cheap.

ANONYMOUS
October 1, 2011

The future is at stake. http://signon.org/sign/increase-government-support.fb1?source=c.fb&r_by=548645

Rate Crimes
October 1, 2011

"How can we evaluate the relative quality of the modules on the market?" - WillWilkin

There is no ideal solution. However, IEC performance qualification of module design is an important first step.

http://www.iecee.org/pv/html/index.html

IEC performance certification is NOT required for modules sold in the U.S. market. It is required in many foreign markets and by many large buyers. Therefore, the U.S. is vulnerable to being a dumping ground for sub-standard modules. Buyer beware. Secondly, if I were buying, I would want some reasonable expectation that the manufacturer will still exist to cover the warranty a decade from now. Feasibly, insurance could cover these risks.

Will Wilkin
October 1, 2011

"The quality of design, materials, manufacturing, delivery, system design, installation, and maintenance outweigh simple, rated efficiency as a consideration."

I agree with RateCrimes that quality (i.e., durability) is more important than efficiency ratings. But how can solar installation companies differentiate which modules have the best design, materials and manufacturing? We don't sell the lowest price, rather we sell the highest value --but we want it to be true, not just a slogan. How can we evaluate the relative quality of the modules on the market?

Gregor, you are right to keep an eye on rising efficiencies and anticipate the greater returns they will bring as we transition to solar energy on a large scale. I recall reading articles about engineers trying to use more of the electromagnetic spectrum, at least more of the visible range and moving down into the infrared. But existing levels of efficiency are already good enough to justify deep commitment to transition to solar on a national and global scale. The increasing efficiencies will come easier as economies of scale bring down the R&D overhead per unit. No matter how more efficient solar gets, the systems already available will, all things considered, still be preferable to fossil fuels and nukes, and today's solar technology already installed will still provide a positive cash flow over their long service life.

Rate Crimes
September 30, 2011

While thermal effects are important, moisture incursion can be the critical problem in climates that are humid and variable or marine. The quality of design, materials, manufacturing, delivery, system design, installation, and maintenance outweigh simple, rated efficiency as a consideration.

Gregory L Smith
September 30, 2011

I'll try again. Here is a link to one site Solar Tec Mike.
It is a link to the research result that brought in 41% efficiencies under experimental conditions.
http://news.cnet.com/Solar-cell-breaks-efficiency-record/2100-11395_3-6141527.html
I am certain that the future will bring higher results and results that have other benefits, such as reduced loss of energy in high temperature conditions, making the heat of summer, inconsequential. 33% modules are achieved in manufactured modules, but they are expensive. Just check Google for the name.
Just expect that 45%, and as much as 65% efficiencies, can be commercially achieved within 5 years, since the patents are pending. A maximum of 88% is currently the top or limit, but it isn't likely to be achieved for 20 years. But does it have to be? Simply getting panels to cease being tempermental about heat is the best strategy. When those new panels become available, even the worst critics of solar will have to admit defeat, because then, there will be no justification for other alternatives, other than conservation itself.

Rate Crimes
September 30, 2011

base
adjective
1. morally low; without estimable personal qualities; dishonorable; meanspirited; selfish; cowardly.
2. of little or no value; worthless: hastily composed of base materials.
3. debased or counterfeit: an attempt to eliminate the base coinage.
4. characteristic of or befitting an inferior person or thing.
5. of illegitimate birth.

load
noun
1. the quantity borne or sustained by something; burden.

Michael Mayhew
September 30, 2011

I'm just starting on a real nice commercial air ventilation project that uses a site-built transpire metal solar heater, that should save about 45% of the existing ventilation heating and deliver a 2 year payback after tax incentives, and can easily be financed to be a cash positive project, as soon as get on site; but that still isn't the most cost effective solar application. Consider light shelves, replacing ~30% efficient electric energy convertion technology. Throw in a few day light harvesting sensors and controls, and this measure has to be marked up really high, just to its credibility.
But converting sunlight down to heat is pretty easy, and the systems are very cost efficient, even with our energy prices not covering the costs of energy-related environmental disruptions and other less obvious costs (war), thus not sending the appropriate market signals to the 'free market'.

Rate Crimes
September 30, 2011

'It will be important for the solar industry to continue to push for non-compliance penalties.' - Lisa Frantzis, Managing Director – Navigant

Paradigm trap. We all recognize the problems of a system that necessitates penalties. The solar industry (such as it is) should look to evolve past mechanisms that perpetuate direct contention. Tim Young is correct to alert us to 'disruptive strategies'. These strategies must look beyond what is generally considered the 'solar market'.

Rate Crimes
September 30, 2011

"But why stop at grid parity?" - Tim Young, President and CEO – HyperSolar, Inc.

Wisdom there.

Rate Crimes
September 30, 2011

SolarTEKMike, you may have missed my statement, 'Then, we must discriminate between what's still in R&D and what is in production.' You appear to have also missed my final sentence that concluded with the phrase, 'low life-cycle costs.'

Don't get hung up on efficiency alone. The U.S. solar industry would better meet expectations now and in the future by requiring (at least) IEC performance qualification for all modules sold in the U.S. Personally, I wouldn't touch a module that claimed high efficiency if the module design was not qualified. Without qualification, you risk owning an array that a few years later can deliver only a small portion of its expected power output. The long-term reputation of the industry is at risk.

John Wabel
September 30, 2011

Pick the home grown low hanging fruit.

What is absolutely the most cost-effective solar application/technique of accessing power from the Sun? Exploit it and move on to the next most cost-effective application.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has recognized the current most cost-effective solar application available and they patented it. It is the non-conductive transpired solar collectors (NCTSC)

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/patents/24239.pdf

70% efficiency is significantly better than PV's at 12%-14%. In the worst sunlight in America, Seattle, an installed NCTSC system has a payback of payback of less than 2 years with current incentives.

The NCTSC (a non-metallic solar air heating collectors) can be installed on all commercial building's HVAC units as a pre-heater to a building's required fresh air intake. Every flat roof building above the 35th parallel can use this inexpensive devise and reduce the building's heating consumption from 15%-25% annually.

NREL uses the metal variety of TSC right now.
http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/08/nrel-installs-transpired-solar-collector/

Currently there is no everyday solar air heating appliance available to the HVAC community, the NCTSC represents their universally viable solar product so they too can be a part of the renewable sector instead of having to watch more expensive products like PVs being installed by electrician and solar hot water systems by the plumbers. Space heating absorbs more dollars to consumers than either electricity or hot water.

So, promoting and installing the most-cost effective U.S. developed solar product available simply makes common sense. Mass installs will mean significant reductions in fossil fuel consumption and new jobs, in U.S. manufacturing and the HVAC sector. NREL has great brains but they don't promote themselves very well.

Sunreps.com believes this simple technology is singularly the lowest hanging solar fruit available.

Mike Mendes
September 30, 2011

RateCrimes - I don't think from the consumers/market perspective it really matters where the efficiency comes from - cell VS module, or any given technology. The key is how much juice do I get for a given panel, and what does it cost? Your reference appears to be highly theoretical, and MILES from being commercially available. I was hoping to hear from GregorS something well over 20% that is close to market.

