The Question Day 32: What is the Most Difficult Issue Facing the Solar Industry?

Renewable Energy World Editors
November 15, 2012 | 156 Comments

Juan Suarez, Senior Director of Engineering and Program Management, Unirac

“Grid parity,” “lowest levelized cost of energy,” and “PV < CE” are phrases that dominated the solar industry’s lexicon for the past few years. But for those tracking the financial performance of companies across solar, the more critical trend and phrase lately is, “the race to the bottom.” The ever-accelerating push to reduce costs in photovoltaics has put many companies on life support and has others facing margin compression and profitability evaporation. And oh by the way, compared to most industries, the growth is spectacular.

Profitable, sustainable growth is the solar industry's biggest challenge in North America. The race to the bottom creates an environment where short term decisions produce revenue growth, sometimes at the expense of long-term financial health. As all companies seek to avoid commoditization, investments in quality and innovation become more difficult. Who can worry about next year, while fighting for survival now? The answer is simple, the market winners.

Quality and reliability will become more evident as more solar is installed. Financiers are starting get real data from system performance that will affect how they influence purchasing decisions by developers and EPC’s.

Innovation is not just for manufacturers anymore. Installation contractors, EPC’s and developers are demanding and participating in the development of new installation process, new materials and sophisticated logistics such as pre-panelization, removing module frames and adhesives.

The companies that find the fortitude, and more importantly the dollars, to invest in quality and innovation are perfectly positioned to take share and realize profitable growth.

As Unirac’s senior director of engineering and program management, Juan Suarez tripled the company’s patent portfolio in less than two years, and led the engineering and product development process to achieve ISO 9001:2008 certification. Juan is a highly accomplished speaker and author on solar industry topics. He has a bachelor’s of science degree in industrial engineering from New Mexico State University, with a minor in math.

Viewing Page 20 of 32

Previous Page

View All

Next Page

156 Comments

Register To Comment

Haych Q
January 24, 2013

Hi Everyone,

The discussion above is absolutely brilliant, as a student it has given me a lot of inisght about the issues of Solar Power.

I am studying Mechanical Engineering in UK and my final year project is based on Solar Power, apart from sustainibility, stability, government schemes and rest. What do you guys think is a major issue affecting solar power production on technical basis like related to Solar Panels itself or the grid layouts or in terms of storing energy?

Your input is muc appreciated

Richard McIver
November 19, 2012

There are lots and lots of energy projects, ideas, etc. with
oil now at $4.00 / gallon gasoline. I take the subway as much
as I can $.25 per trip. We are working on a H2 car, also.
Calpine energy president (dual cycle gas ) president retired
(I own stock) with $20,000,000 retirement and bankrupt the company. Look at human greed not energy.

Richard Viers
November 13, 2012

Will the coal industry provide carbon to feed the new technology for thin film?

Richard Viers
November 13, 2012

I have been reading all morning, and have not found a thing mentioned about the new carbon based tech for thin film. I cannot believe that we are still lagging on getting that done. Who in the world is in control when it comes to technology these days? Are there no innovators? One of the blogs I subscribe to went into deep discussion about how there had been a break through in some lab in San Jose or somewhere in the silicon valley. They claim that when combined with certain adhesive materials, carbon can become a super conductor capable of transferring electricity better than silicon based products. They went on and on about the possibility of reducing the cost of thin film even farther while increasing the efficiency. This bears research. I don't have the lab to do more experimentation with, but consider this. If we can get thin film to have as much or better efficiency than poly or amorphous silicons we can use thin film for so many more applications than we already do that we will see a resurgence of interest in commercial and utility markets. I am not allowed to use linking on this forum, so I will just say a little bird that sells stocks told me about it. Tweet search.By the way, I am Richard Viers Alternative Energy Products Group

Russ Aney
November 9, 2012

This series of discussions with industry leaders has been interesting to read. Some of the leaders have shared some thoughtful ideas beyond industry platitudes. The run-on nature of the articles and the associated comments, however, has made it difficult for your readers to engage in a continuing discussion re some of the key insights. It would have been better to have had a separate Comment section for each article. Can you change this mid-stream, as the series of interviews/opinions appears to be continuing?

Bob Wallace
November 1, 2012

m-

We don't have enough available land and water to plant enough trees to extract the extra CO2 from the atmosphere.

Yes, climate science is hard. And you aren't bothering to read it.

I really don't know what you mean by " The models posit positive feedback the satellites show it is negative." If you are referring to Christie and Spenser's UAH faulty interpertation of the satellite data you can catch up here -

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Again, I have no need to argue this with you. You are free to form your own opinion and if you want to use flawed facts to get there, it's up to you. I gave you a very handy source for reading the science. I'm going to turn this thread off because I just don't want to deal with your ignorance and Jim's dishonesty.

M. SIMON
November 1, 2012

The cheapest way to mitigate CO2 (if you think that is important) is planting trees. It will buy us time (if you think we need it). And yet that method has been shot down by those who crave political control. You would almost think CO2 has nothing to do with their real motives.

M. SIMON
November 1, 2012

"You can't measure only one part of a system and make statements about the entire system."

And that is what makes climate so hard - lots of moving parts. Not at all like F=MA.

And I'm no deniers. I just dispute the magnitude. The models posit positive feedback the satellites show it is negative. Who ya gonna believe? I go with data.

And then we have a few glaring omissions in the models. Cosmic rays which seed clouds and UV which seems to have an effect out of proportion to its energy. And ocean cycles don't seem well modeled. And then there is gridding. The mesh is coarse. 100KM or more on a side. Most everyone thinks you have to get below 5KM to get any kind of reasonableness. That says 400X as much computer power required (minimum) right there. And not enough atmospheric data. Lot of holes in what we know. BTW look int the Argo buoys and ocean heat. You may be amused. Or not.

I'm unwilling to put the world economy in the hands of bureaucrats on the basis of unsettled science. After all we may be preparing for the wrong disaster. Ice ages for the last few million years have been extant for about 90% of the time. Growing crops under ice has yet to be perfected. We do know how to adapt crops for hotter temps though.

And what ever your view, mine is currently prevailing in the US. Tying AE to climate is a stupid idea in the US. There are plenty of good reasons to pursue it without getting into political fights wit 60% of Americans. Not to mention the Chinese who pay it lip service and change nothing or the Indians (India) who also refuse to fall in line. But no one has to fall in line. You make the stuff economically viable and you can't stop people from adopting it. I'm working on it. What you doing - besides complaining?

Jim Andre
November 1, 2012

@ m-simon. Thanks, I'll check it out. And I agree we must remain open-minded and to the most sensible options. I'm a ecologist/conservation biologist concerned about the health of the planet, and the only way I can approach these complex problems (and reflect on them to my students) is to listen those with expertise in the technology that both put us here, and will take us forward.

Bob Wallace
November 1, 2012

m-

The government at all levels - federal, state and local - is constantly helping new businesses get established. Even the business owners whom Romney held up as examples of "Did it on their own" received government assistance in the form of small business loans and other subsidies and government contracts. There's a myth that the free market will do all, but there's no truth backing up that myth.

I suspect we're just about at the point at which we could eliminate subsidies for all energy production. With the exception of 'just now emerging' technologies such as offshore wind and tidal. If oil, coal and nuclear were required to pay their own way I suspect wind and solar would be willing to give up the help they receive. But until we see oil, coal and nuclear paying their own way any talk of removing support for wind and solar is one-sided.

Solar is scheduled to be cut back from 30% to 10% in a few years. Right now the largest reason that solar needs support is because the permitting/inspection process is unreasonably high. It's why Germany is installing for close to $2/watt and we're having trouble getting below $4 in the US.

M. SIMON
November 1, 2012

jandre,

Of course it is a good idea to have as many energy sources as economically possible available. To be significant in other than niche applications intermittent (on the order of minutes to hours) sources will need storage. Small storage (15 minutes) makes the sources grid dispatchable. Big storage - many day's worth - makes the sources viable to replace burners (Uranium burners, coal burners etc.)

To remove all doubt about economically possible All subsidies must go. I include nuke, coal, gas and oil in "ALL". I'd limit the government to R&D plus demonstration sites.

Personally I'd like to see more funds going into Polywell Fusion. It is a small program that looks like it could return big rewards. It doesn't cost much ($20 million a year would double the size of the program). There is enough fuel on earth (the US 20%, Turkey 80% of known reserves) to run the world for tens of thousands more years. Enough time to figure out what is next.

Let me add that it may not work. But the cost to find out is small.

We could also be building much safer nukes. Ocean methane hydrates need effort. Lots to do. I'm working on some things to support all that effort. Look for announcements here:

http://www.ecnmag.com/tags/Blogs/M-Simon/

Jim Andre
November 1, 2012

@Bob. I think you know my credibility is high, since you've done all the necessary background checks. But let's pretend, for the sake of argument, you didn't say above "Our most beautiful and most ecologically valuable land is protected", in reference to my appeal to not lay waste to pristine areas such as Spring Valley. Do you really believe the public (let's say, a grouse hunter) is going to accomodate your disconnect?

Bob Wallace
November 1, 2012

"Now Bob wants to lay waste to pristine public lands ASAP, rather than consider actually green alternatives (conservation, decentralized generation, utility-scale on degraded lands)."

Jim, you've become absurd. Your creditably has reached zero.

Jim Andre
November 1, 2012

@ m-simon. No need to post your qualifications as an engineer...I never questioned your CV nor assumed you mine. I asked you to think before asserting my position was to oppose wind, I have only stated here that we need to move to renewables, both wind and solar, ASAP, but how we do it matters. Now Bob wants to lay waste to pristine public lands ASAP, rather than consider actually green alternatives (conservation, decentralized generation, utility-scale on degraded lands). As an engineer I'm sure you can understand there's a difference in how you build a bridge, and that a bridge in name is not a bridge in structure. It has to be built right or it fails, and the consequences are rather significant. Same goes for renewables. Laying waste to carbon-sequestering natural systems will do little to curb climate change, and luckily for all of us, there are real green alternatives.

Jim Andre
November 1, 2012

@ Bob. Ag lands don't receive wind. Ever been to the midwest? Northern Plains? Imperial County CA? Our nations most productive ag. regions. Nice one though, I had a good laugh.

Bob Wallace
November 1, 2012

You can't measure only one part of a system and make statements about the entire system.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

I'm not going to play "try to talk reason with a denier". I gave you a place where you can check the science. It's up to you.

Seems to me that you're looking to the 95%. When the two main players are a couple of creationists at a minor university then it takes a huge leap of faith to believe that the leading people in the field are wrong.

---

The US is already tied into both Canada and Mexico. Plus the US is quite large itself, a lot of geographic diversity. We're starting to develop HVDC transmission to tie everything together.

One of the first big steps it a new HVDC line bringing Wyoming wind south and west. That line will tie together the Pacific Intertie and Intermountain Intertie creating a more robust Western grid.

--

Gas turbines take 10-15 minutes to spin up from a dead stop. Wind farms are currently installing battery storage so that they can sell "guaranteed" 15 minute blocks of power.

If you will check you will find that the 25% -35% wind and solar research has already been done. We already have that much dispatchable and storage. (Actually we have more since those studies were done.)

Yes, we will have to design our future grid for periods of no/little wind. We designed our current grid to stay up when, for example, a couple of nuclear reactors suddenly go offline with no warning. I suspect in the short term we will mothball some coal plants, they can be brought back on line in eight hours or so. Later already built natural gas plants will serve the deep backup necessary for those once or twice a year "three day" events.

--

I'm not asking you to be afraid. I'm simply suggesting that you might now wish to remain ignorant.

M. SIMON
November 1, 2012

"Do you actually think that global warming stopped 15 years ago?"

Yes. And the Brit Met Office thought so too. Until they hastily changed their minds. In fact if you look at just the last 10 years global temps are on a very slight decline. Not statistically significant to be sure. But a decline.

BTW I don't read sites to get my opinions. I do the calculations and check them against the data. Engineering. Try it.

====

Yes. Germany relies on power generation in the rest of Europe to make AE work for them. Three days with no wind is a long time to go without electricity these days.

So who can the US rely on? Mexico? Canada? Well Canada to some extent. But not enough.

You might want to look into how California relies on surrounding states to make their AE scheme work. Same problem as Germany. Now who will the US as a whole rely upon if we go 20% AE? Storage my friend is critical.

You need hot standby (even gas plants take a few minutes to warm up) because AE can go from full power to zero in minutes sometimes seconds. It is amusing to see people stampeded by half truths. But that is the nature of politics. It is why politicians run negative ads. They work.

Fear will keep the star systems in line. For a while. Sadly it doesn't work on me. Pray for me. I do not live in fear. I cry myself to sleep every night wishing I could be afraid. Such a sad story. /sarc

Bob Wallace
November 1, 2012

Do you actually think that global warming stopped 15 years ago?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

Spend some time on the Skeptical Science site. You can find the counterargument to the denier sites you apparently frequent.

Bob Wallace
November 1, 2012

Germany is cutting their overall level of coal generation. They will be installing more gas generation. Gas turbines do not do "hot standby".

Germany also uses the greater European grid as a way to balance their grid. As that system expands the job of utilizing more wind and solar will become easier. What Germany is enjoying right now is that solar is greatly reducing the cost of grid power on sunny days.

Storage is critical. We can't continue to burn high levels of fossil fuels, even lower CO2 emitting natural gas. Worst case we build a lot of pump-up hydro, but I don't think that will be necessary. Read up on Ambri's liquid metal battery, Eos's and Aquion's sodium-ion batteries.

BTW, wind is bringing down the cost of electricity in Texas. Solar is starting to do the same in SoCal. Inexpensive wind and natural gas are undercutting the cost of nuclear and are starting to cause nuclear plants to close.

(New factories are unlikely to be established in places where real estate and cost of living are high. Silicon Valley is a place where ideas are generated and perfected. Manufacturing goes to places where capex and opex are lower.)

As for "fits and starts", as an engineer you should know that isn't possible. There's no way to know what new or improved technology will emerge in the near future. No one predicted the very rapid drop in solar panel prices we're enjoying. We need to get our energy problem solved which means that we work with what we have and if something better comes along we change course.

M. SIMON
November 1, 2012

"I am continually disappointed by engineers who don't bother to learn climate science before forming an opinion."

Well I have studied it extensively and run the numbers. You? Probably just stuck with the opinion of people you trust. I trust the numbers. I'm an engineer after all.

