Cheaper Solar Power Coming Soon

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,576
Solar power production is getting ready to get a lot cheaper thanks to development of organic solar cells. Researchers have managed to increase the efficiency and improve the manufacturing process of organic solar cells so they are now market ready. They say the new cells can produce power for 7 cents per kilowatt-hour and in the near future they expect to increase efficiency even more and further reduce that cost. I think the day is finally arriving where those of us in sunny areas can actually afford to go mostly solar.

At 15 percent efficiency and given a 20-year lifetime, researchers estimate organic solar cells could produce electricity at a cost of less than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour. In comparison, the average cost of electricity in the US was 10.5 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2017, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
 
And yet I'm sure we'll still see many arguing that solar "isn't viable" and "can't compete," and so we'd better just keep burning fossil fuels (and the environment be damned!).

Remember kids: "The environment" is just a hippie plot to derail the economy!
 
Honestly in sunny areas solar is already affordable and can pay for itself in just a few years time.

Solar is an exponential technology and is decreasing in cost rapidly. Organic solar cells are just the next step.
 
7 cents per kwh? That makes no sense unless you're either a) leasing, or b) they count the entire life of the solar cell in which case 7 cents per kwh isn't really anything to write home about, you can easily find solar panels for $1/watt which means after about 14 years or so the net cost ends up being 7c per kwh. So ummm what's new again?

Labor to install is what absolutely kills solar power in most cases, if you are handy enough to do all the work yourself then it's great, if not, multiply your materials cost by 3
 
This article seems like B.S. propaganda quite frankly. If you click and read the source is University of Michigan. How the hell are they "ready for market?" Is the University going to start selling solar panels?


This doesn't smell right.
 
sfsuphysics said:
7 cents per kwh? That makes no sense unless you're either a) leasing, or b) they count the entire life of the solar cell in which case 7 cents per kwh isn't really anything to write home about, you can easily find solar panels for $1/watt which means after about 14 years or so the net cost ends up being 7c per kwh. So ummm what's new again?

Labor to install is what absolutely kills solar power in most cases, if you are handy enough to do all the work yourself then it's great, if not, multiply your materials cost by 3
Click to expand...

Read the article. The math is likely very much the same as for current solar panels. Because what they are announcing is that they have reached efficiency parity with non-orgnaic panels. They are also announcing that they have improvied the manufacturing technique. Probably not as cheap as inorganic panels, but at worst, something that is at least scalable to similar demand. Because....

As you pointed out installation sucks. Organic would be able to be be applied to curved surfaces. It's flexible and able to be produced as rolls. One of the reasons it is attractive is that it is poised to reduce isntallation labor by a good bit as well as open up more surfaces to be solar accessible. This addresses your pertinent warning about labor costs for solar.



Verge said:
This article seems like B.S. propaganda quite frankly. If you click and read the source is University of Michigan. How the hell are they "ready for market?" Is the University going to start selling solar panels?


This doesn't smell right.
Click to expand...

Ready for market likely jsut means that they have efficiency and scalability that would support a market roll out. They likely hold IP on both the panel technology as well as the manufacturing method and want real businesses to start using it.
 
For the entire house, solar isn't there yet. But no reason why all the 'just to see' lighting shouldn't be low voltage LED powered off a 12 or 24v battery bank recharged by solar panels. Probably could include things like LED TVs, media players, etc as well if some mfg would design them to use 12v instead of needing a 120v to low volt DC power supply. Would also have the advantage that during a grid outage, you would still have lights and entertainment screens.
 
I look forward to solar roofs on every home, at the very least it creates a backup decentralized electrical grid (which I think is likely).

Maybe Musk can incorporate this into his solar roof, which should be ready sometime by 2050 :p

And... As usual there is someone rambling about fossil fuels, painting with broad bushes ignoring all the details.
 
raz-0 said:
Read the article. The math is likely very much the same as for current solar panels. Because what they are announcing is that they have reached efficiency parity with non-orgnaic panels. They are also announcing that they have improvied the manufacturing technique. Probably not as cheap as inorganic panels, but at worst, something that is at least scalable to similar demand. Because....