Rate Crimes
September 30, 2011

SolarTEKMike, regarding efficiency, we must first differentiate cell efficiency and module efficiency. Then, we must differentiate the various technologies (TF-Si, CdTe, CIGS, CSP, etc). Then, we must discriminate between what's still in R&D and what is in production. Then we must ascertain degradation characteristics.

http://www.solartoday-digital.org/solartoday/201106?pg=18#pg18

Efficiency is only one of many factors, albeit an important factor, that contribute to modules with low life-cycle costs.

Gerry Wootton
September 30, 2011

Ratecrimes says: 'The fiction persists that there ever was, is, or ever can be anything resembling a 'free market' in the energy sector'. Too true. And, in spite of everything, there is still taxation on tea. What gets me is that the consumer is so abused by government interference in the system. On one end they subsidize production and on the other end they tax consumption. Somehow, this is supposed to make things better. And then, while they're taking billions out of the consumer's pockets, they somehow manage to spin that spending even a small fraction of that on actually changing the system is an unnecessary subsidy. Frank was right: 'when you think they're looking out for you, you ain't even #2'.

We collectively need government to manage the system for the good of all - not to fatten their friends.

Mike Mendes
September 30, 2011

GregorS - Can you site some specific links that support your 33%, 50% or even 66% PV efficiency? And many of the big oil/fossil fuel companies are investing in solar. They aren't stupid - they need a fall back position.

Gregory L Smith
September 30, 2011

Yes ratecrime, they were intended for the larger audience, as you are the choir in my estimation, the ones that have heard it all before and are tired of the boring dialogue, looking for some new twist that will make it an even stronger argument, since oil and gas concerns are publicly discounting solar and wind as they have frequently done when there is a downturn in their markets. While I would love to say that argument is now stronger, the facts do not significantly portray it as anything but status quo for interest, although the solar sales market is rising each year, as it should. I do have some new vectors to pursue and enunciate, but this particular question is not the place. Solar and Hydrogen will eventually be partners for Scale Commercial Utility grade plants. The benefits are enormous, since the components are easily replacable and undamaging to the environment, replacing rental fuels. And then there is another surpise coming soon to solar PV where efficiencies will rise remarkably to over 50%. Compact concentrated cells do about half that level at close to 33%, but there are multipliers coming that will make a leap, unexpected just a few years ago and not related to CIGS or Si panels. Efficiencies at 60% are possible now, where before, they mathmatically did not appear to ever be over 35%, which is close to the threshold of capacity for CIGS and Si based PV. But theory and patent issues will make such technologies wait about 3-5 years further on, since the NREL controls many such patents and technology breakthroughs. 50 years ago in the 1970's Mother Earth News magazine showed a PV panel that had an enormous 11% efficiency, and they hailed it as a breakthrough, so I have watched it too through the years. Just do not give up on surprises, because they are coming soon. Yet, ratecrime, look at how long we have had solar and yet, the public still does not equate solar with validated electric power generation. This too must and will change.

Rate Crimes
September 29, 2011

@ GregorS, P.S. I hope your words were intended for others' eyes. Because they are an echo of the arguments we were making a decade ago.

Rate Crimes
September 29, 2011

@ GregorS, to clarify: My point is that the education proceeded long ago. Yet, the same conversations are being repeated today, with no end in sight.

The fiction persists that there ever was, is, or ever can be anything resembling a "free market" in the energy sector. Even more disturbing is that despite all the evidence of the past decades, too many still give credence to such fantastic notions.

Gregory L Smith
September 29, 2011

Ratcrimes, Hasn't that been discussed a billion times also? The choices are pretty simple and often getting better as batteries are faster and can hold more charge, longer. The issue really is financing for those of us who want solar but can't afford it as a lump sum payment. We already pay for high energy costs, so substituting them for solar PV is a very sensible alternative most people with south or west facing roofs can get/understand. They just can't get the financing. With a marketing campaign and help from not-for-profit education, via Solar Conferences and solar fairs, the public can get acquainted with it more basically, with their hands on the product, so that they can realize quickly what the drawbacks of costs versus benefit are. Unlike Dallas and Denver, however, Oklahoma City is the last place that solar people would try to invade, because oil and natural gas are strangling the market, preventing it from being discussed, much less allowing companies to function, without tons of paperwork for safety and construction code precautions, that were not there 30-40 years ago. And while I realize that rehashing it is somewhat boring, remember that the majority of the market in solar has not even been tapped, not even a small fraction can tell you how solar works. How does electricity come from a panel to an electrical line? The public has almost no clue...So we educate by forming organizations that can spread the factual and verified outcomes of solar for thousands of Americans. But without funding to pay them, nothing gets done and solar sales and marketing fails. Of course, not in California, but sadly, in the very places that need the energy, need the jobs, and need the tax revenue produced by having people work again, while saving money and the environment. Odd but true, it is all about education even if it is telling the stories over again a billion times. Financing and education then become the keys to solar success...

Rate Crimes
September 29, 2011

Solve the local, small-scale storage challenge, then 'exit fees' may become the battle.

Mike Mendes
September 29, 2011

RE: Solar producer taxes. Our local utility, Xcel, has already tried to get this approved. The howl of protest was probably heard in San Diego! And our PUC, thank goodness, said no way. It makes no sense - offer rebates and encourage solar, then charge people for the power they produce?

40 cents a kWh! Holy electric rates, Batman!

Rate Crimes
September 29, 2011

@ GeraldR,

Yes, good reminder of correct analyses. But, as I said, these issues were being discussed in nearly identical terms a decade ago: http://ratecrimes.blogspot.com/2009/05/money-from-sun.html

When will we be able to move on?

Gerry Wootton
September 29, 2011

Yeah ... great discussion guys (where are the girls?).

ROI calculations need to take into account syncronism with rate schedules. I'm sure any home owner in California would kill to get 0.12 $/KWh during peak hours. One advantage of residential rooftop is that it displaces behind-the-meter cost of energy i.e. basic rate + overconsumption charges + delivery + reservation charges(e.g. nuclear) + consumption taxes. The growing 'popularity' of TOU, consumption breakpoints and 'Smart Meters' substantially improves the ROI on rooftop solar. If you're a California customer with a big house and central air, peak solar may coincide with >0.40 $/KWh rates. On interesting thing is how taxation affects the total consumer cost. Almost every jurisdiction applies some sort of sales tax (state, local, etc.) which taxes everything including other taxes. If your lucky, this is less than 15%. But stay tuned: some jurisdictions are considering production taxes i.e. solar generators will be charged a fee for power produced (obviously, some dilligent civil servants have noticed that rooftop solar will eat into sales tax revenues).