Two points.
1. A doubling of CO2 absent all other factors will raise the global temp 1 deg C. Nir Shaviv - in case you want details.
2. The feedback is negative - satellite data. Also look into Lindzen's studies on the matter.

All the climate "scientists" have is models which posit a positive feedback. You have studied the matter enough to know that haven't you? In addition the models did not predict the flattening of the curve despite rising CO2 of the last 15 year.

In engineering we think that no predictive power = bad models. GIGO. But humans like being scared. It is built into our nature. Sadly the love of fear was not built into me. It happens. My apologies.

M. SIMON
November 1, 2012

"Our grids can transform to 25% - 35% wind and solar before more storage is needed."

Well Germany has found the actual number is closer to 20%. But I'll grant your point. What Germany has also found is that the net contribution to the grid at 20% penetration is under 1%. All those plants on hot standby to maintain grid stability are a real drain on net energy. What it amounts to is that they are paying twice for the same electricity. Which is reflected in their electrical rates. Among the very highest in Europe.

I'd prefer paying once. Which is why storage is critical IMO. BTW high rates hurt the poor and worse kill jobs. The remit of the grid operators used to be: lowest price. I wouldn't change that.

But we are doing the experiment in the US. California. Despite the attractiveness of the place, the high cost of electricity and the uncertain supply is helping to drive out business. (it is not the only factor - but it is one of them) New silicon foundries are no longer locating in Silicon Valley. Ironic huh?

What I expect to see is a backlash similar to what formed in 1980 after the Carter push for AE. I think realism is a better route. Steady progress instead of fits and starts.

Bob Wallace
November 1, 2012

I am continually disappointed by engineers who don't bother to learn climate science before forming an opinion.

If someone has a background in a non-science discipline, then it's more understandable. But engineers, of all people, should be the most willing to learn the physics of what is happening. They should be the most capable of taking the physical knowledge we have and applying it. This is exactly what they are trained to do.

(BTW, you don't even know history. There are no "climate hysterias every thirty years alternating between hot and cold". Climate change/global warming was predicted and explained in the 1800s, the science has not changed since then.)

M. SIMON
November 1, 2012

"Have you considered what will happen to the ecology of the Great Basin National Park if we don't keep climate change from becoming extreme?"

Yes. A lot of climate scientists who peddle hysteria to keep their funds flowing will be out of a job.

The thing to worry about is an ice age. You can grow crops in hot weather. But crops do poorly under ice.

BTW if you look back in history we have climate hysterias every thirty years alternating between hot and cold. We are currently in a hot hysteria phase. The main driver of the hysterias is the PDO and other ocean oscillations. Very scientific.

Bob Wallace
November 1, 2012

"The AE community is just beginning to tumble to that. We are probably 20 years away from economical storage (not counting hyrdo which is location dependent)."

That's not accurate. The renewable energy community has recognized the eventual need for storage from day one. Fact is, we're a few years from needing more storage. Our grids can transform to 25% - 35% wind and solar before more storage is needed. In fact, those numbers won't hold. We're closing over 100 coal plants and replacing them with dispatchable natural gas generation which will serve as great fill-in for >35% wind and solar. Bringing EVs to the grid also raises those percentages.

As for "20 years away" - highly unlikely. We've got multiple promising storage solutions close to coming to market. One battery company is going into production this year. The most promising, Ambri's liquid metal battery, is expected to be commercial in less than two years.

Furthermore, pump-up hydro is not as location limited as some think. Closed loop storage requires only a "high spot and low spot" relatively close together, and enough water to fill the system plus replace evaporation. The high spot can be a hilltop/bluff a few hundred feet higher than the surrounded area or the low spot can be an abandoned mine (Germany is going this direction).

Development is underway for a closed loop hydro storage facility in the Tehachapi mountains in SoCal. The system would have a 3,000 foot head which would make it a super efficient user of water.

M. SIMON
November 1, 2012

jandre,

I'm an engineer. Big systems and small. I learned the grid back in '63 - '66 when I qualified as a Naval Nuke. I built my first solar project (about 50mW) in '62. When I retired I was doing aerospace engineering. I do have opinions. And some facts to back them. They are hardly unqualified.

I'm sorry if an engineer's opinion disturbs you. Look at the systems and run the numbers. Then get back to me. BTW if you look back into the archives I believe I have written a few pieces for REW and other magazines in the community. I'm not an antagonist. I'm a realist. Reality has a way of dampening utopian dreams. I make no apologies for that. Reality is my job.

Bob Wallace
November 1, 2012

Which ag lands would those be in the Southwest, Jim? Do you think it's common to farm desert lands which commonly experience high winds?

And, yes, I just looked at the photos of wind turbines outside Great Basin National Park. They're located on some rather ordinary desert landscape. Looks to me that there's a mountain (Wheeler Peak) between the wind farm and GBNP.

Have you considered what will happen to the ecology of the Great Basin National Park if we don't keep climate change from becoming extreme?

M. SIMON
November 1, 2012

"My systems are grid tied. Thus I have power at night."

Thanks to coal, nat. gas, and nukes.

I don't get your animosity towards them.

And it does make sense to pay some more for the electricity than the KWh rate if local generation helps avoid infrastructure costs.

Ever look into the "Current Wars" that Edison and Westinghouse got into? All efforts to sway public opinion based on emotion. The right system (AC) won based on technical factors. I still see a lot of that going on. It is getting better though. You are at least somewhat technically oriented. Good.

Storage is the key to widespread AE adoption. Energy when it is wanted. The AE community is just beginning to tumble to that. We are probably 20 years away from economical storage (not counting hyrdo which is location dependent).

And you might look into championing the end of subsidies. It taints AE. It confuses costing issues. I'm not just talking AE subsidies. All of them. But AE subsidies per KWh are the worst.

Jim Andre
November 1, 2012

Hi Bob. I think wind does blow quite well over ag lands Bob, which there is no shortage of. Have you looked at the photos of Spring Valley wind project yet, set just below Great Basin Natl. park, in perhaps the more pristine valley in the Great Basin?

Bob Wallace
November 1, 2012

I would as well, Jim. How about you arrange to haul our old land fills and industrial sites to where the wind blows?

Or, if you can't do that, then make the wind blow hard over disturbed land rather than over the marginal desert land that is now available for wind/solar use.

(It would be nice if you would drop the dishonest "ravaging our natural heritage (American's pristine public lands)". Our most beautiful and most ecologically valuable land is protected.

Jim Andre
November 1, 2012

m-simon, I'd like to know what insights you to post blindly? I don't oppose wind, I'd like to see it placed on disturbed (or compatible) lands like ag lands, old land fills, etc... rather than unnecessarily ravaging our natural heritage (American's pristine public lands).

ANONYMOUS
November 1, 2012

The audacity of the utility personnel who post to this site is truly breathtaking. From reading the comments here, it would appear that the new "grid parity" target for solar and wind is somewhere south of $.03/kWh BUT even that price would have no effect because...the sun might not shine during the day and the wind might not blow at night? The fear, uncertainty, and doubt tactics--one might simply call them lies--employed by U.S. utilities are a carbon copy of the tactics employed by the telco utilities in the '80's and '90's. They didn't work in the era of Internet emergence and they wont work now. And when their con game collapses, you can bet that utility toadies will be the first ones with their hands held out for "relief" (welfare) from the federal government.

John Nistler
November 1, 2012

m-simon, CPS and Austin Energy will. Both are municipal utilities but are required by law to operate in the black (aka - be profitable). My cooperative pays 6.5 cents per kWh, basically what it costs from LCRA. But for every kWh that I do not use I save 12.5 cents per kWh. (The official rate is 10.5 cents per kWh, but the fees associated with kWh add up.)

My systems are grid tied. Thus I have power at night. Grids in Texas are fairly reliable, thus no sense using our own fuel cell storage system.

Wind and Solar actually add to grid stability according to ERCOT. Baseline plants need maintenance time, you can not run them 100% of the time when the days and nights are hot.

I and others like me use solar to save money. Its a sound investment. Why should I pay to support a coal or Natural Gas plant. Yes, its selfish on my part, but its my money. How many investments give you a return on your investment in less then 8 years and saves you money for 30 years? Fixing faucets, replacing windows, adding insulation and solar and replacing light bulbs all save you money. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is how much money you keep, not how much you earn.

M. SIMON
November 1, 2012

jandre,

I'd like to hear your plan for electrical production in the dark and when the wind isn't blowing. And your plan for maintaining grid stability. Minor problems to be sure. Unless you like the lights to come on when you flip the switch.

M. SIMON
November 1, 2012

'The 4 cents per kwh currently administered as a one-time-a-year payment is not adequate and stops our own citizens from participating in our struggle to reduce green house gases.' But 4 cents a KWh is what the electricity is worth. Who will pay you more than it is worth? Unless you put a (government) gun to their heads? I know how to solve your struggle to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Work to create an ice age. The solubility of CO2 in the oceans will rise. Sadly as the earth warms CO2 evolves from the oceans. Don't worry - we are over due for an ice age. And it has the added benefit of killing off a LOT of people due to lack of food. Really what more could you ask for? Billions dead and more CO2 in the oceans. Suppose the CO2 is keeping an ice age at bay? I say keep pumping it into the atmosphere.

Daniel Ferra
October 30, 2012

Petition Background
California law does not allow home owners to size their Solar systems larger than what they use. In order to get the California Solar Initiative (CSI) rebate, the customer is not allowed to install a system that inherently over-produces more than what is needed for his home.
The Feed-in Tariff can not be earned if you receive a rebate from your utility company for solar panels or if you are participating in other utility solar incentives programs such as the CSI. It also can not be earned if you are participating net metering, which only pays one time a year under the AB 920 California Solar Surplus Act.
Our Feed-In Tariff should mirror Germany and Japan, where residential FIT is 30 cents - 50 cents per kwh.
The 4 cents per kwh currently administered as a one-time-a-year payment is not adequate and stops our own citizens from participating in our struggle to reduce green house gases.
The California Public Utility commission can change the FIT to 25 cents per kwh, and distribute the solution to all tax-paying citizens, who should not be deliberately handcuffed. Residential home owners should be allowed to participate in the State mandated goal to achieve 33% renewable energy by 2020.
California resident who purchase an electric vehicle can expect a 60% increase in their electric bill, as shown by a study done by Purdue University in summer of 2010.
Due to these laws, we have automatically taken out over 8 million roof tops, that would generate over 11,500MW of power, thats 5 San Onofre nuclear power plants.
We need to let our tax paying, home owning citizens in on a Feed in Tariff that pays 25 cents per kwh.
In the spirit of Bill McKibben and 350.org for our children and eaarth, lets make real global sustaining changes for all of us.
Japan and Germany pay homeowners 30-54 cents per kilowatt hour, go to facebook, Daniel Ferra, Palm Springs Ca. to sign petition.

CAVE CHRIS
October 30, 2012

Want to see Pollution look at Dead Wind Turbines In Tehatchapie Ca and Hawaii's So. Point near Green Sand Beach? The Al Gores Kerry Bush [a.k.a. Georgy Schraf/f] Clinton's' Soros and Koch Profited egregiously at the PUBLIC Expen$e! "Planned Maintenance" MUST be Budgeted IN to accurately forecast Co$t$ for all Mech. Systems else mother Nature reclaims her own?

Rich Hessler
October 30, 2012

Chris,

Sounds reasonable if the Koch Brothers and fossil fuel profiteers include the cost of pollution and rebuild the east cost. It's certainly time to grow up and address the reality we caused.

CAVE CHRIS
October 30, 2012

The Most problematic issue Is How to WEAN Solar from SUBSIDIZED marketing platforms and graduate to a explicit FREE UN-Manipulated CONtrived Economic basis. Until "SOL Ar" Grows UP, and Competes in the Real Global FREE World Market; There Exists NO Clarity in interpolating The True COST$ of the World's Solar Supply chain! From Communist produced SLAVE Labor; to Free Enterprise provided thru Living Wage Worker produced manufacturers; Leave Great litanies of UN-answered Questions; concerning the Ultimate Quality Reliability Price morality and availability, to Buyers with or withOUT scruples!

Jim Andre
October 25, 2012

Bob, first you were asking me to broaden my focus and now you're suggesting I've distorted something. When you directly assert something without facts to back it up you run the risk of discrediting your argument. Yes it's true that of the 300 million acres of public lands, we will not need to panel it all to meet our energy needs. In fact, we don't need to panel one single acre to meet our energy needs, this has been shown quite clearly by experts at DOE and SDR - it can all happen on degraded lands or on rooftops. So no it's not wise to destroy a subset millions acres of public lands, some of the most pristine public lands left in the US, when viable aternatives exist. You can continue to bark for compromise to enable corporations like Chevron and Brightsource to cash in on taxpayer monies while unnecessarily grading our public lands heritage, but the science doesn't support that, and my guess is that most Americans don't value this type of sacrifice just because "we need to be fair and spread the wealth around" as you assert. My concern, as a scientist who works on arid lands systems and climate, is that we very likely will enhance GHG emissions by bulldozing desert soils. Research by leading soil scientists, for example that of Schlesinger and Mike Allen, is compelling and needs to be heeded. I doubt you'll open your mind anything but bulldozing the west, but there's more at stake than just a few million acres of our last intact functioning ecosystem. And you should broaden your focus to this reality.

Bob Wallace
October 25, 2012

janre - what I'm actually asking you to do is to quit distorting things.

You know that the total desert land that will get used for solar is minuscule when compared to the total amount. And that is minuscule when compared to what we are using for other non-renewable energy uses.

You also know that if we don't prevent extreme climate change then all the desert ecosystems will be destroyed, not a small part of 1%.

Jim Andre
October 25, 2012

Bob,
You're asking me to broaden my focus, when I'm the one suggesting we look at alternatives - namely decentralized generation? Try turning your focus to facts rather than spawning false hopes. No, we have not put aside the most pristine lands, we're destoying places like Ivanpah Valley on the boundary of Mojave Natl. Park, we're installing projects around the entire eastern perimeter of Joshua Tree National Park, there are 4 major projects going in within the untouched Amargosa basin, threatening Death Valley Natl Park and the wildlife refuge there, we're leapfrogging disturbed lands around Las Vegas and instead developing the remote and pristine Spring Valley at the foot of Great Basin National Park, building 200 miles of transmission lines to feed Las Vegas, which by the way has more than a hundred sq. miles of pristine untapped rooftops.