As you pointed out installation sucks. Organic would be able to be be applied to curved surfaces. It's flexible and able to be produced as rolls. One of the reasons it is attractive is that it is poised to reduce isntallation labor by a good bit as well as open up more surfaces to be solar accessible. This addresses your pertinent warning about labor costs for solar.
Click to expand...
Yeah a quick google on 300 watt panels finds a 310W panel for $145, but that seems really cheap, so lets just bump that up to $300 which seems to be an average, they guarantee 90% power at 10 years an 80% at 25, for sake of ease lets do a linear drop off in efficiency drop off, so first 10 years the average efficiency is 95%, if you assume 3 hours of usable sunlight per day (not a stretch either) 0.95 x 0.31 kW x 3 hrs/day x 365 day/year x 10 years, that's 3224 kWh produced from one panel, that already puts us at 9.3c per kWh for the first 10 years. Toss in the next 15 years at 85% efficiency, .85 x .31 x 3 x 365 x 15, that's another 4327 kWh for a grand total of 7552, which means over 25 years that solar panel had a cost efficiency of about 4cents per kWh, half that if the $145 price is actually legit.

Now true you can go over surfaces and roll stuff out, but the reality is the physical installation of solar panels really isn't that difficult, you put a frame up, make sure to water proof where said frame enters your roof, then bolt on the panels. Even if you rolled them out some how you'll need to secure them to the surface lest the wind blow them away (or live in some area where someone climbs on your roof ot steal your shit!), wiring to the main panel of your house will presumably be the same, as current panels don't need to be individually wired to one another by an electrician as they almost all have water proof screw in connectors.

Overall, this might be a push for organic panels, but that's not going to be what sells to people, price is, and as far as price goes... this isn't anything new.
 
and you honestly think the energy people want to give up on selling fossil fuels? Righttttttttttt.....
 
bildad said:
7c per kwh? I'm paying 7.9c now on traditional power. By the time you figure in materials and installation it's unlikely I'd ever ever recoup the costs of it, let alone save anything.
Click to expand...
Its double that in the UK and rising.

They are building huge windfarms in the ocean at huge cost.
A farm now under construction will have 174 turbines at 189m tall, new ones under test will stand 260m tall with 107m long blades !!!
These are quoted to be 50% higher cost (I reckon much higher) and way less reliable with a much shorter life span.
The current largest offshore farms are stated to need blades replacing every 2 to 3 years at £1 million per turbine. These larger ones will cost even more!
We are heavily subsidising windfarms because they wouldnt be viable otherwise, we are going to be hit with much higher bills to cover the new ones.
Waste of resources, time and money.
Each turbine will need 27,500 tons of steel!

Solar is great if enough panels can be laid down but a method of storage is needed for night and cloudy days.
Elon Musks battery tech (as used in Oz) along with these solar panels looks a much better solution.
Way more reliable, needs comparatively very little maintenance, is quicker to repair, much less cost and will last a lot longer.
Although we need better battery tech to reduce our reliance on rare earth minerals.
 
bildad said:
7c per kwh? I'm paying 7.9c now on traditional power. By the time you figure in materials and installation it's unlikely I'd ever ever recoup the costs of it, let alone save anything.
Click to expand...

Well, except the planet. But who cares about that, amirite? After all, Earth Day is over...
 
I don't get how this is "cheaper". I installed a 10kW roof 6 years ago. It cost about $21k (18k Euro, using Renesola Virtus II hybrid panels), with the price including installation and inverter, and prices have dropped a lot since then. While my roof is East/West oriented instead of the optimal South, I still get 15MWh/year. Over 20 years, that would mean I get 7 cents/kWh, which is exactly the price quoted. The current price for such a 10kW roof system including installation seems to be $14.5k (12000 euro to be exact, as my vacation home with the solar roof is in Greece), which would indicate a 4.8c / kWh cost, and less if you can have the panels facing South.
Anything I am missing?
 
bugleyman said:
And yet I'm sure we'll still see many arguing that solar "isn't viable" and "can't compete," and so we'd better just keep burning fossil fuels (and the environment be damned!).