Rate Crimes
September 29, 2011

Excellent perspectives and analyses presented here by GregorS and several others in September of 2011. Yet, I can't help but recall that these same issues were being discussed in nearly identical terms a decade ago. Will yet another generation be doomed to echo these formulas a decade from now?

bob freeston
September 28, 2011

Some random thoughts--a lot of the discussion above is about residential scale. I think the market will be driven by large scale projects. There are millions of acres of flat roofs around the country that can be power producers. Most become consumers of the power at retail. Ad power purchase agreements to remove upfront costs for large scale adaption. Europe and other places both tax carbon and import most of their energy making renewables a clearer economic choice now. Wind is far cheaper in most of the country. Broadly, most of the southwest will lead on solar. In the northeast and most of the country efficiency and upgrades of our old and inefficient buildings will come first. Ground and air source heat pumps applied to our large heating loads can reduce oil imports. Power companies have to make $ from efficiency. The fossil fuel boys have owned Washington for decades--it's a coal town. The current scenario has China spending hundreds of billions subsidizing their renewables industries and dominating the markets with cheap product produced with no pollution controls, gov't provided land, cheap labor and manipulated money. Germany might be able to compete--the US will have it tough at the panel end. It might do all right on silicon feed stock. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) can help move solar forward. Commercial PACE is gaining ground. Residential PACE is more limited unless it can be moved around the Federal Housing Finance Agency. It is another tool moving renewables to a utility model of payment over time for usage.

Gerry Wootton
September 28, 2011

I agree with TEKMike with respect to aesthetics. (I harken back to the day when Sony offered to replace my malfunctioning sound system -- only catch was the new speakers were metalic silver all over: no way that was getting past the wife into the living room). So far, PV manufacturers have been agnostic to the need for aesthetics, at least on residential roof tops. There are solutions. For starters, there are manufacturers who provide options in backsheet color and cell color. I have gone substantially beyond that and devised a number of practical minor modifications which alter the visual appearance with respect to the street view and in some cases slightly increase module efficiency which can be implemented on a standard module manufacturing line using commodity cells. IMHO, there is no reason that a solar roof needs to look any worse or even any different than a traditional tar shingle or clay tile roof. But then compare the looks of a Ford Model-T to a Mustang -- aesthetics will eventually become a component of this technology too.

Phil Manke
September 28, 2011

TEKMike: Don't kid yourself, if you are using conventional energy and depend on it, or even like it, you are invested in 'burn-tec energy'. It is a conditioned response at best. Solar is then a threat to that sense. (Or lack of it).
As avowed capitalists, many people may also see distributed energy as a threat to their investment portfolio, as wall street, in general, does.

I also have a suggestion for energy adoption that doesn't require government funding at all. SREC Trading. It uses Ute. carbon payments to fund solar adoption. All that is required is for a state to have a RPS with a 'solar carveout' in place along with a minimum requirement of a few percent of electrical and thermal energy source to be from solar derivation and a SACP, or fine to be paid if the minimum is not purchased.
A few eastern states have adopted this approach with good results, except.....
Some markets have recently tanked, and I wondered why. On review, I saw that the minimum solar requirement (at least for DC) is set at a tiney (.5%) one/half of one percent! If that was moved up a little, it would not have happened. So, it does require some spine or foresight from whoever sets the minimum solar expectations. Now, I realize if it were set too high, it would never be reached, and the utes would be paying fines anyway. But what is the sense of having any program at all, if it is so easily saturated. In states like NJ, PA, and MA, et.al., solar adoption was, for awhile, at an all time high, and buyers were able to cover the costs of money to boot. The program doesn't require gold standard certified equipment with all the expense and corruption of that, because it pays according to watts of production, period!

Gregory L Smith
September 28, 2011

Thanks Will and I agree with your analysis. I simply see the potential and get a little ahead of myself in activating that vision. I am a generalist also, and see it as a wholistic solution to many things, not just energy, since once solar is efficient, the excess energy can run hydrolysis systems within a home, offering fuel cell technology the ability to totally replace other energy systems, since hydrogen is an energy transfer platform and not just an energy fuel. The NREL however, bears some of the blame for solar advancing so slowly, as they do not enable manufacturers sufficiently to make cutting edge technology available to them in a user-friendly way. Instead of offering it, they wait for them to ask for it, which is a totally different approach than education.
I do have an idea about the Not-for-profit as I went to the trouble of buying a domain name for it already, and I have an application for creating the organization if there is enough interest and people willing to become board members in Oklahoma. Since I started with the Pickensplan.com organization in 2008, I have seen the desire and vision of people like Boone Pickens, who do have bias and who have a selfish interest in getting HIS fuel to the forefront so he can cash in, but with a long term goal of becoming totally renewable, perhaps in his lifetime. He was the only one to put out over a Million dollars to get such efforts rolling. That was some heavy lifting even for him. But, he is for Natural Gas, and anything else that can pull us out of using foreign oil. I'm for that too, but I see that the method is just as important as just doing it. That is why I support Solar so much, as I understand as you do, the need for free energy as a means towards an end, that, being cleaner living without pollution. Thanks for the comments, and the name for the NFP Organization is OFFER SUN foundation. If you like, you can contact me about it at gregors@att.net

Will Wilkin
September 28, 2011

Well Gregor, I don't think solar PV needs to increase efficiency before the USA converts to solar en masse. What we need is the education you are talking about, so that all the factors can be seen for their inter-relationships. From pollution and climate change and ocean acidification to trade deficits and oil militarism to American employment and manufacturing and prosperity --all these issues come together as a need for the USA to convert to 100% renewable energy technologies made-in-USA. Many of these factors cannot be reduced to dollars, and therefore do not show up on the cost-benefit analyses of ideologists like Mr. Freemarketeer (above), but anybody who cares about our children's children will deeply appreciate the renewable energy solutions to so many of our most dangerous problems, as a country and as a world.

If all these costs and benefits were truly integrated into a single analysis, we would see that we have all the technology and capital we need to make the conversion, starting immediately. Only the political will is lacking, due in large part to the captivation of American politics by Big Business interests that only want more of all the problems we already have: 'free trade' (export of our jobs and mfg base), militarism (supplied by high-profit contractors and foddered by unemployed youth), fossil fuels, high unemployment and tax holidays for the rich.

A 30-year plan to become 100% national renewable energy independent would echo throughout the world, bringing hope and enhanced quality of life globally. If we converted our military budget (about 40% of the world's total military budget) to the transition to renewable energy independence, we'd also transform our diplomacy into that of a peaceful and constructive world citizen.

Academics and experts like to compartmentalize the world so they can become expert on a tiny portion of it, but the generalist vision is needed now more than ever to see that in the real world everything is connected.

Gregory L Smith
September 28, 2011

So many issues with solar, it is a miracle you can find committed people that realize their future is at stake. It is an educational process that needs support from not-for-profit groups that can educate all age groups, but especially those who are in Junior high schools, High Schools, and Middle schools. When children see an accurate demonstration of solar's capabilities, understand how it works, and what it does in economic and environmental terms, they talk it up with those who are the holders of the mortgages and are the decision makers. Once students understand the extent of coal and oil damages to the environment and realize they have a responsibility even at their ages to be responsive to such serious future impacts, a lot of what salesmen do and what installers do, becomes more important and more appreciated in society. Thus, you would gain by supporting such activism not just to promote a good energy system, but also to support responsible economic and environmental health for communities and society.
Control regulators are very cool on solar systems, because they can be monitored online, via modems and local connections to the Internet, and that importance is greater once you are able to call up examples of systems saving money in real time for customers. That is another method of directly proving solar works, and works very well. I wish the USA, through the NREL were more advanced, since 33% efficiencies have been reached already, yet the highest efficiencies are too expensive to obtain, and that MUST change for solar to get into the USA markets. And the reality is it is possible with better coordination between solar organizations and manufacturers.