Bob Wallace
October 25, 2012

jandre - we have paused and questioned the wisdom of destroying pristine public lands. We've put the most pristine, valuable aside and will allow a very tiny percentage of public land to be used for solar and wind.

The oldest solar panels we have put in operation are now over 30 years old and still producing close to as much electricity as when they were installed.

If we don't build wind and solar then we will continue to destroy ecosystems for coal and we will end up cooking all ecosystems via global warming. Widen your focus, please.

Right now large scale/utility scale solar is significantly cheaper than distributed solar even including transmission. As rooftop solar prices fall into line with what costs are in Germany I expect large desert installations to cease. In the meantime using a very small portion of 1% of our desert makes sense to me. The largest priority is cutting CO2 outputs as rapidly as possible.

Jim Andre
October 25, 2012

The discussion here regarding efficiency of decentralized generation is extremely useful and needs to continue. My concern is regarding utility-scale solar that gobbles up pristine public lands in remote areas of the desert southwest. I'm concerned about the loss of our last viable intact ecosystem in North America. As the math in Romney's economic plan doesn't add up, so is the case for the carbon balance associated with Obama - endorsed "green" big solar projects. As we march headlong into destroying millions of acres of carbon-sequestering desert vegetation and soils SAYING this will offset fossil fuels-generated carbon emissions (GHGs), we are not telling the truth about climate change and how utility-scale solar development on pristine lands will moderate atmospheric carbon. Desert soils contain 40% of the stored carbon in the earth's biosphere. Once bulldozed, inorganic carbon is released from the soil at a steady rate for hundreds of years. What is the life-span of solar project? Estimates are 10-15 years. We need to pause and question the wisdom of destroying pristine public lands, and turn our attention instead to decentralized generation closer to the source of use, or utility-scale projects that are sited on already disturbed lands. It's not only more democratic and economically viable, it's an actually green alternative.

Carl Kennedy
October 25, 2012

Easy question to answer. The US Govt is the biggest problem for US solar energy. The US govt is the biggest problem for all of America's current woes.

Thomas M
October 24, 2012

Based on the number of posts, I would say, too much talk and not enough action....

Bob Wallace
October 24, 2012

John, does it really matter how much oil the US produced in 2000, 1995, or 1910? The issue under discussion is how much oil production is currently increasing.

Let's review...

"U.S. oil output is surging so fast that the United States could soon overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest producer.

Driven by high prices and new drilling methods, U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951."

Now, is that going to stop the rise of oil prices? Probably not.

But let's go back to what started this...

"I think we need oil too and our own oil may help us out of a financial distress. That is Romneys focus right now."

Romney is unnecessary. In fact, Romney would probably manage to screw things up, after all at Bain he had a 44% failure rate.

It looks like we might wean ourselves largely off of Middle Eastern oil. When you look at increasing domestic supply, doubling CAFE requirements (including trucks and SUVs) and moving some of our transportation to electricity we might turn part of our balance of payment problems around. And we're on track to cut our transportation related CO2 in half.

John Nistler
October 24, 2012

Bob, your graphs use the year 2000 as a comparison year. 1995 - 9000 thousand barrels were produced and 1995 is significantly less then 1975. Basic point, more people - less oil in the USA and worldwide. Prices will continue to rise, and no relief at the pump.

You want to eliminate your electric and transportation bill. Add solar and use an EV or hybrid EV.

Bob Wallace
October 24, 2012

2012 January to July daily average US oil production = 6,625 thousand barrels per day. That's a big jump up from the 2011 average. Looks like your last/2011 data point is around 5,500.

http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/monthly/pdf/table26.pdf

Bob Wallace
October 24, 2012

Here's one that goes into 2012, John.

Your graph cuts off a bit early....

http://aneconomicsense.com/2012/04/06/the-price-of-oil-dont-blame-obama/

John Nistler
October 24, 2012

guys, seriously, you should look at these two graphs. http://psida.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=158900381 &
http://psida.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=150605489

Oil in the USA peaked in 1975. No amount of Drill, Baby, Drill or fraccing is going to change that. In fact, we have not even gotten up to the small peak in 1995. Gulf oil and Alaskan oil continues to decline. Oil production per Brakken well declines 87% in the first two years, http://psida.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=148074152.

But what the heck there must be gold at the end of the rainbow - right? Heard this during the dot.com era, heard this in the 70's when gasoline hit $1 per gallon and hear it again today.

The only reality for decreasing costs is to reduce consumption of oil. Best way to due it is through public transportation. Nothing new under the sun. Always been the case even when Lyndon Johnson was supporting his oil buddies and allowed the dismantling of public transportation on the railways.

Bob Wallace
October 23, 2012

Joerg - You're looking to Romney to increase our oil output? Let's have a current events sharing...

"U.S. oil output is surging so fast that the United States could soon overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest producer.

Driven by high prices and new drilling methods, U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951.

The Energy Department forecasts that U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons, which includes biofuels, will average 11.4 million barrels per day next year. That would be a record for the U.S. and just below Saudi Arabia's output of 11.6 million barrels. Citibank forecasts U.S. production could reach 13 million to 15 million barrels per day by 2020, helping to make North America "the new Middle East.""

http://www.freep.com/article/20121023/BUSINESS07/121023100/United-States-oil-production

We use about 18.7 million barrels per day. With the increases in CAFE standards that PBO negotiated with the car companies our fuel usage should be dropping well below that 18.7 million per day by 2020.

Seems to me things are working out pretty well under the guy who is currently in the White House.

John Nistler
October 23, 2012

Joerg, valid points. A true quality assurance program should include design for manufacturing and design for installation. Design for installation should look at lowering installation, engineering and permitting costs by standardizing equipment and making it easier to install. Engineering costs can be reduced if standard equipment is used and overall weight is reduced while meeting 80 plus mph wind criteria, maximum kWh production and ease of installation plus cost reductions in hardware and/or overall roofing or land costs.

To reduce land costs and reduce engineering costs, the basic ground mounted system should stay exactly the same, only the pier foundation will change due to soil or location. Placement due to shadowing should be well understood but is dependent on buildings, latitude, trees and topography. Improved software approaches reduces but does not eliminate engineering costs.

To reduce rooftop system costs, the same basic mounting hardware should be used, labor associated with wiring should be kept to a minimum, and all components need to be supplied for the system (same with the basic system of land mounted, full polar tracking with optical enhancement).

In addition, theft prevention should be addressed, liability due to debris damage should be incorporated in the design and maximum production of kWh should be sought.

Addressing these issues as a system provider allows the installer to concentrate on maximizing profits from the sale since no hidden costs are included in the overall PV or thermal system.

Joerg Olenczuk
October 23, 2012

I agree costs of equipment coming down is a good thing, and less material costs as well. However, Engineering costs and permitting costs have risen. Fuel prices up, marketing/Labor up, and Obamacare? These cost need more attention in the pricing. It is also important to note labor cannot be beat down as with other industries in the past. A system needs quality installation so it will last a long time. Once the bad installs get attention there will be a reluctance of new buyers.

I enjoyed the comments but thought there was to much attention on pennies per watt and not enough on the real costs of a profitable solar business.

As far as Romney goes, I agree with the first comment. However the Solar Industry is not new, it only rose by subsidies this time around. We cant depend yet on solar alone. I think we need oil too and our own oil may help us out of a financial distress. That is Romneys focus right now.

John Nistler
October 23, 2012

Bob, please keep in mind that $2.45 is the average quote in California, not ours. The price for the Philippines includes shipping and travel from the USA. We are a minority, we actually ship out of country. :-)

Real Mike, valid question. Without storage your average capital and install cost per kWh is < 6 cents per kWh. With financing it should not exceed 9 cents per kWh. Assuming an average of 9.8 cents throughout the USA, solar may or may not be a worthwhile investment. My cost in Texas ranges from 11.5 to 12.7 cent per kWh retail. With no incentives, payoff takes 12 years. After that electricity from our solar system will cost you about 1 cent per kWh (related to keeping the protective tempered optical glass clean).

So there is your basic economics. Payoff periods are between 8 and 12 years with no incentives. The rest of the discussion is related to "being cool". You don't need a new ipad, but its cool to have one. Same applies to solar , you don't need to reducing coal or natural gas use, but it is cool to do so. Something you can explain to your children and grandchildren. When I die, I can not take anything with me and the only thing important that I leave behind are my children and grandchildren. What will be your legacy?

Michael Graebner
October 23, 2012

The real question is simple-where does using solar give me a decided advantage over other sources? What are these advantages? Explain the answers to these two in a way that does not involve assumptive future projections and involved financial formulations and you are on the way to answering the question.

At present, solar is more expensive and requires considerable initial investment. Lots of disruptive technologies model that way.

How about solar combined with ground source heat pump and storage technology? Solar does not need to be exclusive as a solution - yet many solar advocates refuse to see anything but solar. This blindness to a wider view loses solar potential allies and the possibilities of better energy solutions.

Attacking other energy sources as somehow nefarious is a counterproductive waste of time. It proves nothing except the failure of the presenter to make a convincing case
to the real world.

There exist a growing number of cases where adaptation of solar has distinct present advantage over other energy systems in spite of the higher cost. This is where solar is not particularly effective in making its case.

John Nistler
October 23, 2012

Bob, here is some data from San Antonio, Texas (NASA 22 year average) which I think might be of interest.
Lat 29.54 Lon -98.47 Average monthly insolation kWh/M2/Day Jan 2.91 Feb 3.53 Mar 4.49 Apr 5.28 May 5.57 Jun 6.30 Jul 6.57 Aug 6.03 Sep 5.08 Oct 4.08 Nov 3.20 Dec 2.76 Annual 4.65
Average Daylight hours. Jan 10.4 Feb 11.1 Mar 12 Apr 12.8 May 13.6 Jun 14 Jul 13.8 Aug 13.2 Sep 12.3 Oct 11.4 Nov 10.7 Dec 10.3
Percent average cloud cover Jan 59.6 Feb 61.3 Mar 60.3 Apr 56.7 May 60.5 Jun 51.2 Jul 43.4 Aug 45.8 Sep 52.4 Oct 51.3 Nov 58.8 Dec 60.5 Avg Sunlight minus cloud cover is 5.488 Hours. Note the large discrepancy between the sunlight hours indicated in your solar map and the NASA data. Solar panels due produce even in fixed installations with cloud cover. The trick is to increase the amount of diffuse light that gets to the panel and electronically control power output on strings when there is an imbalance due to shading.

In general, I believe models should use the insolation values not some type of generalization about daylight hours. Its the system efficiency related to clouds and shading which will impact how much kWh is produced. This involves the choice of panels used. Optical enhancement - if any that is applied. Electronic enhancement applied, wiring and inverter. Fixed or full polar tracking.

Steve Yang, P.E.
October 23, 2012

1. National Feed In Tariff at $0.15/kWh
2. Uniform, simplified permitting process & fee
3. National Cap and Trade

Bob Wallace
October 22, 2012

Now, are you saying $2.45/watt BEFORE subsidies? That's how I read your post. I'll continue based on the assumption that it is possible to purchase rooftop solar for $2.45/watt and then receive federal, state and local subsidies to further reduce the cost.

If companies truly can put solar on rooftops for $2.45/watt I think the largest thing holding back a solar stampede is the lack of people knowing the price.

The Northeast is Zone 5. 4.2 average solar hours per day. Only a small strip along coast in Washington and Oregon gets less.

The remainder of the lower 48 is Zone 4 or better. 4.5 average solar hours per day.

The Southwest is Zone 3 or better. 5 average solar hours per day.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/Information-SolarFolder/SunHoursUSMap.html

Here's what happens when you run LCOE numbers for the different parts of the country. (I'm also giving the LCOE w/o subsidies.)

Zone 5 $0.097/kWh ..w/o.. $0.137/kWk
Zone 4 $0.92/kWh ..w/o.. $0.130/kWh
Zone 3 $0.83/kWh ..w/o.. $0.118/kWh

At 3% inflation the average cost of grid power is going to be $0.128/kWh over 20 years. Then there's the years of free.

The average US electricity price is $0.0983 In 23 states the price of electricity is $0.09 or more. If installations are really happening for $2.45/watt before subsidies and people can lock in at roughly what they are paying today then I would suggest that the only thing standing in the way of that stampede is that people just don't know.

--

My back of envelop calcs are not as sophisticated as Northern Piker's. I'm using this NREL page to calculate LCOE and assuming no operating costs.

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html

Bob Wallace
October 22, 2012

"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said on Thursday that if elected, he will ensure North American energy independence by 2020 by pursuing a sharp increase in production of oil and natural gas on federal lands and off the U.S. East Coast.
....
A Romney administration also would seek a North American energy partnership with Canada and Mexico, and it would allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas, which has been delayed by the Obama administration."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/23/us-usa-campaign-romney-idUSBRE87J0P020120823

Now, why Canada and Mexico would agree to sell to the US and to no one else, removing themselves from a lucrative world market would be hard to explain.

Perhaps if we started flying planes loaded with nuclear weapons over them? (That's a big tongue in cheek but, really, why would Canada and Mexico sign exclusive trade deals with the US?)

And how could we possibly bring significant new oil production on line in only seven years? All oil rigs are in service. It takes years to build new rigs. It takes years, a decade or more, to open new oil field, if we decide to drill the Arctic. And there's the resistance of conservative states such as Florida and Virginia for drilling off their coasts.

Romney is just shoveling stuff gifted to him by his dancing horse.

John Nistler
October 22, 2012

Just returned from the Philippines. Basically everyone there uses a simple stainless steel tank for solar hot water heating.

Finished a quote for the Philippines with a Capital and install return of investment including shipping from the USA at 6.8 years based on Meralco's average rates of 12 PHP or $0.29 cents per kWh. Now the cost includes shipping of product from the USA plus travel.

The average cost including capital, installation,travel and shipping to Philippines runs $2.45 per watt. Equivalent to the present quoted rooftop prices in California.

Solar PV is a fast moving product market, no different then other electronic markets. Worldwide installations will exceed 100% year over year growth in 2012. 75% in the USA. Costs continue to drop and efficiencies continue to increase. System efficiencies for DC to AC losses should not exceed 9%, if they do, then your system builder does not truly understand how solar power works.

A solar PV system incorporates optics, mechanics, electronics and software (even fixed systems should be monitored). Shadowing effects have to be considered for entire annual production and if a model does not use NASA's 22 year average insolation values, it is not a worthwhile model.

John DAngelo
October 22, 2012

Bob,

Great point about Romney, but I don't think he means energy independence the way you are thinking about it saying that we will energy independent of we just import oil from Mexico and Canada. Weird way to claim energy independence when we would be dependent on oil from other countries, same old, same old. I just read yesterday that Canada is the country we now get the most imported oil from and no longer Middle East. Who would have thought that, but no matter where we import oil from it still does not change the big picture that burning of fossil fuels is a terrible way to use our oil reservers.

Back to the most difficult issue facing the solar industry:

1. First time cost
2. Still misconceptions that they do not work especially solar hot water
3. They are still to "expensive"
4. First time cost

In all my years selling renewables people have the most trouble with the upfront costs. 3rd party leasing has gone a long way to solving that problem but once the tax credit expires then 3rd party leasing I predict will dry up and we will need yet another business model that will work. The good news is that if prices can keep falling then selling will become so much easier as well as financing because eventually one will be able to get a "solar loan" just as one gets a car loan today.

Daniel Ferra
October 22, 2012

m-simon
Nothern Piker said your numbers are wrong, John Nistler said you should educate your self, and Bob Wallace wrote out some impressive numbers, Grandpa said never kick a sore dog, so I wont respond to the rest of your comments.

Peter Chase
October 21, 2012

Bob,
If I use your numbers, I get 12.85 ¢/kWh, basically no difference. A 21% capacity factor translates to an annual output of 1.839 kWh(A-C)/W (24 x 365 x 0.21/ 1000). At 6% and a 25-year system life, payback is 12.7 years, or so, depending whether you calculate interest yearly, monthly or daily. So, $3/W /1.839 kWh/W/12.7 = 12.85 ¢/kWh.

I got over 21 ¢/kWh because of the numbers that I used.

I used a 9.5% interest rate based on PG&E's present ROE of 11% plus for 0.5% annual cell degradation minus 2% to accommodate an assumed annual electricity rate increase. At 9.5 %, the payback period for a 25-year loan would be 9.4 years. I assumed horizontal PV panels in southern California with a solar insolation of 1875 kW(D-C)/year/sq. meter and an panel output of 1,500 kW(A-C)/year/W. At $3/W (no subsidy), $3/W/1.5 kWh/W/9.4 = 21.28 ¢/kWh.

For the solar insolation, I used a number in the range of what I got from NREL's PVWatts calculator for LA, San Diego and Fresno. I assumed 20% D-C to A-C conversion loss. (NREL assumes a 23% figure and gives details for it site.)

In summary, your number (12.9¢) is 60.4% of my number (21.28¢) with the major factor being 74% (9.4/12.7) due to interest rates assumed and 81.6% (1.500/1.839) due to assumed panel outputs per watt. My interest rate assumption would be more typical of a commercial rather than a residential grid customer.

BTW, you could improve your number by assuming 6% financing using a residential mortgage, and an incremental 40% tax bracket. Then, 6% becomes 3.6% (after tax) + 0.5% (or whatever) for panel degradation and - 3% (or whatever) for future annual rate increases for an effective interest rate of 1.1% and a payback of 21.7 years. This would reduce your number by over 40% or so to around 7.5 ¢/kWh, which would undoubtedly cause m-simon no end of consternation. Throw in a 30 or 35 year life assumption and a 0.25% annual degradation assumption and apoplexy is a distinct possibility.

Bob Wallace
October 21, 2012

Romney is arguing that North America, not the US, could become energy self-sufficient. In other words, we could import our oil from Canada and Mexico.

Of course that's a bunch of bunk. Oil is an internationally traded commodity. If someone wants to pay Canada or Mexico more for their oil that we are offering then the oil will go elsewhere. We are locked into an international oil market. Oil will flow from those who have it to those who will pay the most for it.

The only thing that can truthfully be said is that if Canada ramps up production and Mexico's wells don't run dry the North America could produce as much as the US consumes. Our oil could still be shipped in from the Middle East or Africa.

Just another Romney pile of BS. Unfortunately an awful lot of voters have fallen for his "stuff".

John DAngelo
October 21, 2012

M-simon.

I fear that if Romney gets elected that the same thing that happened in the Reagan years will also happen in the Romney years. If he gets elected it will be a big set back for renewables. All tax credits will most likely never be renewed, more drilling than ever and yet I PROMISE prices on natural gas and gasoline will still go up. HE has ABSOLUTELY no control over gasoline prices, period. And of course if he starts a yet ANOTHER war which is HIGHLY LIKELY with Iran than I can GUARANTEE you the price of oil will go well past the$150 record. I also promise that he will not achieve "energy independence" during his 1st term or even his second term. How can you achieve energy independence if you will still be importing over 40% of our oil in even 10 years? He just does not "get it" like Obama does when it comes to energy independence. Him and his oil buddies can't stand renewables and only give "lip service" to it. Lets not forget the election is not decided by the PEOPLE, but by the electoral college and Romney can win the popular vote and still lose and vide versa of course. It will be over soon! No matter who wins renewable energy will continue to gain market share. Slowly but SURELY.

I see the only way to become "energy independent" as far as transportation goes is to switch as much to EV as possible, then use biofuels to provide what little fuel will be needed until ALL ICE are phased out in the world.

If my EV could get 200 miles I would run the heater full blast etc . Why? because with a 200 mile range the sacrifice in range almost becomes moot (maybe 20 miles) if you have that type of range in your EV. And yes you can store your EV in a heated garage, I can also preheat my EV before I get in it and you cannot normally do that in an ICE vehicle. Until you have owned an EV you will never know how great they really are and when you can charge an EV right form your excess PV electricity then it truly becomes a real joy.

Bob Wallace
October 21, 2012

There are companies already installing thermal storage for air conditioning. Water or salts are cooled/frozen using off-peak electricity and used in conjunction with heat pumps during peak hours.

Peter Chase
October 21, 2012

Electrical energy storage required when load-located solar PV begins to supply several percent of the total grid electricity will not be a big issue. I conclude this based on the seasonal variation in monthly electrical power generation from EIA.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8450

The cumulative triangular-shaped increase in coal- and gas-powered generation between early spring until late fall is about the same as the annual 500 billion kWh, or about 13% of the grid generation, consumption of electricity for residential and commercial air conditioning (A/C) and the shape somewhat coincides with A/C demand with a peak in mid-summer.

Yes, some energy storage will be needed but likely in the form of thermal storage. A reasonably well insulated building should provide most of the storage and additional thermal storage (ice cubes?) should not be that complex. Furthermore, peak daily A/C load will occur with peak daily solar radiation on the co-located PV panels.

Anyway, does anyone know of any studies that break down storage requirements for renewables based on specific end uses - air conditioning, water heating, space heating, washing & drying, server farms et al? At worse, one could fire up gas turbines as required.

Of course, if EV demand takes off ....

Bob Wallace
October 21, 2012

Northern, using today's price of 15.26 cents per kWh as a comparison is putting a thumb on the scale in favor of grid electricity. Over time the cost of electricity will, like everything else, go up.

If one assumes 3% average annual inflation over those 25 years the average price of grid electricity will be 21.6 cents per kWh.

--

And when I run a LCOE using $3/watt, 21% capacity factor (5.5 avg solar hours per day), 25 years, and 6% financing I get 12.9 cents.

I'm assuming your $3/watt price includes subsidies. If not, the price would be considerably lower.

That's a 40% discount on electricity.

John Nistler
October 21, 2012

m-simon, its obvious that you are against solar power. But you should educate yourself on how much electricity truly costs before making your wild claims. Note that spot prices would not be as high if more solar was installed in Texas.

There is not a single solar PPA being signed anywhere above $0.10 per kWh or $100 per MWh. Note that spot price went up this summer to $1354.42 per MWh and then dropped back to $98.23 per MWH. Solar is at par with spot prices not 6X. The lowest price recorded this year for spot price was $35 per MWH.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Demand-for-power-sets-another-record-3664905.php
Lewis didn't know at what price CPS sold its power, but day-ahead prices Tuesday rose as high as $1,354.42 for the hour ending at 5 p.m., according to ERCOT. Today's average will drop to $98.23 with the hourly price peaking at $346.57 in the day-ahead market.

ERCOT data indicates that prices for spot power peaked at almost $3,000 a megawatt hour Tuesday afternoon.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Demand-for-power-sets-another-record-3664905.php#ixzz29yYvOnsd

Peter Chase
October 21, 2012

"All that is needed to make solar work is to pay 6X for the electricity generated now and going down to 2.5X eventually>"

Where did you get these numbers? I run the numbers for solar PV in California - 1,800 kWh/yr./sq. meter, $3/watt installed cost, 25-year life and 11% ROI (same as PGE's current return on equity) and I get just over 21¢/kWh, or 40% over the residential state average of 15.26 ¢/kWh, and 28% less than PGE's latest tier 3 rate of 29.56 ¢/kWh. (Tier 4 and 5 residential rates are several cents higher.)

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_06_b

http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-1.pdf

Bob Wallace
October 21, 2012

I sure remember what happened after President Carter left office.

Reagan came in. He doubled the national debt.

Reagan stopped development of renewable energy.

Reagan convinced us that having too little regulation on our financial industry was a good thing.

Most of our problems today trace right back to Ronald Reagan.

Reagan's nitwit financial/regulation philosophies, and Nixon's "Southern Strategy" of using hate of other groups to win elections which continues to divide us.

---

EVs in cold weather? Plug them in. Pre-heat them using grid power.

In the very coldest parts of the nation that might mean providing places to plug in while at work/school. Or adding ethanol heaters like Volvo has done for its C30.

Do remember, once the vehicle starts operating the batteries give off heat which can be used for cabin heating.

--

On street parking will require on sidewalk outlets. About 40% of all parked cars lack a place to plug in.

We can pay for that infrastructure with a few weeks of the money we won't have to spend fighting another oil war.

M. SIMON
October 21, 2012

Anybody here remember the Carter years? And what happened after?

BTW is the 200 mile range being touted here applicable to Midwest winters with the heater running full blast? Or is it necessary to wear a hair shirt (to keep warm) to be a supporter of EVs?

What is the range at 32F? 0F? -20F? How well do they accept a charge at those temps? Or will on street parking become a thing of the past? Are heated garages included in the energy calculations? Will the garages need to be cooled in the summer?

Looked at in isolation all this tech looks wonderful. The systems view is not so rosy.

Do they still teach systems engineering to the general public? Oh? They never did? Well that explains everything.

M. SIMON
October 21, 2012

daniel-ferra,

Ah. Yes. All that is needed to make solar work is to pay 6X for the electricity generated now and going down to 2.5X eventually.

Just another case of the poor subsidizing the rich. Its for the ecology though.

If people are in love with solar so much why don't they just absorb the loss? Or wait until it is profitable?

The trouble with these schemes is that eventually you run out of OPM. It is easy to be a benefactor of mankind with OPM. The real benefactors of course do it with their own.

For over 100 years the remit of grid operators (under government supervision) was to lower the cost of electricity in order to spread its benefits more widely. And now we have a clamor to reduce those benefits by raising the price.

When people figure out that their electricity costs are going up due to AE (sooner or later they will) there will be another generation with animosity to AE. It has happened before. But history is of no use to those demanding utopia NOW.

The future is so dark I don't need to wear shades.

George Reynoldson
October 21, 2012

From a tax paying consumer's point of view after investment cost solar's biggest problem has been making the transition from technology to sexy and sporty. Is it now poised to build on its decades of INexperience at AESTHETICALLY integrating itself directly into OUR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC infrastructure (street lights, bridges, highways etc), our homes and commercial buildings (cladding, appliances, heating (passive and active)for grid avoiding on site electricity, and our transport vehicles, as in PV carport/garage charged EVs etc.

As always aesthetics will determine the standard by which our era will be judged in history. Buick in China and Apple everywhere are being handsomely rewarded for their aesthetic sensitivity. So why has solar failed so miserably at this?

Maybe this current production slowdown could be a blessing in disguise which might open up many opportunities in this area and light up the imagination of industrial designers of all types and persuasions who are believe like Amory Lovins does: "there is no box".

Bob Wallace
October 20, 2012

Some never will install solar, but we need to get a much larger portion to get it on. And quickly.

Getting into the solar installation business has a very low threshold. A general contractor has most of the skills needed already. The siting stuff can be picked up in a short time. Compare that to starting a wind farm company.

Once prices get well into grid parity range installation are likely to mushroom.

--

I mis-remembered the Leaf battery. It's 140 Wh/kg, not 120. Moving to a 200 Wh/kg battery would make it about a 120 mile range EV. The Electrovaya is 200 Wh/kg and being manufactured now.

(I was going with what is being manufactured now. Envia would be another big jump forward.)

--
Envia -

"Our proprietary nanocoating processes further enhance cycle life (>1000 at 100% DoD)."

" This anode will be ready for commercialization in 2012 and will complement Envia's high capacity cathode very well."

I'm pretty sure that Envia uses 80% remaining capacity as their minimum for cycle life measurements.

http://enviasystems.com/technology/

There's no reason to hold out for a 3,000 cycle battery. 1,000 cycles in a 200 mile range EV means a 200,000 mile battery life. And a lot more miles with less range.

Given that the average lifespan of US cars is about 130,000 miles there's no reason to shoot for anything higher than 1k cycles.

--

No, I need 4wd. None out yet. I'm not interested in the full-sized pickups/SUVs that are coming out. I do need more range than most and could be nicely served by a small 4wd pickup.

I've got a roughly 140 mile round trip to the grocery store. A Leaf, were it 4wd, wouldn't be enough unless I could get a L3 charge in town.

John DAngelo
October 20, 2012

No matter how "inexpensive" PV systems become some will never buy because they are happy and content to pay a monthly fee forever.

Bob,
You need to redo your math on energy density and range. If I am currently using a battery pack that is 100 kW/Kg and get a range of 60 miles on average and then I install a 400 kW/Kg battery pack that means I will go FOUR times the distance. (400 divided by 100 is 4 correct?) So that means that 4 times 60 will be 240 miles. I would be more than happy to get that type of range in my MiEV anyway. Of course I will then have to step up to a 240V charger and forget charging at 120 V for the most part.

Bob I bet you do not own an EV correct?

Last I read ENVIA was getting 500 cycles.Seems like they have been moving forward quite nicely if you claim that they have gotten over 1000 , 100% DOD cycles, but what was the battery capacity after 1000 cycles? . When they can get the cycle life to 3000 or more than it will be ready for the EV world.