Will Wilkin
September 28, 2011

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/study-finds-solar-panels-increase-home-values/

EXCERPT:

The abstract of their study states, 'the analysis finds strong evidence that California homes with PV systems have sold for a premium over comparable homes without PV systems.'

The premium ranged from $3.90 to $6.40 per watt of capacity, but tended most often to be about $5.50 per watt. This, the study said, 'corresponds to a home sales price premium of approximately $17,000 for a relatively new 3,100-watt PV system (the average size of PV systems in the study).'

And the bottom line: 'These average sales price premiums appear to be comparable to the investment that homeowners have made to install PV systems in California, which from 2001 through 2009 averaged approximately $5/watt.'

END EXCERPT

As for US-made solar modules, my favorites are SolarWorld but what about Helios, Mage, Kyocera, Schott, Lumos, Suntech, and Sharp?

I very much agree with coolsolarguy's ideas for a new trade policy that actually promotes American manufacturing for the American market. Cheap imported panels are still screwing our manufacturing base, and renewable energy is a key industry for future prosperity that the US ignores to our peril. That's why our company MADE IN USA SOLAR LLC installs ONLY 'made in USA' components --not just the modules, but even the wires and screws, everything we install is MADE IN USA (except some circuit breakers unobtainable from USA).

Mike Mendes
September 28, 2011

Phil - My comment RE: solar aesthetics and home values was not reflective of people in the oil and gas or coal industries, but the average person on the street. I have done both of the activities I suggested above with realtors and polling passersby at home shows, and was not surprised to find a lot of average folks just don't like the look of solar panels.

Phil Manke
September 28, 2011

In my view, those people who obtain their livelihoods from association with conventional energy sources will not appreciate the way solar looks because it reminds them of a needed correction. In the USA, denial is used for problem solving until it becomes overwhelmingly obvious it will not work. This is evident in our "government for profit" representation. These chickens are coming home to roost in the twilight of an easy "burn-tec-dirty-energy" era, as the so-called developing world is passing the USA by in sustainable intelligence. We seem to be entering an era of "corporate irresponsibility's last hurrahs", as the irrationality of "earth for profit" mindsets is unraveling in our new style of "great depression", so realized because we so fear the old one, and can't have another one just like it.

Mike Mendes
September 28, 2011

coolsolarguy - nice to see someone who has actually survived in the industry all that time - congrats. However, I disagree with two points.

There is virtually zero onshore production of solar panels right now. SolarWorld is in OR, and Schott is in AZ. SolarWorld can't keep up with current demand, while Schott seems to be doing OK. If we had a healthy US panel manufacturing industry, having a variable FTC might make sense. Without it, the net cost of systems to customers will just go up. And how would one determine what the final % ought to be if the system has a mix of US and foreign products? It could be a nightmare.

Property value - those of us who love solar, renewables, conservation and so forth see beauty and elegance in our solutions. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. Call every realtor you know and ask them if solar adds value to a home or not. Or if you do consumer home shows, ask a few random people who pass by (But haven't stopped at your booth.) what THEY think. Many buyers still think solar panels are ugly, and avoid homes with them installed where they can be seen.

I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph, as I've stated before. Energy independence = national security!

JD Polk
September 28, 2011

THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT THE NAY SAYERS ARE FORGETTING IS.
THERE IS NO INDUSTRY AS FAR RECHING OR AS LARGE AS THE EXTRACTIVE ENERGIES OF THE PAST 100 YRS...AND ALL OF IT WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR WITH US GOVERNMENT HELP, PEROID... SO WHY SHOULD THE RENEWABLES BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN...HOOVER DAM, PANAMA CANAL...OH AND LETS NOT FORGET THE LARGEST BAILOUT IN HISTORY 800BILLION IN 08'...now if the R&D money that has been put into the extractive energies take just exploration in the last 30yrs ...go google that one you will be shocked....

all we want is the FAIR SHARE, THAT MY FRIENDS IS NOT ASKING TO MUCH....

SolarManJD

Michael Mayhew
September 28, 2011

Being an energy engineer with an energy consulting / solar system installation company that has existed since 1980, I have a few points that I believe would be important as the market starts to rapidly mature. I would like to see the 30% Federal tax credit for solar projects pro-rated for projects using American-made components. This isn't a tarrif, for instance, if 100% US-made systems recieve 35% Federal tax credits, and systems with products from away only recieve a 20% Federal incentive, more US manufacturing jobs in the growing solar industry would be created.
Energy conservation combined with renewable energy is much more cost efficient than renewable energy supply by itself, and makes the switch over less painful.
Energy systems are a capital improvement and make your property more valuable, as well as, provide a cashflow from reduced fuel purchases. Your new deck or bathroom don't provide the cashflow improvements. So it you can get a 10% return on your investment(ROI), plus increased property value, that's a good deal.
Solar thermal systems typically have about twice the return on investment that solar PV systems do, so if you need heat, adding a solar greenhouse, a solar air space heating system or a solar hot water system are all excellant investments, which typically provide ROIs of 15-20%.
The cost of climate change, from raising sea level, increased storm activity and health issues, as well as the cost of war in the Middle-East, and protection from terrorist strikes at nuclear facilities, makes the value of renewable energy much higher than its present 'market-value' which is ignoring these real costs.

Mike Mendes
September 27, 2011

Comment 29 - good to hear. I worry that thermal systems are oversold. I got your point, and it's a good one. I wish more people had your vision!

GregorS - We use a Master Electrician for all our jobs, which are mostly residential. I am not personally familiar with the added complexity of 3 phase, but it can't be too much of a problem since there is a lot of commercial work going on around here. And EVERY system (Including residential.) must have complete disconnect switches that keep electricity going from the PV system to the grid if the utility goes down. At least around here.

The key is that 12 cents per kWh. A 4 kW system runs about $4.75/watt, or $19,000. Assume no utility rebate, so you get a Fed Tax Credit of 30% or $5700 for a net out of pocket cost of $13,300. A 4kW string system facing due south and on an unshaded 4/12 pitch roof produces 462 kwh's/mo according to PV Watts. This equals $55.44/mo or $665.28 per year. Adjust for a 10% power inflation per year, which has been the average around here for decades, and the payback is between 11 and 12 years. If we do not face due south, have any shade issues or other variables that reduce output, the payback gets longer.

The Sanyo HIT's are the only panels I know at 22% efficiency. And they are a lot more expensive. We only use them for truly small roofs. Most panels are 17% - 18% max.