Bob Wallace
October 20, 2012

I am watching Envia. They look very promising. Their batteries have now been tested past 1,000 100% DoD cycles. In a 200 mile range EV this makes them a 200k battery. No need to talk replacements.

I really like the fact that the third party testing that confirmed 400 Wh/kg was done in a US Navy lab.

Another battery to watch is Electrovaya. They are manufacturing a 200 Wh/kg battery. Chrysler tested them in their EVs but found that they heated up during rapid charging. They would probably require a liquid cooling system like is used in the Volt. 200 Wh/kg would get the Leaf from a "solid 75" to a "solid 125" mile range.

I think the first goal should be a 200 highway mile range EV. Holding range down to 200 miles would cut cost and vehicle weight.

If one could drive 200 miles and grab a couple of <20 minute 90% - 95% recharges they could do a 500 mile driving day with no more stops than what most would do with a gasmobile. That, to me, is the threshold of acceptability.

--

Aquion, to me, looks like the answer for "small grids", the sorts of solutions that are appearing in places where the grid doesn't reach. Solar has gotten cheaper than diesel. With a good storage solution billions of people living in small un-served communities could have a better power solution than a generator.

--

I'm seeing claims of $3.50/watt and $2.90/watt installed. No subsidies. I can't find a document that confirms these prices.

Yes, they would be the bottom end, but that's important to know. If someone can install for $3.50 or less than $3 then it won't be long until lots of people can.

I think the thing that would drive down the cost of solar the fastest would be to publicize the lowest prices. That, I think, would put tremendous pressure on other installers to reduce their prices.

John DAngelo
October 20, 2012

Bob,

Batteries - keep your eye on ENVIA systems. They have a LiON cell that has an energy density of 400 Wh/Kg. That is enough to get most 100% EV to about a 300 Mile range on one charge - todays typical range is 60-100 miles per charge. If all goes as planned their battery should be ready for the commercial market in 2-3 years or sooner. Tesla is already producing EVs with 240 Wh/Kg. ENVIA claims that their cost will be about $125/kWh. I for one is looking forward to swapping out my battery pack in my Mishibishi MiEV in a few years to triple my milage with a simple battery pack exchange. BTW I also just recently read of a company claiming 1200 Wh/Kg. Now that would blow away the gasoline car for sure (but that to me is a long shot). Aquion batteries may not be looking so good and at least ENVIA has cells you can SEE and are real. Aquion batteries not so much.

Installed cost per watt has indeed dropped, but less than $2.50 a watt is on the very low end. You have to add other expenses like sales commissions, marketing, office support, profit etc. and you will find that installed cost goes up closer to $4.00/ watt, still much cheaper than just a year ago.

The point we all seem to miss about solar electricity or solar thermal is that these systems last a LIFETIME (50 years), have virtual no maintenance and once paid for produce energy for free. With an oversized solar array on ones property one can use all the excess electricity to provide almost 100% of their transportation needs for free. Compare that to a LIFETIME of giving money to a utility company and a gas station. When are we going to "get it"?

We have to get it through our thick skulls that capturing free energy that is delivered to our living and working space that can give us 100% of our energy needs is best for us financially and environmentally period. The centralized is now DEAD, but will persist for some time.

John Nistler
October 20, 2012

I am not as familiar with Eastern or Western USA grid or Canadian grids. ERCOT (Texas) has NG peak generators for load leveling on almost every feeder grid. Thus any solar generated electricity just reduces the load on the grid helping to balance or stabilize while reducing utility costs.

The idea that you will idle baseline plants is just false. Austin Energy maintains a peak generator coal plant to handle electrical load during the summer. Highly inefficient and expensive to operate. Fuel surcharges to Austin Energy customers exceeded $300 per month during the summer. A residential solar installation would thus save Austin Energy customers up to $600 per month for up to 5 months out of the year and ~ $300 per month for the rest of the year. Without any rebates, this is a payoff period of 7 years or less. Essentially after installing your system - you have no electrical bill since state law requires that a utility take your excess solar generation.

Daniel Ferra
October 20, 2012

This Petition is asking the California Public Utility Commission to change the Feed in Tariff from 4 cents per kwh to 25 cents per kwh, scaling down to an eventual 10 cents per kwh, this would bring about a solar gold rush for our nation, state, county, and cities. If you would like to sign the petition go to Facebook, Daniel Ferra, Palm Springs Ca.

Daniel Ferra
October 20, 2012

Some of the most difficult solar issues facing California home owners. California law does not allow home owners to size their Solar systems larger than what they use.
In order to get the California Solar Initiative (CSI) rebate the customer is not allowed to install a system that inherently over produces
The Feed in Tariff can not be used if you receive a rebate from your Utility for Solar panels or if your participating in other Utility Solar incentives programs or the CSI, it also can not be used if you are receiving net metering.
AB 920 California Solar Surplus Act, net metering, pays 4 cents per kilowatt hour and getting paid one time a year.
Our FIT should mirror Germany and Japan, where residential FIT is 30 cents - 50 cents per kwh.
The 4 cents per kwh currently to be administered and the one time a year payment is not adequate and removes our own citizens from participating in our struggle to reduce green house gases, the California Public Utility commission can change the FIT to 25 cents per kwh, and distribute the solution to all tax paying citizens, who should not be deliberately handcuffed.
Ca. resident who purchase an electric vehicle can expect a 60% increase in there electric bill, research from a study done by Purdue University in summer of 2010
Residential home owners, should be allowed to participate in the State mandated goal, to achieve 33% renewable energy by 2020.
Due to these laws, we have automatically taken out over 8 million roof tops, that would generate over 11,500MW of power, thats 5 San Onofre nuclear power plants.
We need to let our tax paying, home owning citizens in on a Feed in Tariff that pays 25 cents per kwh.
In the spirit of Bill McKibben and 350.org for our children and eaarth, lets make real global sustaining changes for all of us.

Peter Chase
October 20, 2012

For loads primarily powered by solar PV, I believe the required amount of electrical energy storage, over and above the storage function that the grid can provide, depends on the nature of the end use of the electricity. A prime example of this is air conditioning, which would need a much lower proportion of electrical storage capacity to PV power than server farms.

Based on 2010 EIA data, US residential and commercial customers annually use about 500 million megawatt-hours, which is consistent with the seasonal increase in monthly power generation by coal and natural gas, generally attributed to air conditioning.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=EARLY2012?ject=0-EARLY2012&table=5-EARLY2012®ion=0-0&cases=full2011-d020911a,early2012-d121011b

From the EIA monthly power generation chart, it seems that distributed solar PV with minimal storage - mostly thermal and a bit electrical - will be the major long term solution to the peak A/C load that invariably occurs in the summer and on sunny days.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8450

Space heating and hot water heating (using heat pumps) are other candidate end uses for solar PV power with relatively low electrical storage needs. Washing and drying clothes on sunny days only, like our grandparents did, may be a tougher sell.

Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012

There are at least two studies that show installed solar contributes to higher resale value. At least one of them found that the system added more to the sale value than the system cost. Can't recall if the other was a net gain or break-even. The one that found a gain surveyed well over 1,000 sales, IIRC.

Clean coal isn't CO2 free coal. We have no affordable technology to strip CO2 from coal stacks.

Andy Kong
October 18, 2012

I did study on residential,collected data for full yr in AZ,here were learned:
- One system's inverter shut down twice without knowing by owner until I visited,leak of after sale service;
- The only system's owner had benefit since he was second shift engineer,used power in peak of sun all days;
- Not benefit from solar when sale house;
- Utility companies might not supporting solar,market is limited by truly solar believers even under good incentive program;
- system location was critical to performance.
Solar was so expensive that time,things already changed as above said,but I did not see much PV tech improvement so far.That's why I put residential as emergent market.
If gov keep tax deduction on solar,owner see solar as a PLUS to house value increasing like remodel basement,if still can sale back to grid in day time,then market will expend to larger population. Residential solar needs step-by-step, now market better focusing on "saving money" rather than "making money" to end users.
If utility companies refused fit back to grid,nature gas+fuel cells is another options now.
With storage options are comparable(battery vs.fuel cell),when high power PV tech developed,then turn into "making money".So solar DOES need Gov supporting in tech innovation now!

Solar industry is all about collect solar energy,covert to elect,apply into human life,donot limited as only PV modules but also including everyone who participate, It should call as Solar INDUSTRIES!and its market should be close to elect,not only utility.Issue is: can you make it work?
"Lower prices will do nicely." is right approach,Solar is alternative rather than renewable at all.Oil will keep high and clean coal is filtered coal,do not see reason how utility bills getting lower.
One way to increase jobs is to grow up new industries,old ones only willing to reduce even market remain,that's called "lean"!So develop new market!

Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012

John - I generally use LCOE numbers as they are free of subsidies and market forces. As you point out market prices can be depressed by oversupply. And pulled quite high when the most expensive supplies have to be sourced.

Click on the LCOE tab...
http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/

The LCOE for geothermal is running from 4 to 14 cents with a 6 cents/kWh median price.

Storage is the monster behind the curtain. If it turns out to be abundant and cheap as it looks like it will then the current grid gets a severe shaking. If you can take 5 cent wind and store it for a couple of pennies then things are going to change big time.

John Nistler
October 18, 2012

Hi Bob, I guess it all depends on where you get your numbers. We deal a lot with ERCOT and the spot price market, and so I guess that is where differences come in. In looking at average 24 hour prices, NG comes in around 3.2 to 3.8 cents per kWh. Wind comes in around 2.4 to 3.6 cents per kWh (primarily due to high production at night and not so many coastal installs), Solar comes in at 6.3 to 11.1 cents per kWh (depending on when the PPA was signed of if privately generated for own consumption).

I have no real numbers but I have heard geothermal in the 3.8 to 6.0 cents per kWh range.

Mawasfi, I guess it depends on where you are at. North Dakota, USA is now producing 18% of all power generated by wind and sales to the surrounding states. Texas produces 8% of power from wind and has a larger electrical grid then all of Europe. The big issue is storage capacity and methods of storage.

Mahmud Wasfi
October 18, 2012

I agree that we have to allocate more money for research work to raise the efficiency of solar cells. Today, through IEEE news, I heard that NREL has reached an efficiency of 18.2% with no anti-reflectors.But we are after reaching much more than such an efficiency. Oil and coal reserves will finish in about 40 and 100 years respectively, so the sooner we reach an efficient solar cells the better for humankind.Hydropower can be used only during the night as during the day, solar power can be used, so as to over the problem of energy storage. Wind power is very good, but it will never reach a level to substitute oil and coal in the future.

Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012

"The fossil fuel industry does not need propaganda to protect it. Lower prices will do nicely."

Gas is $4/gallon.

You can drive with electricity for "$1/gallon".

---

If you add in the health and environmental damage cost of coal it brings the actual cost of burning coal for electricity to about $0.20/kWh.

Wind is $0.05/kWh, geothermal is $0.09/kWh, solar is almost down to $0.10/kWh.

Natural gas is temporarily almost as cheap as wind at $0.06/kWh. Gas prices are expected to rise next year as we finish burning our way through the temporary supply glut.

Bob Wallace
October 18, 2012

m- The current US grid could convert as much as 5% of current supply to solar and not have to make any changes, add any storage or additional dispatchable generation.

And that's based on the condition of the grid a few years back. Since 2007 we've converted about 5% of our coal generation to natural gas and that NG generation is dispatchable. It probably means that we could use as much as 10% solar for our power supply.

You might want to take a look at the gas technology that GE has developed to work with wind and solar. The idea that we would have "idling power plants for 4 to 8 hours a day" is an idea that shouldn't even be brought up in knowledgeable company. Gas turbines go from full stop to full speed in less than 15 minutes. Hydro goes from zero to significant production almost instantly.

If subsidies bother you then you should really be bothered by fossil fuels and nuclear. Both have received massively more subsidy than have renewables. We've been subsidizing fossil fuels for a hundred years and the their prices keep rising. We've been subsidizing nuclear for half a century and it keeps on getting more expensive.

We've been subsidizing wind and solar for about 30 years. In the 1980s wind produced $0.30/kWh electricity. Now it produces $0.05/kWh electricity. Our subsidies have lower the price of wind 6x.

A few years before that solar was $50/watt. Now the latest spot prices for PV panels is $0.69/watt. That a 70x drop.

Some of our subsidies/investments have worked wonders. Our investments in fossil fuel and nuclear have failed.

Rich Hessler
October 18, 2012

M-simon, I'll agree with you if you rent your car, home, furniture and other personal belongings. Most people see the financial and personal benefits of independent ownership differently and critical if they ever have a need, desire or plan not to be forced to work to pay rising monthly expenses. Who knows, you could drop dead tomorrow.

M. SIMON
October 18, 2012

The fossil fuel industry does not need propaganda to protect it. Lower prices will do nicely.

M. SIMON
October 18, 2012

Bob Wallace,

As long as solar is under 1% of grid total power you are correct. I'm doing my best to keep it there. Above that hot backup is definitely required and above 20% grid stability is an issue.

But all that means is that solar is never going to supply significant energy to the grid until the storage problem is solved. And that means 24 hour storage because idling power plants for 4 to 8 hours a day is hard on the plants and not cost effective. Some one has to pay for the amortization of plants that were costed out at 24/7 operation.

BTW I learned about how the grid works from my Naval Nuke training. I think we need better nuke designs too.

I used to have stars in my eyes about this technology once upon a time. And then I dug deep. Renewables are a niche market without government subsidies. And I'm against ALL government subsidies. Solar will always be a niche market without cost effective storage and my hope for that - Beacon Power - has gone belly up. It will be interesting to see if the new owners can revive it. And their technology was only good for 15 minutes of storage - i.e. the power increment grid operators contract for.

John Nistler
October 18, 2012

Last night I attended the Austin Solar Happy Hour. The issue of capital financing or leasing still appears to be the number one reason for failure of adoption by the general public. Leasing has its issues as has been seen with the recent case against Suncity and Austin Energy and Austin City Council will not approve a lease setup in Austin, Texas.

In discussions with our financial groups, the one impediment associated with loans is the concept of "revolving capital". Aka, the average car loan is paid off in 5 years. Realistically roof top systems and even ground mounted full polar tracking systems with optical enhancement is no more expensive then a vehicle.

But the concept of loans that are paid off for your solar system in 5 years is not prevalent. It is our opinion, that financing would be readily available by providing first year capital depreciation and 5 year MACRS tax credits to homeowners. It would be easy for a homeowner to demonstrate to the financing group their tax base and the credits that would be received. By using the tax credits, the loan would be paid off in 3 years and the home owner would receive an additional 4 years in tax credits (7 years total) from MACRS credits or the entire loan could be paid off during the first year from the capital depreciation.

John Nistler
October 16, 2012

Bob, definitely something to keep an eye on. Northern Piker and Phil Manke have some very valid points. For the last few years we kept out of the residential market, primarily due to the fact that without a valid system that was cost effective, we honestly could not compete against roofing and construction companies who would just buy whatever was available at cheapest price independent of performance.

In my opinion there are five primary issues associated with residential systems. Capital, financing, low maintenance, high reliability and ease of installation (including obtaining a system/installer.) While these issues are important for industry and utilities, these groups are able to apply first year capital depreciation and the 5 year MACRS for solar tax credit.

Phil, I believe its the lack of tax credits for home owners being available which is the number one reason why residential systems are not as prevalent. Insist on having the tax code modified to include private individuals and home owners, then there will be a plethora of systems available for residential use.

Bob Wallace
October 14, 2012

John - keep an eye on Aquion batteries. They might have an end-user storage battery coming out soon. I'll paste my notes -

Aquion Energy - sodium ion ("salt water") batteries. Inexpensive materials. Activated carbon anode and a sodium- and manganese-based cathode.

Operate at room temperature. No self discharge or problems in high heat conditions.

Can be 100% discharged without damage.

High tolerance to battery mismatch.

100% recyclable.

Prototype cells with AHI technology show 5,000 cycles at over 50% DOD and >15,000 cycles following the Sandia National Lab "partial state of charge" rapid cycling protocol.

Target 20,000 cycles.

Third party testing >90% round trip efficiency.
Target >95% efficiency.

Tested for two calendar years so far with no loss of performance.
Target 20 years.

Target price less than $200/kW.

Lighter weight than lead acid batteries - cheaper shipping.

Going into production. Currently setting up factory in Pennsylvania. Expect to be manufacturing in 2013.

http://www.aquionenergy.com/applications/

John Nistler
October 14, 2012

Commercial storage using closed loop fuel cell systems is economically achievable now. But doubles the effective cost per kWh into the range of $0.12 to $0.17 per watt for 24 hour on demand solar power.

Residential storage is not viable at this time due to overall cost. Major cost reductions will require volume, not something achievable for residential systems even on the Island Nations, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

John Nistler
October 14, 2012

Bob, contact me at jnistler@yahoo.com in regards to the various quotes being provided. Most of our quotes these days no longer have us doing the install and are specific to our group of distributors who handle sales and install.

We are in the middle of a video representation (youtube presentation) and overall campaign to move the systems into major home repair retail outlets. God willing will be launched by January of 2013. Kind of behind due to the extended activities in the Philippines and Mexico. We will be continuing these efforts through out October and should have the additional testing including UV and Infrared accelerated testing of the new roofing approach by end of year. Presently cost per square of the underlying sealant layer is at $1.50 per square (all labor included) which saves $0.65 per square in roofing costs. Extension of this roofing underlying sealant layer with top coat (used on areas not covered by solar) to replace standard asphalt shingle or tile or address long term (20 plus year) flat or metal roof will bring overall roofing costs down ~ $0.25 to $0.40 per square.

Peter Chase
October 14, 2012

"Do you all represent large corporate interests?" You mean I should be getting paid for this? :-). Sorry, to disappoint you, but NO.

The rest of your post I generally agree with, which I paraphrase as "Why collect freely available,inherently distributed, solar energy in a central facility only to redistribute it and charge for it?"

Phil Manke
October 14, 2012

Do you all represent large corporate interests? It seems so. Or perhaps you pride yourselves in seeing the path for the world planners.
Of course, the world will benefit from all manner of clean energy, but I see the path that will be sustainable more for the average person/homeowner and small business. Distributed energy installations need support for cost effective installations. Large corporate interests do not need our planning or governemnt support, but many will certainly take it. Solar heat and electric is the way power production may be spread across the whole world without massive corporate interests and planners leveraging their markets with government support. The sun shines all over, freely.

Peter Chase
October 14, 2012

Derek Abbott from the University of Adelaide also views solar as the solution but using solar thermal and hydrogen. A link to his IEEE Proceedings article, 'Keeping the energy debate clean: How do we supply the world's energy needs?', which contains rationales for his conclusions,e.g., why not solar PV and the other offspring of solar - wind, wave, ..., follows. http://phoenixprojectfoundation.us/uploads/IEEE_Solar_Hydrogen_Paper.pdf

Bob Wallace
October 14, 2012

Add in wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, biogas, tidal and wave.

The world does not need to run on solar alone. The more varied the supply, the less we need to build transmission and storage.

We've already got HVDC transmission lines on the sea floor.

Mahmud Wasfi
October 14, 2012

Oil reserve will finish within the next about 40 years and Coal within about 100 years. As we know nuclear energy has many problems, so we have no choice, we have to depend on solar energy, the sooner we overcome the problem of solar power generation which is efficiency the better. At the moment solar cell's efficiency has almost reached 20% only because only small percentage of the solar spectrum can be converted into electrical power. In research work this efficiency has reached to about 42%. So more research has to be done to reach high efficiency with less cost.
The other problem is how to transmit electrical power generated by solar power from areas with high radiation to areas with with low solar radiation. This needs transmission across seas. On ground, HVDC transmission can be used, but at present technology, HVDC cables have shortcomings, high voltage wise and high power wise.

Peter Chase
October 14, 2012

Here is a continuation of details on my additional issues/topics:

• Point out that electrical storage will not generally be needed until solar represents several percent of a region's electrical power source; thermal storage for A/C and space and hot water heating will defer some of the need for electrical storage.
• Explore the synergism of the expected parallel in growth of solar PV power and EV battery charging needs.
• Point out the need for grid connection of EVs during the day for opportunistic charging from solar and other clean power sources and the provision of spinning reserve.
• Point out that dedicated electrical storage does not need to be with relatively expensive Li-ion batteries; stationary batteries should be ultimately much cheaper since they do not need to meet the environment constraints of EVs related to size, temperature, shock and vibration and they can also achieve economies of scale by serving more than one utility customer, i.e., a street, a neighborhood, a substation ... ; and, multi-customer electrical storage should be a profitable grid service.
• Standardized even-handed contracts for PV solar that can be understood by all parties
• Provide tools for financial institutions to evaluate the economics of end-user solar; a positive ROI should increase the mortgage headroom for a building purchase or re-financing; investing in solar PV should decrease housing walk-aways in tough times.
• Educate housing developers on how to make a house "solar ready" – a slanted (up to latitude) roof in a somewhat southerly direction (SE to SW), for some degree of self cleaning and improved year-round solar insolation, particularly in winter.
• Encourage developers to offer solar systems as an option for new houses. In a new development with many houses being built, there should be some economies of scale, which will provide mortgage headroom; oh yeah, address the nerdy lack of aesthetics of solar PV panels, it'll limit street-visible sales.

Peter Chase
October 14, 2012

Just to get back to the title of this article, a summary of top issues according to 8 solar industry execs is :
1. Vendor long term viability to ensure long term system support
2. Solar trade skirmish with China – it's a no-win situation
3. Overemphasis on panel cost is impacting the cost-quality balance
4. Market uncertainty due to a lack of consistency in government support
5. Uncertainty with a fragmented regime of incentives, taxes, licenses, and net metering laws
6. Fluctuation in demand caused by a variety of reasons – inconsistent government policy, etc.
7. Greater awareness of CSP's benefits and its wider adoption globally
8. The viability of solar despite some highly publicized company failures

I have my own laundry list of issues/topics that should be addressed:
• BOS costs
• The inevitability of solar
• Solar subsidies as "investments"
• Energy pay-back of solar and its impact on GHG emissions
• Need for electrical storage
• Synergism of solar power and EV charging needs.
• Grid connection of EVs during the day as well as night
• Electrical storage batteries
• Standardized contracts for PV solar
• Financial tools
• Education of building developers
• Encourage developers to offer solar systems for new houses

Here and in a following post are some details on my additional issues/topics;
• Reduced BOS costs; the comparison with German BOS costs is embarrassing.
• Emphasize the inevitability of solar whose cost will continue to decrease in the long term while that of tradition electricity sources will increase.
• Refer to solar PV subsidies as "(likely lucrative) investments"; the current 10 cent or so cost per kWh represents a couple of milli-cents per kWh over the whole customer base and will be dwarfed by the future savings of tens of milli-cents per kWh from solar PV installed 10 years from now and hundreds of milli-cents in 20 years.

Peter Chase
October 14, 2012

Bob & John, thank you for your comments on DC-to-AC losses, which is somewhat of a misnomer since bird droppings, for example, have a tenuous link, at best, with conversion losses. The NREL's breakdown of the individual contributors to their simplistic 77% DC-to-AC conversion loss is given here:

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/derate.cgi

Bob Wallace
October 14, 2012

John - have you figured out any way to document the $2.50/watt installed?

How about some invoices with the purchasers' names and street addresses blanked out? I'd love to have a number under $3/watt to use in another discussion I'm having.

John Nistler
October 14, 2012

@Northern Piker, in that case for a normal panel only installation without electronic or optical enhancement, the loss of power due to cosine angle and reflection off the glass should also be taken into account. This will drop the number down to 60 to 71% and for some panels as low as 46%.

Fraunhofer Institute in Hamburg did a study about 5 years ago where they bought the 200 Watt panels from various suppliers and looked at the flash test results versus actual real life performance, aka, a fixed installation all at the same location. The effective or production efficiency value ranged from 0.61 to 0.93 based on panel manufacturer.

It is important to evaluate the actual solar panel manufacturer. For example, most do not publish if they use 3.2 or 4.0 mm glass, if the glass is tempered. If tempered, to what degree. Do they use a anti-reflective coating. Is it a hard or polymer coating (very important when looking at overall system power performance). Are they using "smart" junction boxes which could mean they are either using a buck or a buck/boost dc to dc converter. And last, but very important, the characteristics of their diode protection. Believe it or not, some panel makers still do not use diode protection leaving the purchaser with the liability of the panel being back biased to the point of destroying solar cells.

Other factors not discussed is the type of testing done. UL testing for example does not include certain humidity or under water tests required for EC (european certification). Thus it is important to understand which IP, international protocal, tests are actually being ran. Another reason to go with a known system integrator, not just try to pick a solar panel based on cost only.

Bob Wallace
October 14, 2012

Most people wouldn't size their wire to loose more than 2 to 5% (generalizing from off the grid standards). And the only time you would loose that much would be when the panels were at maximum output. If you're using on-panel inverters then you're going to be shipping 120 vac with very little loss in modest size wire.

There's no transformer in the line unless you're thinking that the power will flow all the way back to the main grid which is unlikely. The power generated is most likely going to be used at the neighborhood level unless most of the houses have solar. It's avoided demand for the utility.

Dirt and birds are more like a 1% loss. That's based on a test set of panels outside of Tuscon which weren't washed for two years. Cleaning them off boosted output about 1%. And if that 1% dirt is there then it cuts the wire loss amount because it cuts peak output.

Peter Chase
October 14, 2012

I am aware of the DC-to-AC conversion efficiency of inverters but I used the 77% figure from the NREL PV Watts site. This figure includes inverter, transformer, diode and wiring loses as well as the effect of dirt and soiling, e.g., bird droppings. I believe Enphase uses an 81% systems figure in its literature.

As for tracking, I assumed none, i.e., fixed panels on a roof, appropriate for residential and small commercial installations.

Peter Chase
October 13, 2012

"The math just works so much better for end user installation."

Yes, both for the end user and the grid.

John Nistler
October 13, 2012

DC to AC conversion efficiency, inverter efficiency, is at 96.5% efficiency or better. The use of buck/boost DC to DC on each panel (residential) recovers 14 to 30% of power lost during cloud cover. Optical enhancement recovers and additional 30 % during cloud cover. Under bright sunny conditions, an additional 15 to 20% is picked up using the combination of electronic and optical enhancement.

The number of equivalent hours at peak power delivered on average daily is a major aspect of the cost per kWh. This is a factor of system efficiency and overall insolation. Thus moving a fixed installation from 3 eq hours at peak power to 6.5 hours or better shifts the cost per kWh down by over a factor of two and places your cost per kWh under 6 cents per kWh.

Basically, just like computers, solar PV systems are better then building yourself today. And just like with computers, a PV system improves every detail on a larger scale then individual installers achieve by putting together the pieces.

Bob Wallace
October 13, 2012

We're on route to pass 1/10th solar this year at the utility level. We fell just short during the first half of 2012 (0.09%). We more than doubled over 2011.

And end user solar is not included in that number, so we are clearly getting more than a tenth percent of our total electricity from solar already.

We need some system to measure end user solar. The EIA does not keep records. It's likely that we'll install much more at the end user level than at the wholesale/utility level over the next few years. The math just works so much better for end user installation.

Peter Chase
October 13, 2012

At $2.50/W installed cost, 6% financing, 25-year life, 77% DC-to-AC conversion loss and 1650 kW/m2/yr insolation, cost = 12¢/kWh.

Annual solar insolation in California is in the 1800 kWh/m2 range; ~7% to 10% more for a fixed tilt of 1-in-4 anywhere between the SE to the SW. Annual solar insolation in Kansas is in the 1700 kWh/m2 range.

Yes, electrical storage will become an issue but not at current levels of power generation - less than 1/10 percent of electricity generated in US. When it becomes an issue will vary depending on the power application - sooner for powering electronics; later for air conditioning and space and water heating, hopefully with a heat pump.

Air conditioning is an ideal application for residential PV. PV solar is a win-win in this case for the customer and the utility since it would avoid high TOU rates and reduce peak grid demand that invariably occurs on sunny days in the summer. On a cloudy summer day, A/C demand is relatively low and solar cells still provide some power from the diffuse light. Furthermore, it takes quite few sunless hours before a reasonably insulated house would heat up.

Bob Wallace
October 13, 2012

m-simon - your argument would have merit if our grid was mostly powered by solar. The variation in solar output is very minor as compared to normal grid variation.

Furthermore, solar is distributed. A passing cloud does not shade all panels on the grid at the same time, but moves from location to location. OTOH when a reactor goes down.