ANONYMOUS
September 27, 2011

Response to SolarTEKMike, Comment 27 re a $20k thermal system. First, the $20K thermal system costs about $12K after state and federal incentives are applied. Second, my main point is that a propane system will cost in the range of $100K over the life of a thirty-year mortgage. I am fully aware that a solar thermal system will not offset all the costs of a propane system, but the solar system will cost less whether it offsets 50 or 25 or even 15 percent of the costs of a propane system. I was responding ONLY to the false claim in Comment 15 that solar power is "intrinsically" more expensive than fossil fuel power.

Gregory L Smith
September 27, 2011

Solar TekMIKE, you have some great comments. In Oklahoma, I would love to see solar come to our area, because I understand just how beneficial it will be to both residential customers, but also more so to business customers that use more energy and so benefit better with economy of scale. I do have some questions, should you get these remarks. DO you believe that Three phase systems take significantly longer to set up and integrate, or do you have contracts with specific electric company electricians that will certify your work with the city's inspectors? This is a big topic in some metro areas where three phase must be clearly isolate-able from energy grids so that not only the business can continue operation via backup solutions, such as batteries or separate generators via batteries, but also so that power does not seep back into the lines causing islanding. As for the costs for payback, I am surprised the length of time to repay is 11-12 years, since 30% of the purchase cost is reduced immediately and if the PV panels are of an efficiency of 22% or better, the return should be faster, since the costs of a single home are higher in the southwest, where the cost is not the real issue, but the volume of power used each day is...I suspect it is lower, but I would enjoy hearing real examples if you can cite some...Dust bowls resulted in soil conservation, so couldn't coal's pollution result in energy conservation and solar supported independence? I believe it will.

Mike Mendes
September 27, 2011

Good stuff. As a guy is in the front lines of the solar industry, I can comment on a couple of things.

1) Permitting and paperwork - OMG!! We have about a dozen different building dept's in the Denver metro area and they all require different stuff, some of it so confounding and stupid, as to be unbelievable. Our up front costs on PV or thermal systems is about $1000 and the package of materials for the building dept is about 100 pages of various documentation.

2) Sorry - at 12 cents/kWh, the payback around here is 11 - 12 years, assuming a 10% energy inflation. In areas at 20 cents+, paybacks would obviously be a lot faster. So the good news is we have cheap energy around here. The bad news is it makes it hard for me to sell solar!

3) We have a lot of far suburban and rural folks around Denver on propane, and at $2.50 - $4/gallon, they are hurting. Solar thermal, especially domestic hot water DOES show a 4 - 5 year payback.

Comment 16 - will your $20K thermal system offset ALL of that $3000 propane bill? I bet it won't come close, which is a shame, as much as I'd like to sell a ton of those things. And if your solar reseller is claiming it will, you should contact me so I can check the validity of the claim for you.

Finally - energy independence = national security and world power. We ignore this at our peril. And of ALL countries, we should know better! When oil was discovered in Pennsylvania about 150 years ago, it started an era of growth and prosperity unmatched before or after. Much of Europe is in very bad financial shape right now, but I'm guessing those Euro countries that are striving for energy independence through a national energy policy that makes renewables a dominant feature will be looking really good in a few years.

Gregory L Smith
September 21, 2011

I am not interested in a pissing war about oil...It will meet its own demise without us. I am interested, however in making clear what has potential of return on investment, which solar PV does and does it in good time. But Gumby, yes, so does Solar Thermal. I am not against solar thermal, but it does not have a corporate effect on energy costs. It ONLY Involves the individual, unless you are speaking about Utility grade Solar Thermal, which I also support. I just want people to stop renting fuel, which is what happens if people buy coal-based products or oil fuel products. But we do not have the luxury of avoiding the expense, UNTIL we can find the methods to buy the other more efficient and more green products. I have seen the international spectrum and it is simply more of the same coal burning and oil using people, because they do not have a way to avoid the up-front costs involved with advanced technologies. You are not able to put up Solar Thermal for less than $7,000 for a family home. It isn't cost effective for less, and if there is a loan product that offers such a purchase, I will be glad to promote it, but sadly, right now there isn't one available for less than 12%...Over the course of 8 years it adds up to a lot of energy, but not enough to break even, and that is the issue. If we have subsidies for them, the return on investment rises quickly, and the benefit is seen in reducing natural gas use, but it will not eliminate it, because it is marginally acceptable, even for environmentalists. It just isn't as good as solar PV, but it does reduce daily expenses, while not being as good as not renting fuel, which is the real and final determining factor. Can you afford to buy or must you rent your fuel? Today, most people will say, it is cheaper to rent it. Unless you have a good program to show a better 10 year outcome, people will opt for what is convienient and easiest to deal with, while they work and live in relative happiness, despite how you feel.

Gerry Wootton
September 21, 2011

Phil - the collapse of Solyndra says little about government investment in business. They basically lost $1.3B by investing in Chrysler and yet some call that a success. The government invests directly and indirectly through tax mechanisms in R&D, demonstration projects and even needy industries. Why pick on solar in particular as being the only technology and industry undeserving of public support. Currently, they are 'investing' billions in R&D and pilot project funding along with all kinds of tax credits for 'clean coal' technolology in order to protect the industry from environmental controls until 2030.

Clearly, no one can pick only winners when high tech is a high risk business. Note that in the Solyndra adventure, private investors have considerably more exposure and if one dials back a few years, one can find plenty of analysts touting Solyndra. From the technical side, Solyndra's USP even makes a good deal of sense.

For the average Joe, almost the only chance they have to 'do something' is to pool their tax dollars in the hope that government will make productive use of their money for the advancement of society. But even in that world, a very large portion of their investment is used to fund R&D and offset tax credits for large corporations who do it for commercial reasons. The US fed invested heavily in technology and capacity to produce flu vaccine - should that be called a winner or a loser?

Gregor's on to something - one must always answer the 'what's in it for me' question. If I was in coal power, why would I spontaneously invest huge wads of cash on R&D to develop technology that will only reduce operating efficiency and increase operating costs? Similarly, if I was operating a utility, why would I support development of distributed generation and smart grids which will clearly reduce demand and therefore revenue? LDUs at the sharp end get paid for how much power they deliver - why would they want to reduce that?

Gregory L Smith
September 21, 2011

The option that "Gumby" offers is frankly, impractical. The average citizen doesn't have the time, money, or will-power to switch to solar or wind even if they already agree it is the most responsible way to live. Depending on your location and situation, you may or may not have such obvious choices. Many live in apartments that do not give you such an option. Many live in homes that require gas run furnaces because that is what they can afford or they do not have another alternative, not even wood fireplaces...So to require people to do one or the other is just not a responsible choice...Would they switch if someone else footed the bill? You bet they would! There is seldom ANY disagreement that solar Thermal and solar PV are more cost effective than any alternative, other than perhaps wind or some certain forms of Geothermal heating and cooling combinations. We all know that the oil companies are subsidized significantly, so why not allow solar to be equally subsidized until there is a 20% saturation of solar products in residential neighborhoods? That alone would raise the GNP significantly, since people will be getting their fuel for free, and we won't need regulations when the air is free from coal ash and smoke! I agree that regulation can interfere with economics, but it is the result when the polluter is so significantly beyond the normal that they deliberately cause it, just because it is cheaper for them, not society...Support solar and start teaching it in middle schools and suddenly in 5-10 years, you'll find a society of wise young adults that will not accept oil and coal as viable options. It then fits seamlessly into the maturity of solar and wind, since you have both mature developers and mature customers to use the technology responsibly and with best efficiencies! The other alternatives will survive, until there is an increase in their standards of living, and only then.

Phil Manke
September 21, 2011

The financial default of some companies proves that the govt should not be involved in the way of product development, but could easily subsidize implementation of solar for distributed energy at the 'energy production' level. If solar heat and electricity were given a modest production payment according to watts of energy produced, the solar products would be rolling off the lines and into use and the whole infrastructure would be stimulated with the subsidy coming from carbon producers. Either SREC's or FIT's can be used. Each method has good points. I prefer SREC's. The USA already has the templates and some implementation for REP's with 'solar carve out's'. If this were adopted by all states or nationally, the energy infrastructure would shift of it's own accord, covering the cost of money as well. Several eastern states have used this approach and experienced the attendant learning curves involving over-subscription and fund depletion, mostly due to lobbying from Ute's. But, the main point is 'it works'. In 'Joisey', the solar energy implementation market exploded too fast, and has corrected, or collapsed. Other eastern states have corrected also, because supporting fines for utility non-compliance were set too low (SACP's). Domestic installations are given priority. Early adopters are given the highest amounts to cover finance and higher product costs. It has stimulated private investment in droves. Now, it is faltering. I believe it could work well if adjusted and allowed to stabilize.
Carbon producers cover the cost of the changeover to solar. How is this not balanced change. Anyone who doesn't like the cost of conventional energy is welcome to buy into the solar age and get on the receiving end. Those who are not solar-able may be able to get their energy from cheaper production, and the Ute's become the market purveyers of distributed energy, as many co-ops are now, for fossil produced electricity.

Gerry Wootton
September 21, 2011

Whether Free-marketer et al likes it or not, the energy business is rife with government support at many levels and is massively subsidized by the tax payers. When it comes to subsidies expressed as a percentage of total cost, solar is a lightweight.

Consider for example the gulf oil spill disaster - governments have, so far, experienced a $12B bill in direct costs (not paid for by the industry) and BP took a $9.9B credit against its costs. Then consider that the drilling operation was operating royaly free and work out that it was costing the taxpayer ~$225,000 per day. Then, the latest scientific evidence is that the mess is still a long way from being cleaned up. Job losses in southern states continue.

The fossil fuel industry is heavily subsidized but in the last 20 years the scope and rate schedules of subsidies have gone up. During the same time, this industry has shed about 250,000 American jobs. Greenies probably have cause to be distressed as desparation for new energy sources has meant the relaxation of environmental rules and a quiet translation of government protected lands into oil, gas and coal fields.

Of course, no one is going to blow up this complex oligarchic system so it's time to stop beating the 'subsidies are bad' drum - it's how the entire energy supply system works. How the heck do you think that gasoline made from Saudi oil ends up costing $6.40 in Europe and only $2.40 in the US?

Freemarketer - enough with the $500M Solyndra 'loss'. Solyndra closed with $783.8M in debt and $859M in assets. Arguably, there is $75M in creditors with priority and the US loan guarantee of $527.8M may be only secured against Fab 2. It remains to be seen what the magnitude of the loss will be.

James Desmond
September 18, 2011

Friends, I have read all of your comments. Thanks for an earnest and fruitful debate.

However, many of your arguments are fatally flawed.

Here's why: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/if-we-must-have-subsidies/standard-solar-debate-points

Gregory L Smith
September 17, 2011

First of all, thank you for all who have responded to our commentaries. Bravo for revealing both the hidden truths and clear misconceptions of the public! Second, Anne-van-der-Bom allowed Mr. Free-Marketer a pass on the terms for repayment for Solar. I won't. The concept that it takes fourteen (14) years to repay a solar installation is inaccurate and frequently much shorter than the periods I can cite. Anyone who has an ASES Solar Today magazine can show you past articles that cite repayments for businesses and corporations who invested in solar installations of over 20 Kwh, at an average of 5 years for total repayment of their innitial investment. Residential installations have not been as lucky because they do not have economy of scale working on their behalf, except in states like Oregon and Washington, where the average repayment is about 6 years, with some articles that show repayments in as little as 4 years, including the use of credits, rebates by the state and federal incentives. In addition, once financial institutions catch hold of the return on investment for solar loans, they will lend more for those programs on a more intensive scale. But, the bare truth is the return on investment is based on the ability to pay now, not the ability to utilize solar energy. Since this is a factor that has both a political and a fiscal vector involved, it can end up being what you say...about 14 years when the individual can't even afford the energy they are currently using, and so have to rely on financial sharks to get financing for solar PV at excessively high rates of interest, so it is clear, the issue is excessive costs for interest and does not have anything to do with the efficiency of the system or the PV effective certified output. So, Free-Marketer is avoiding the issue of over charging by those who have the money to lend to make solar work for lower income people, basically 40% of America! Seems a cruel cost with which the American public should pay.

Will Wilkin
September 17, 2011

Yes Anne van der Bom, it is very important to note the real costs and real returns when considering our energy systems and our economic policies. (I must observe, however, the absurdity of forcing discussion of all matters of life into financial language!) You are particularly astute in considering the long term economic development implications of whether renewable energy technologies will be MADE IN USA. Employment and opportunity, home values, retirement and health insurance --for us and our for our children's children-- all depend on investing in future prosperity, starting with infrastructure and manufacturing. That is the national dimension to the global urgency to eliminate fossil fuels. The implications for American manufacturing (and all the R&D expertise attending) will shape the quality of life of the generations after us.

Electric Vehicles are essential to eliminating fossil fuels. The immediate & long-term blood and treasure costs of our oil wars are not included at the pump price, despite the many excess $Billions$ in oil company profits (royalties and tax revenues due to this country's tax payers never collected by the Interior Dept). Coal mining is lethal to some workers. We'll get our electricity from sun, wind and waves --it can be done with today's technology and tomorrow's vision.

What happens when a solar panel goes bad? You replace it. What happens when a wind turbine falls into the ocean? A splash. What happens when a coal mine collapses, or a deep well rig explodes, or a gas company fracks the land, or a nuclear plant gets engulfed by an earthquake and Tsunami? People die & drinking water is polluted. How much is that worth in $? Fossil fuels are destroying species & habitat, acidifying the ocean and polluting the environment with huge health costs --none of this included in your bill or in "free trade" (market ideology) cost analysis. Yet it is more important than anything else!

Anne van der Bom
September 17, 2011

FreeMarketeer,

In response to #8.

1. Partly correct. You omit the other half of the plan that 'solar fanboys' usually promote: EV's.

2. Incorrect. We don't need 'baseload'. That is a term invented by energy companies to classify technologies. What we need is a match between supply and demand. The 'solar fanboy' plan is a combination of technologies: wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, solar thermal with molten salt storage, V2G, demand management, etc. And backup power only burns fuel when it is needed.