Grid parity is based on cost. Solar requires no more backup than does coal, gas or nuclear. Some storage/dispatchable generation is always needed to firm the grid. Changes in supply and demand come from a variety of sources. If solar is producing a lot then gas can be dialed back and we all save money.

E Fried
October 13, 2012

m-simon - I don't believe in the sincerity of this argument. It would be a deficit of solar energy if demand is constant, but it is not. Solar peaks at mid day which is perfectly in-line with the demand. So the real answer is the following:
What technology is cheaper following changing demand?
You cannot use a coal power plant for hefty load reductions, but you can use PV to do that. I also think that we should adapt the consumption behaviour. Power should be much cheaper in times when it is abundant.

M. SIMON
October 13, 2012

The most difficult problem facing solar is storage. Without it you have to keep fossil fuel plants on hot standby to make up for passing clouds.

Unfortunately even with the much touted "grid parity" without storage solar is not viable.

It does wonder me how few solar proponents understand how the grid operates. It doesn't matter if you can deliver 50 MW on average if that number goes to zero for 3 seconds over the averaging period. Without hot standby or storage that 3 second loss can take the grid down. Or at minimum causes stability problems.

Droops in voltage. Declines in frequency. Electrical grids are the largest rotating machineries in the world.

John Nistler
October 13, 2012

@Bob Wallace. Bob, here is NREL's official LCOE calculator http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html

We work with NREL and PVMC (DOE Consortium). Here are some of the basic faults we find with this model overall.

All insolation data should be based on NASA's 22 year average for latitude and longitude. This is the most accurate historical data for a specific location. For example, while Monterrey, Mexico produces quite well in August - Manila, Philippines - August and October are low months due to Monsoons. Only by using NASA data do you see this month to month variation. But the NREL model does not include actual insolation data from NASA.

Second is the degradation value in the model of 0.5% per year. Our systems block ultraviolet below 400 nm, but normal panels without optical enhancement do not. Thus the degradation of a system using our optical enhancement is on the order of 0.01% per year which changes the overall kWh production over a 25 year period.

Third, most solar fixed installations do not accurately take into account optical enhancement and the impact on actual production. The NREL model tries to address this using the capacity factor. Typical rooftop installations using only solar panels with no optical enhancement is on the order of 0.6 to 0.71 but depending on glass of panel can be as low as 0.46. Utilizing optical and per panel electronic enhancement raises this value up to 0.93%. Thus it is important to test overall system performance. Most installers never do this. Only when you buy complete systems from system manufacturers is this engineering cost already covered.

John Nistler
October 13, 2012

Hawkster, we are in relative agreement about costs after install. We deliver total systems, thus our profit includes adminstration, office, engineering, etc. The trick is to produce maximum power over the life of the system. Would you agree?

But I do question your jump to $4 per watt? If the installer is already making 40 cents per watt. Is this not the profit for the installer?

E Fried
October 13, 2012

Do the full SWOT. If panels are working stable for tens of years, invest your savings in PV! It's similar to owning some acre of productive land, you never loose the full value in times of crisis compared to spend the money on insurances and bonds...

Jay Lindberg
October 10, 2012

I hear all this talk about getting the cost of Solar installs down to the $2.50 per watt range so I thought I would just go over install costs for those not in the industry. Of course, these costs vary according to system size and location.

Engineering and Permitting 15 cents per watt
Racking system 40 cents per watt
Panels 85 cents per watt
Inverters 40 cents per watt
Install 40 cents per watt
additional electrical 15 cents per watt

Total $2.35 per watt

Some of you may be able to cut a few cents off some of these prices but that is it. Of course, if you include micro-inverters you add another 40 cents per watt and higher efficiency panels, an additional 15 cents for 260s or $1.00 a watt for Sunpower panels.

This includes no office support, marketing, sales or profit.

Advertising and sales in this industry is pretty much a minimum at 25 cents per watt in the present market, office costs and staff, minimum of 25 cents a watt and a profit margin of 10 percent is bare bones.

My point is that the $2.50 per watt install price is pretty hard to get to unless you are an installer putting solar on your own home or business, you are a licensed electrician and you are doing the work yourself.

Solar installs in today's market for a bare bones system on the roof is less that $4.00 per watt. Prepaid leases are from $2.60 to $1.80 per watt. Some companies are offering prepaid leases in the $1.20 per watt range but you should be aware that those leases are bundled and presently classified as non-performing securities.

Jay Lindberg
October 10, 2012

I hear all this talk about getting the cost of Solar installs down to the $2.50 per watt range so I thought I would just go over install costs for those not in the industry. Of course, these costs vary according to system size and location.

Engineering and Permitting 15 cents per watt
Racking system 40 cents per watt
Panels 85 cents per watt
Inverters 40 cents per watt
Install 40 cents per watt
additional electrical 15 cents per watt

Total $2.35 per watt

Some of you may be able to cut a few cents off some of these prices but that is it. Of course, if you include micro-inverters you add another 40 cents per watt and higher efficiency panels, an additional 15 cents for 260s or $1.00 a watt for Sunpower panels.

This includes no office support, marketing, sales or profit.

Advertising and sales in this industry is pretty much a minimum at 25 cents per watt in the present market, office costs and staff, minimum of 25 cents a watt and a profit margin of 10 percent is bare bones.

My point is that the $2.50 per watt install price is pretty hard to get to unless you are an installer putting solar on your own home or business, you are a licensed electrician and you are doing the work yourself.

Solar installs in today's market for a bare bones system on the roof is less that $4.00 per watt. Prepaid leases are from $2.60 to $1.80 per watt. Some companies are offering prepaid leases in the $1.20 per watt range but you should be aware that those leases are bundled and presently classified as non-performing securities.

Bob Wallace
October 10, 2012

Not a 'reviewed by peers', but something publicly available.

Solar Buzz used to do quarterly reports on averages for solar but they quit doing that in March.

Right now most people believe that solar is too expensive for them to consider. If you and other are actually installing solar system for roughly $2.50/watt - just plain dollars to you when the job is done, no subsidies, extra fees, bid low/run over - it would seem worthwhile to make that public.

In California, where people are paying well over 10 cents per kWh for their electricity, $2.45/watt plus federal and state subsidies would give someone electricity for less than 8 cents per. And it would lock those prices down for 20 years as others watch their utility bill rise.

John Nistler
October 10, 2012

Hi Bob,
There was a recent Orlando, Florida solar show, I will have to look through it to see if there is an official publication reviewed by peers which is what I believe you are looking for. I do not include FIT or tax credits in my discussions. Too many things going on around the world. Would rather compare apples to apples.

In utilizing optical enhancement techniques, not concentrating techniques, fixed installations see a system conversion efficiency of 0.91 based on the removal of Ultraviolet from the spectrum, reduction of infrared and increased transmission in the visible, useful range. Our quoted installed price for these systems is $2.18 USD installed, USA. The full polar, optically enhanced tracking system is $3.25 per watt. Improved efficiency on solar panels will continue to bring down overall system costs.

The insolation for a given area is important based on 22 year NASA average. This defines the actual output delivered on a monthly basis which does change depending on latitude and longitude. Increasing the overall efficiency for fixed systems from 0.60 - 0.71 to 0.91 +0.02 makes a big difference in the equivalent hours at peak power generated, aka, the kWh production. A very important factor in figuring the cost per kWh.

Sumit Mathur
October 10, 2012

Being a Solar Industry Professional myself,I believe the challenges are different in different geographic regions.
While US Solar industry is facing uncertainties in policy framework and lack of consistency in the commitments given by both parties, Middle East (especially Saudi arabia) is facing an internal tussle for & against renewable industries in general.
The oil rich nation has been dominating the world economics with its oil-power.A push to the RE industry,which in today's times could mean industrial growth,jobs and prosperity to not just KSA itself but to the plethora of Project developers, EPC, Consulting and product distribution companies who are flocking KSA from around the globe post KACARE's mega announcements earlier this year.Would this reduce the world dependency on oil in the long run leading to reduction in the dominance of oil rich countries, is a debatable question.
For India, a sound policy framework under JNNSM programme worked well for initial two years and got the world excited but the execution of the bidding phases , with lack of controls to avoid bogus bidding actual made this program look a failure after two rounds under Phase -1
For Europe, economic crisis is leading to a retrograde step of slashing of feed-in tariffs or evolution/promotion of complex mechanism of availing benefits for utilization of RE has actually had the cooling effect on the only rising industry in the otherwise bad economic situation.And this has resulted in hordes of European companies making a beeline for Saudi arabia and India.

Does this strengthen Saudi Arabia's confidence of holding the reins of the world energy(surprisingly by talking much but doing little in favour of Renewable energy) is again something to be seen.As for India,corruption is killing its programs.

China is suffering from overproduction,lack of credibility and localization barriers.

P.S:I can be reached on mat_sumit@yahoo.com
http://sa.linkedin.com/pub/sumit-mathur/5/686/b2

Bob Wallace
October 10, 2012

John, I didn't state any numbers. Don't know what your 2x refers to.

What I'm looking for is some place that I can point people if I say that you can get solar installed for $2.45/watt - whatever. Where is there a report that one can use as an authoritative source?

If I state in a comment that "the average cost in California is $2.45/watt" I want to be able to back that up when I am (and I will be) called a liar.

$2.45 and five hours avg sunshine is roughly 12 cents per kWh. Not a bad figure when you consider that's locked down for the 20 year payoff. And then there are decades of free electricity following.

If you're not including the 30% federal subsidy then the LCOE drops to a bit over 8 cents - which would be very attractive.

ANONYMOUS
October 10, 2012

John Nistler: Even if your rooftop systems were $2.45/w installed, that is for fixed panels not tracking. If fixed, then you must use 1500-1650 sun-hrs per year and the average cost is still in the 12-15 cent range (at best).

BTW, if you assumed federal or state credits in your price, then those numbers to not reflect the economic reality for society and that is the real cost.

Can you reference a government (or any credible) study for the average installed cost for California homeowners?

I'm aware panels are less than $1/watt, and I know the numbers change quickly, but I did discuss my assumptions with solar project managers of a large public utility about 3 weeks ago and they agreed my assumptions were accurate/reasonable.

John Nistler
October 10, 2012

Post 29. The average cost of install in California is $2.45 per watt today. Our cost is $2.18 for roof top install. The average retail cost per watt (small buyers) for solar panels in 2011 was $2.15 today it is $1.15. In looking at EIA reports you need to keep in mind that the data collected can be up to two years old. In a fast moving industry, if the data being used is over 1 year old, it is outdated.

Bob, not sure what you need to claim the numbers are reliable. We go through them everyday. You can claim what you want, but your numbers are 2X reality. Anything higher then this, and you can not sale your solar PV systems.

John Nistler
www.psida.webs.com

ANONYMOUS
October 10, 2012

john-nistler: The Dept of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) published a recent report stating the cost of Solar PV is 12 to 25 cents/kwh in the US.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2011:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

The 12 cent figure also agrees with my calculation which assumes:
$2.95/w installed (Single axis tracking) + 1.5% annual O&M, 6.5% cost of capital (Typical of US utilities), 2200 sun-hour/year (Southern Arizona), 50 year system life.

And since solar is intermittent, it must compete with the marginal operating cost of traditional plants, which is 2-4 cents/kwh.

Perhaps the most difficult issue facing the solar industry is not the high cost, but that many of the supporters are in denial about the real cost.

Bob Wallace
October 9, 2012

Gescher - I don't think that storage has a role to play when it comes to increasing the rate of solar installation. Unless/until solar gets into the 5 cents per kWh range.

Solar, closer to 10 cents is probably not going to get built beyond the grid's ability to use it as generated. Stored renewable electricity is more likely to come from wind generation, especially with wind starting to drop below 5 cents.

Bob Wallace
October 9, 2012

John -

" As stated in one post, there are many who still believe that solar power installation is in the USD$0.12 to $0.14 per kWh range. A totally wrong value. Actual costs are 1/2 and less of these numbers and dropping continuously."

Where can one find reliable numbers to support that claim?

Rajan Varadha
October 9, 2012

I have just been involved in studying adoption of RE by small and medium industries in one of the industrialized states of India. The penetration at individual units level was very low. Every one was relying on central grid that has 20% transmission losses and is broke financially providing a supply of less than 80% requirements. When I analyzed as to why more units were not adopting RE, I found the reason was -Financial Engineering. The solution was being offered as a capital equipment instead of as EMI. I have now arranged for it to happen. My view is the RE industry should go for Distributed Generation of 25% requirement of most industrial and service business units. In this way, the economics of the industry will be endorsed at the ground level. RE must help other businessmen to make more money- not just for their own industry.
If this principle is kept in mind, it can succeed. After all the only input is capital cost- there is no cost of generation- so it is question of annualizing the capital cost via effective EMI. The argument has to won on economic benefits.

John Nistler
October 9, 2012

Education is an important factor. There are still mindsets out there based on looking at solar power two or three years ago versus the relative cost today. The solar power industry requires leaders who realize that it is a fast paced semiconductor and electronics based industry no different then cell phones regarding cost reductions and marketing implementation. As stated in one post, there are many who still believe that solar power installation is in the USD$0.12 to $0.14 per kWh range. A totally wrong value. Actual costs are 1/2 and less of these numbers and dropping continuously.

John Nistler
President/CEO
www.psida.webs.com

Anumakonda Jagadeesh
October 9, 2012

Main issue facing solar industry is the low efficiency of solar cells which shoots up the generation cost of solar power. Unless solar cell efficiency goes up solar PV is still a far cry in developing countries. The fantastic research on solar cells in some countries like Germany,US,Japan etc., gives hope that soon more efficient solar cells will emerge in the market reducing the cost of generation of solar power.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

ANONYMOUS
October 8, 2012

To comment 22, it is election year, China always be the star...do not be too serious about,everyone play its role in this show.

ANONYMOUS
October 6, 2012

I'm confused. Your editors consistently report Chinese firms dominate the top tiers of the solar PV industry - yet (looming trade war notwithstanding) - I NEVER see quotes from the movers and shakers in the industry. Language issues?

Gustav Escher
October 6, 2012

I agree with 19 & 20 that PR, lobbying and public support are key to moving solar energy forward; they are necessary, but not sufficient, IMHO. Look, the energy industry in the US is huge and has many, many friends. It's not just the oil patch states or the oil/gas cartel. Think about the drillers, equipment manufacturers, shipping companies, and the army of professionals who work for these entities. If solar can't make a reasonably competitive product, no amount of public enthusiasm will help, and this nascient industry doesn't yet have enough money to compete on K Street (lobbyists & $). To become competitive, we need to be able to store solar electricity cheaply, but I repeat myself...

Ron Kenedi
October 6, 2012

Solar power has a 90% approval rating by the general population and yet we do not have a viable, national grass roots movement. Many problems facing the industry today can be solved if the grass roots shows this strong public support for the technology and the industry. Good Public policy and industry viability will prosper when solar hears the voices of the end user and supporters as clear as it now hears the manufacturers and a small select group.

Join Solar Freedom Now!! Help create the new grass roots movement.

ANONYMOUS
October 6, 2012

Hi there, LET'S GET POLITICIANS CONVINCED! Assuming what's going on all around the world with solar (renewables) in my opinion the most difficult issue and challenge is to overcome the dramatical influence the fossil-nuclear industry is exerting on political leaders. Therefore I suggest to put all our power and money into PR and Lobbying for some 2 or 3 years and the whole thing will then be runnig on itself. Why? Because public will, ressources, technologies, economic!! and environmental advantages are existing already abundantly.

Gustav Escher
October 5, 2012

Folks - Lots of good ideas but too much philosophy. It's all about STORAGE. As Commentator #2 above said, Solar 'is competing with the marginal operating costs of the traditional power plants which is currently as low as 3 cents per kWh.' The industry needs to develop a cost-effective way to store large amounts of electricity. Voila !

Ruth Cooper
October 4, 2012

Back to the question of "What is the Most Difficult Issue Facing the Solar Industry?"

I propose the following based on my experience within the fledgling industry here in Ontario, Canada, with recent exposure to discussion surrounding inclusion of solar as a technology within the Community Feed-in Tariff program in Nova Scotia.

For grid tied systems, the key challenges seem to be aging infrastructure, integration of distributed & variable generators into the larger grid, lack of unified permitting & interconnection standards, and lack of suitable financing mechanisms.

In general, there is a lack of unified system installation standards (structural & electrical), trained installers, and training facilities ... but these are coming along, albeit a bit late in the game.

For off-grid installations, storage and accurate assessment, and reduction, of consumption are the primary challenges, which become financing challenges when the need for storage and generation are large.

In Nova Scotia, I learned that there are logistical challenges surrounding delivery of system components (e.g., solar modules, inverters, BOS); they are at the end of the supply line when procuring product from either Ontario or the US.

Last but not least is the challenge of balancing the grid; what to with excess generation when a particular region has vast resources (i.e., wind & solar) but limited demand. In the Atlantic provinces (Canada), a comprehensive inter-provincial initiative is underway with hopes to export renewable energy-based electricity into the New England states.

Hopefully all challenges will be overcome in due course, as this is a free source of energy for both electricity generation and heating / cooling; it would truly be a shame if we chose to regress back to our reliance on environmentally damaging non-renewables due to these minor challenges.

Dennis Houghton
October 4, 2012

Comment #12
"Off-grid is still an excellent market for solar PV."
Absolutely true. For years we had to prove through engineering cost proposals that a PV/battery storage system was less expensive than a utility grid extension for our modular environmental instrumentation packages. Ten years ago a rule of thumb was that if the existing grid was <1 mile then the solar PV alternative was too expensive. Today it is about 1/8 mile and two poles with no right-of-way issues. Reliability and performance have been widely proven. US made modules at <$1.50/W have changed everything.
Off-grid used to be the domain of somebody's hippie uncle. What goes around, comes around except now it is more often utility independence as the primary motivator, even among industrial and scientific system users.

ANONYMOUS
October 2, 2012

My major question is- Who is the market and who is in control. Solar energy is here and growing, But, who has the power? We are seeing a shift from stand alone systems to grid tied. With the grid tie often being the controlling issue (limitations on size, connection etc). Some electricity (power) monopolies want to have everything, some want nothing (often in the same company). Even with RPS some monopolies go bargain hunting outside their service area, ignoring solar energy providers in their backyard.
Systems coming on grid are currently getting bigger and bigger leading to more centralization.
But solar by its very nature tends to be more democratic.
This power/control conflict may take time to resolve.

ANONYMOUS
October 2, 2012

Commentor 13: Haiti's problem is corruption not capitalism. Corruption unfortunately affects BOTH government and industry.

Corruption effects both parties when special industry groups lobby government to pass laws which have the effect of directing wealth from the masses to a concentrated group (themselves). Such groups, in turn, provide financial support to candidates who will continue to promote those special industry favors.

Can you think of any such industry groups?

pierre vincent
October 1, 2012

commenter 12 - as if the oil and coal industries thrive because of a 'free market' - what a joke, they are very heavily subisdized by the state, in fact, together they have become the central controller of the world's economy. There IS no free market.

'Lift nations our of poverty' are you ever naive: indonesia and haiti are truly capitalistic countries.

ANONYMOUS
October 1, 2012

To Commentor 10: Free market capitalism has far and away been the best financial system to lift nations out of poverty. Even China figured that out!

Capitalism might not be perfect, but nothing kills an economy faster than central planners, price controls, and market distorting tariffs and subsidies.

Solar must strive to be competitive without the 30% federal subsidy, NET metering laws, and utility mandates. Off-grid is still an excellent market for solar PV.

Andy Kong
September 30, 2012

"mature enough" sounds "old","no need creative","no need break through" to me,it is far away to small/growing industry like solar,otherwise we will be end soon.
It really need gov supporting due to its relative longer develop cycles to prove profitable,because most investors could not wait that long to go IPO then turned into "short-cut" solutions,trying to run before can walk.Actually gov did good job to rise up solar,I remember yrs ago SPI only about 500 people but right now?I believe in balance,solar needs gov help but can not depend on forever!eventually needs to prove profitable to end-user.I hope politicians will argue about how to help/guide/improve solar become a healthy industry rather than use it to attack one to another!
I have to step upfront to againest this:"The USA could get out of its energy and economic crisis with solar energy alone"!It is arrogant,"win-win" solution is the only way out I believe.
Industry was dreaming about reach $1/Wp and now made/over it just for few yrs.Near soon scale systems can make money if designed properly,but need guarantee its durability/performance as promised.I understand why US PV companies shaking out from this market,but please keep eye on new rapidly growing ones.
Everyone could win if we work it right!

ANONYMOUS
September 30, 2012

to commentor 8, the United States of America does not have too many choices with $15 Trillion dollars in debt, to do nothing may have been the case after WWII when the economic boom was at its peak in the USA, and we all know that "THE FREE MARKET' (free to do whatever except making the economy prosper) economy forces have failed us all, and the ghost of communism is dead now. every country must look for the answers to their problems, renewable energy promotion policies have worked worked for Germany and Nordic European countries, and have brought 'prosperity' freeing resources for their economies to invest in other needs. as you said it, the market of crony capitalism is what has flourished and not the real forces of capitalism, the true competition that will make the markets move forward, that's why American and European companies should not complain when Chinese solar companies invade the market with 'cheaper' solar panels of relatively good quality as i said before.

Jay Lindberg
September 30, 2012

The most important concern I have with the Solar market is predatory marketing strategy of Solarcity. It is common knowledge in the industry that Solarcity is marketing its systems at a break even or loss to consolidate market share and boost value in the pursuit of a public offering.

Parts of their marketing and prices strategies are bordering on illegal. The last thing we need is a few corporate giants to dominate this industry. It's not good for this country or the industry.

ANONYMOUS
September 29, 2012

To commentors 6&7: Pushing an alternative energy (or any technology) when free market forces are saying 'no' is a classic mistake of well meaning central planners. This is exactly what communist governments do and a big part of why they fail and the citizens end up poor.

There is no guarantee that solar is the correct solution. That is your assumption, and as well meaning as you are, you might be wrong.

When companies make mistakes they lose money and correct themselves or go out of business, but when government central planners make mistakes it can go on for years or decades, causing a lot of damage to the economy, making people poorer or even killing them (read about Chairman Mao's great ideas for China)

As tempting as it might be to look to government to override market forces and "do the right thing" it is too often wrong and an invitation for crony capitalism to flourish.

I believe it is far safer to maintain a separation between government and industry. Government regulates and industry produces. Government referees and industry plays. Separation, just like in a football game. But hopefully with better refs than those used by the NFL recently

ANONYMOUS
September 29, 2012

i think that the technology is mature enough and has come to the point of big scale deployment in the housing industry, more participation of the government is needed, with FIT tariff and price control, unfortunately the government must step in to do price control, there are way too many unscrupulous installers gauging and ripping people off with thousands of dollars for a few Watt peaks of solar, and this does not make it attractive for anybody. The market is flooded with products but not all of them are of the best quality, and the prices are still high in the USA. China is doing better in its own market because they have really flooded the Asian market with cheap components and of relatively good quality. Europeans and Americans are putting barriers on Chinese solar for no good reason, there are not protecting jobs, because it is still expensive and not a whole lot of people are installing solar. Energy storage solutions the big hurdle in the industry is becoming better and bigger bringing the technology to the point where it needs too be, big solar capacity and big energy storage capacity. In Japan companies like Panasonic and Kyocera are leading the way in energy storage and management solutions with MWhs of storage. The USA could get out of its energy and economic crisis with solar energy alone, but has not done so, at the expense of consumers who are paying the price for gas and oil, electric mobility is another topic that will help the USA to get out of the crisis and its oil dependency, but we all know who makes the decisions.

Shreeram Shrivastava
September 29, 2012

Solar Power adoption on a larger scale requires an integrated approach with support from Federal and State Governments, and availability of low interest financing for 10 year term. Financial incentives vary across America. California, New Jersey and Oregon are setting good example to follow. Solar offers great opportunity for creating distributed generation in the communities that have remote net metering similar to New York State. Energy storage is not an issue for grid connected systems, and power generation during day time has an advantage of helping the grid under high demand periods. We need more Leaders to support investments in solar energy at or near the points of consumption and allow offset of the energy generated by consumer against their own use over an year.
Ram Shrivastava

John Nistler
September 29, 2012

Solar power has two detriments in regards to power generation. The daily output can very. And the yearly output varies by month primarily due to cloudy days or diffuse light. CPV can not address this due to the low direct normal incidence factor. Approaches related to non-imaging optics needs to be applied. While it is demonstrated that diffuse light can be moved to the solar junction by non-imaging optical approaches, the wavelength or frequency shift associated with cloud cover needs to be taken into account. Thus there are two predominant factors for solar PV electricity generation. Effective storage at reasonable cost. Something already accomplished by our closed loop fuel cell system. The second factor is more difficult, that of moving to multi-junction effective cost, higher efficiency solar panels with band gaps that allow a wider range of solar spectrum capture. This is doable, the demonstration has already occurred in the laboratory.

Andy Kong
September 28, 2012

My thought the difficult issue is:how to transfer from policy drive into market drive,let people making money.I saw PV industry as following periods:PhaseI-Incubatoring by early companies, including oil(BP, Shell),deliveried current c-Si module design and thin film techs(a-Si,CIGS,CdTe..) with yrs field data proven;PhaseII-Booming by politics under both energy and economic crises,many investors/funds involved by two steps:1.let Chinese companies to mass productions in order to pull down cost below $1/Wp, it succeed.Step2:increasing cell effiency much higher to reduce the warrenty period at low cost,from TF or new teches,then its market will continuely increasing within commerical market and emergency market in residencial in US.This is the difficult issue:new technology to toward step2. PhaseIII - PV market healthy growing become a profitable industry without politics influenced. PV is not againest oil/coal at all,instead,it will help those industry become more profitable. Sun is source of all resources,and is FREE!it will always as alternative energy resource still need traditional power sources for the night,and needs storage...market will wave out and more jobs will be created! The new tech in step2 would not move to China because of its really 'high tech',donot you see ever First Solar put line over there? With higher power and shorter warrenty,the develop cycle is shorter to delivery right products into market without waiting for 25 yrs.Then investors will believe what it promised and willing to support with shorter payback cycle. With energy network is buidling up,utility companies maybe change,specially natural gas is much cheaper,or by my another favor:fuel cell. This industry shaking seems a regulation between those 2 steps,Who can overcome this difficult issue,will take its advantages! Wise investors should focus on much higher effiency teches(AHAP) and its reliability.

Nand Purohit
September 28, 2012

I think the biggest challenge is the rapidly evolving technology itself; this does not give any comfort to tech firms starting manufacture of modules based on particular technology, as they might be uprooted by cheaper and better modules even before commercial production starts!
The second big challenge is that there has been no concomitant reduction in BOS Costs, including that of inverters and to an extent of trackers.
The third big challenge is very costly storage options. Batteries are way too costly and the peak requirements, say in a developing country like India are actually in the evening as the proportion of HVAC load %age is rather small.

ANONYMOUS
September 28, 2012

I think the biggest challenge is reducing the installed cost. Since PV is intermittent (non-dispatchable), it is competing with the marginal operating costs of the traditional power plants which is currently as low as 3 cents per kWh. PV is still at about 12-14 cents, so it has a long way to go. Reaching the cost targets will require much lower costs in all the installed cost categories; panels, inverters, mounting structure, labor, etc.

It's a big challenge but the progress has been remarkable in the last decade. PV would get a big boost if a low cost means of storing the power were available so the intermittent PV power could compete against the LCOE of the traditional plants rather than their marginal cost. A demand adaptive grid would also serve a similar purpose.

Rich Hessler
September 27, 2012

I think the misconception propaganda is going to escalate to protect the fossil fuel industry stakeholders and our financial system.

Time for a new pair of shoes.

I'm encouraged by the feedback that when business owners and families are given the opportunity to learn more about solar energy face-to-face with an educated salesperson, they are hungry to learn more so they can decide from themselves.

Rolling out 100% renewable energy could be our next inspiring national mission because rocket ship technology and the space station only hold 7 and Mitt Romney already bought his seat.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Create an Account!

Sign-In

Renewable Energy World Editors
Renewable Energy World's network editors help deliver the most comprehensive news coverage of the renewable energy industries. Based in the U.S. and the UK, the team is comprised of editors from Pennwell Corporation's myriad of publications...

About

Articles

Contact

FOLLOW

CONTACT

Stay Connected

To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13

Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems

Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”

Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy

Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

4

California Energy Storage Plan May Require $3 Billion Investment

4

Women in Power – It’s a Natural Fit

4

Renewable Energy in Myanmar: Not Just Clean, It’s Necessary

3

Big Apple Anticipates Solar Explosion for 2013