3. Incorrect. You call for eliminating all subsidies to create a 'level playing field'. It would not be level for two reasons. Firstly, the oil and gas industry have received trillions of dollars which have enabled them to grow into large, mature industries. Solar power is still young. Why should it be cut from the incentives so early, while its competitors have enjoyed them for more than a century? Secondly, not charging fossil fuels for the externalized costs of pollution is a form of subsidy. To create a level playing field, fossil fuels should be taxed. Would you support that?

Where is your critical thinking in this? Your content-free rhetoric blindly follows the GOP dogma that rejects anything that can be classified as 'green', 'regulation' or 'subsidy'. The sooner you realize that it is nothing more than Tea Party hype, the better for you. Good economic policy takes the long view. More than the 14 years you think is too long a payback time for a system with a 20+ years life span.

But your biggest mistake is letting your dogmatic view obscure the reality of where the world is heading. You allow yourself to let your personal opinion get in the way of a perfect business opportunity. Now is the time to put the stakes in the ground, to claim territory. Who will dominate the market 10, 20, 30 years from now, when it has grown to hundreds of billions of dollars? Apparently, if the free marketeers have their way, it will not be the US.

Joseph Schiller
September 16, 2011

Mr. Free Marketeer is providing very weak economic advice. He is complaining that a solar energy investment only has a 14 year payback cycle. So what, the system has a 30 year plus service life. This means for 16+ years that investment is returning free energy worth thousands of dollars a year, totaling much more than the original investment cost. Millions of Americans are investing much more money into retirement accounts that will very likely yield a much lower return. When viewed as a longterm investment strategy to insulate one from unpredictable price fluctuations and inflation, solar is very attractive! How many retirement investments can offer a risk free quarantee of this magnitude?

ANONYMOUS
September 16, 2011

RE Comment 15: It is fossil fuel systems of all types that are intrinsically too expensive and for many more reasons than the consumer's retail price for the fuel. The subsidies and other 'external' costs of fossil fuel mining, production, delivery and use, plus pollution throughout the cycle raise these basic costs substantially. At today's price of $2.72 per gallon of propane (quoted last week by my supplier), fuel alone for my home heating system would cost about $3,000.00 per year. Given no price increase for propane during the next thirty years (!), this means I would pay $90,000 in heating fuel costs over the life of my mortgage. There is also an additional cost for purchasing and installing the propane system that is figured into the total cost of the property. However, I have purchased a solar thermal heating system at a cost of $20,000, not including rebates and tax advantages. The solar thermal heating system requires no fuel purchases or costs until we start taxing solar radiation. One can make similar comparisons for solar electric power. Now, which system is 'intrinsically' more expensive?

Christopher Lee
September 16, 2011

I agree with the general tenor of the comments that solar is still intrinsically too expensive, but take a slightly different view. It needs to be cheap enough per square meter to be able to use road & carpark surfaces, as well as suboptimally oriented building surfaces. Perhaps there's too much emphasis on watts per square meter of high techology stuff, and not enough on consideration for low-tech and/or low efficiency solutions. OK, my point is likely nullified by installation costs, which will always be high because people need to be paid.

Gregory L Smith
September 16, 2011

Wil Wilkins made some very important points about the distributed grid. Solar and electric cars should be synonomous! Electric cars and the smart grid will be a benefit to both, but for the average middle class person, it is still inaccessible due to innitial costs and uncertainty of efficiency, speed, and utility, versus, sustainability and access to recharging stations. So, as time moves on, the more solar Kiosks found within the central regions of cities across America, the more electric vehicles and Segway vehicles people will see. The more they see them, the greater the desire to have one. It is a complex system of visual clues, mental reminders, physical capabilities, and infrastructure choices. One will not precisely bring another, but if the visual clues are set, and the media promotes it as a commodity, the public will eventually and more increasingly be drawn to the benefits and sustainability of it. Then the value and clean-environmental issues will be no-brainer expectations, thus, if the electric car arrives, coal and the dirty use of gas driven cars will be a glaring necessity to eradicate them from our environment. We are not exposed sufficiently to the contrast of these products.
So, the issue of politics, as was discussed in earlier comments, will naturally disappear, if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of electric vehicles, and people have segways, literally, to their long-distance and long-term goals, via clean technologies.

Will Wilkin
September 16, 2011

I trust Mr Freemarketer has expressed proportionately more public objections to the Iraq War that cost taxpayers over $3Trillion. Not to mention the additional expenses of 750+ US military bases on foreign soil, and the deployment of US military personnel in 150+ countries simultaneously. The military and its contractors are the Mother-of-All-Welfare-Queens, and if waste of taxpayer money is what you are opposing, I trust you deploy your protest voice accordingly. Start by demanding the military budget be phased out 80% over 20 years and the savings split between deficit reduction and infrastructure modernization.

As for solar electricity replacing oil, OF COURSE IT WILL, when are you buying your first ELECTRIC CAR? The 21st-century grid our country should be building will welcome small distributed generation (wind & solar) because these intermittent sources will be ballasted by the millions of EV battery banks plugged into the grid through their chargers. Much like the battery system on a car that normally is charging but can always discharge large surges on demand, so too will the new grid combine renewable energy sources with electric vehicles.

Oil is a source of petrochemicals, too valuable to be burned. That's just one more layer of our responsibility to future generations, besides the tremendous challenge of arresting our climate-changing fossil fuel emissions.

The USA has unsustainable patterns in militarism, loss of mfg, trade imbalance, fiscal crises, unemployment and, above all, climate change and ocean acidification thru fossil fuels. With a comprehensive vision of what we want 21st century USA (and earth) to become, we can create solutions that address all these issues together. Scrap the so-called "free-trade" policies that wrecked us, and use trade, tax and investment policies to bring full employment in revived manufacturing (and R&D), starting in sustainable energy technologies (solar, wind, wave, geo, tidal) including electric cars.

Jim Bjurstrom
September 16, 2011

Hyper Solar's CEO calls for promoting "disruptive" technologies. This could be the solution solar needs to eliminate the need for subsidies:

http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/natcores-quantum-dots-091511/

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67148151

American technology will provide the solution that will make the world a cleaner, better place to live.

Gregory L Smith
September 16, 2011

What Mr. Free-marketer fails to explain is that subsidies are all over, for coal, for oil, for natural gas as well. The difference is the rate of subsidies and the area where the subsidies are concentrated. He talks big about return on investment, but there are literally dozens of companies that have already been paid back for their innitial investment and are currently receiving free energy for a portion of their electric bill. Those are facts, they are not pie-in-the-sky. Hershey's, Coffee companies, State buildings, Oregon State and even Federal buildings are getting a portion of their energy free of cost at this time, less than seven years and often in less than 5 years of investment. Some have already come back for more PV solar panels, because they have been proven to be cost effective, reduce their local carbon footprint, and are recognized by both liberal and conservative groups to be solid successes. Mr. Free Marketer isn't equitable with his criticisms, since he left out that oil and gas and coal get significant subsidies to offer Utilites their products at significant discounts, usually per gallon or per ton of use. In Oklahoma companies get credits they can use or sell, which has resulted in our taxpayers paying out $2.7 Million in tax subsidies in coal alone, in just one year. If that was provided to solar, their return for investment would be paid out in just four years...So his argument on that point is invalid.
Solar and Hydrogen fuel cell electrical co-plants could produce long-term 24/7 energy support for a small grid, but it has not yet been designed for larger grid systems, because coal subsidies have prevented their free access to the market. With new DOE programs, that might change, but there are severely entrenched oil and natural gas concerns that want to make this a discussion about Solar versus the American people. With proper Solar and Renewable Energy Banks, Solar and Wind will easily compete, with or without subsidies...

James Desmond
September 15, 2011

(Cont'd from last comment)

So why are we pissing billions of pubic money into this? No oil independence, no solid evidence of reduced brown-power production, and no one wants it -- because it costs too much, even with 65% of the cost absorbed by everyone (my tax credits).

Not one of you solar fanboys ("any solar's good solar, no matter what the cost") will pause and think critically/analytically here. All of you are letting the Corporate Solar Welfare Queens play you for more Corporate Welfare State hand-outs (one word: Solyndra).

And you KNOW that two wrongs simply don't make a right. Just because brown power's corrupted our Congress doesn't mean green should; de-subsidize both and let Solar PV stand on its own legs -- wait for someone to reduce it to $.70/watt, which is a 7 year payback cycle, and then EVERYONE will jump on it like they did the $99 HP Touchpad 3 weeks ago.

Common sense, please.

James Desmond
September 15, 2011

Some Questions:

1. Will Solar PV cut our dependence on foreign oil? Ans.: No. No oil-generating electricity plants except in Hawaii.

2. Will Solar PV, on every last available roof, cut the net number of brown-power (coal, nukes, gas) plants America must build to meet demand? Ans. Not likely, at least not the base-load plants (no one's solved the variability problem; there is NO cost-feasible electricity storage solution in sight, either). Perhaps fewer peak-loaders, but you know what? I don't see any data on this. Know of any? If so, please email me at freemarketsolar@juno.com, OK?

3. Read here (within a 'subsidization' essay) about the lowest cost 10KW grid-tied Solar PV system in America, performing at spec, costing $3.5/watt up front, $1.4/watt subsidized by tax credits:

https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/if-we-must-have-subsidies/subsidized-exports----make-sense

Now ask yourself this: Know anyone who'd invest in a 14-year payback cycle system? And that's the lowest cost you'll find anywhere, on a positive energy home, making/saving me $1200/year. Ans.: No. Nor would anyone lend on it. They'll only do it with taxpayer money (grants, tax credits, etc.) bringing it down to "consumer-sane" level (I say a 7-year payback cycle, which means $.70/watt, and that's assuming your local power company will pay you at least $.07/KWH reverse-meter credit).

(Cont'd next comment)

Gregory L Smith
September 15, 2011

The solar industry needs three things to achieve being fully empowered. The First item is a viable means to sell to consumers the products that are already available and ready for installation or connections. If the customer can't find a loan product to finance their purchase, they just won't buy, until they can afford it, meaning they will wait until the price of energy forces them to attempt it. Second, after financing, is continued development, not just in availability, but in efficiency and quality, which are related to price... But above price is long-term quality and reliability, based on standards that are agreed upon by both industry and the government's Department of Energy. This is not so much regulation, but safety protection, for not only the insurance industry and the consumer, but also for the Utility industries. And third, the industry needs to rethink what an electrical grid is, what makes up a grid system, and think smaller, in terms of sustainable grid star cells setup to interconnect with larger grids, but are easily detachable in the event of storms, icy failures due to breakage, and Tornado/Hurricane issues that break or cripple substations, leaving larger quantities of customers without power, unless they themselves went to the trouble of creating redundancy of supply and self-disconnect from their grid segments, so that they can continue to enjoy and use internal power, versus shared grid power...By doing those three processes, solar can overtake wind energy in just a few years, and can overtake Nuclear about the same time, by over qualifying their output and reducing the risk issues that are intrinsic with nuclear power systems, making Nuclear not only less attractive, but less efficient as well. I suspect nuclear will be totally replaced in 20 years. Not that nuclear won't survive, but it will force new forms of it, raising more safety and innitial cost concerns, which will not have a mandate to use governmental funds to produce them.

ANONYMOUS
September 15, 2011

RE Comment 5: The subset of people around our planet who care about its needs do not require any convincing about moving into a clean energy economy. But there is a large subset of people who have controlling monetary interests in political power and related agendas give little indication that planetary care is one of their priorities. There seems to be no evidence in their statements or actions that our planet's needs exist above ours. It is this latter group that requires powerful, continuing economic arguments above all else because "planetary care" arguments do not move them in the direction of meaningful action. For my part as a consumer, I am demanding an energy-efficient home, a solar thermal heating system to counter the megabucks I would otherwise spend on propane, and an all-electric passenger car as my family's next vehicle. And I am making these things happen because I can justify the economic benefits in my particular situation.

Scott Kelley
September 15, 2011

Okay...after reading the other comments and the article I find still that we are having a hard time wrapping our minds around the planets needs above ours. While the technology is here we find ourselves back yo the money and where it will come from. I have one question..If solar and wind generating energy where on top of every structure through out our neighborhoods and cities do you think it would have a major impact on the world?
I myself think it would. We can debate it all we want as each day slips by or we can...as consumers start the change. But at the same time I understand that money will get it going. So..How do we as consumers get this to happen?

ANONYMOUS
September 14, 2011

USA taxpayers continue to subsidize the fossil fuel and nuclear industries in amounts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars over just the past couple of decades. One-half of one billion dollars is so insignificant in this context that it should not be worthy of comment - except to illustrate the extent to which energy subsidies are unfairly allocated as a result of long-term dirty energy industry manipulation of policies and markets. The call is for understanding the amounts of all energy subsidies, and leveling the playing field with respect to allocating these subsidies.

ANONYMOUS
September 14, 2011

Amazing is you can purchase USA Made Solar Panels at a higher cost than if you purchased from the same manufactures Produce produced in Aisa. I think if we did a Henry Ford production line using fully robotics to produce the highest Quaily Solar Electric Panels on this earth we could rock the marketplace.
It would create thousands of jobs past the factory gates. Problem with out of business solar companies is the business plan
they used to get goverment fundings. Think of of the Box and Win Big USA. After all who is selling Aisa 90% of the Chop Sticks they use everyday to eat with. No supprises it is Made In USA..

Anne van der Bom
September 14, 2011

James,

It's easy talking now that the German EEG has done most of its work: kickstart mass production and cause the price declines that now enable you to install such an affordable system.

The free market did not do this alone, it was a combined effort of government incentives and free market.

Oh, and the socialist command economy of China that decided to stimulate PV production. They saw the opportunity and jumped on it.

James Desmond
September 13, 2011

I disagree with the call for even more subsidies. Doesn't the $500 million loss we taxpayers all just suffered (the recent Corporate Solar Welfare Queen bankruptcies) at least make you pause about calling for even MORE subsidies?

More here:https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/

And here: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/if-we-must-have-subsidies/subsidized-exports----make-sense