Remember kids: "The environment" is just a hippie plot to derail the economy!
Click to expand...
There are two camps which claim the lack of viability of solar. One is the camp which is effectively stupid and focuses entirely on a series of numbers which might as well be pulled directly from the anus of whatever 4 legged mammal is nearby at the time.

The other camp is not talking about static residential, industrial, or commercial demands. The direct problem with solar and wind is and has always been location based. It doesn't matter how cheap it is if it can't help you on site and be fast enough to set up to equal other options. If a contractor cant use battery vehicles cheaply(which they flat out cant) on site and with the same or nearly the same effectiveness as diesel, gas, or CNG options they quite physically can not use such options. Trust me. Anyone with a brain WANTS electric instant 100% torque precision controlled vehicles on their worksites. WHEN they are viable and priced in the sane range the conversion time will be stunningly fast.

Additionally, cars are a joke for fuel consumption. Transport is far worse. Container and tanker ships are some of our most significant polluters even with recent sulfur reduction fuel options. These ships flat out cannot be converted to solar options cheaply or really safely.
The reality is it is functionally impossible to stop the current generation of kids from being rabid consumers. They grew up with cushy instant on demand goods and we have done nothing socially to bring production more locally. We could go 100% renewable tomorrow. Hell we could go 100% nuclear(pretty much the only easy realistic option for many areas) and it wouldn't make a dent because it is the panacea problem.

Until consumer expectations shift to reliable longer-term purchases and we get rid of the disposable planned obsolescence culture no amount of static power efficiency changes will matter. Any, and I do mean any, improvements in efficiency will simply result in a ramp-up of consumer good productions nullifying any gains made environmentally.


Side note.. Can we please end the stupid falacy that oil and coal are only for power and fuels? Over two-thirds of the plastic sh*t you buy is oil based. Every moving thing could convert to electric tomorrow and the demand for oil would still be rising because we will still be buying new TVs, new carpets, etc.
 
There's a lot more to the cost of solar power than just the panels. As already mentioned, there's the labor. There's also the cost of the inverters to change the DC current produced by the panels into 120VAC, and these things aren't exactly cheap at the sizes necessary to run a typical house. Then there's the backup power cost for when the panels don't produce enough power, like at night or on cloudy days or during winter (for northern climates). If you aren't connected to the grid, that means either lots of batteries or some sort of generator running on fossil fuels. And even if you are on the grid, if a lot of people start using it as backup power only, the cost will go up from where it is now because it is more expensive to manage a grid with such large load swings. Reality is much more complicated than many solar power boosters realize/admit.
 
Dead Parrot said:
For the entire house, solar isn't there yet. But no reason why all the 'just to see' lighting shouldn't be low voltage LED powered off a 12 or 24v battery bank recharged by solar panels. Probably could include things like LED TVs, media players, etc as well if some mfg would design them to use 12v instead of needing a 120v to low volt DC power supply. Would also have the advantage that during a grid outage, you would still have lights and entertainment screens.
Click to expand...


Except it doesn't work like that with grid attached systems. If the power grid goes down, there is a breaker the MUST be installed that also shuts down your solar. This is so you don't toast someone feeding power back into the grid when they are repairing/working on the lines.

Same goes for the telsa power pack. None of these systems will power your house when the grid is down.


Most people don't realize this and think they need solar to protect from power outtages.
 
Biznatch said:
Except it doesn't work like that with grid attached systems. If the power grid goes down, there is a breaker the MUST be installed that also shuts down your solar. This is so you don't toast someone feeding power back into the grid when they are repairing/working on the lines.

Same goes for the telsa power pack. None of these systems will power your house when the grid is down.


Most people don't realize this and think they need solar to protect from power outtages.
Click to expand...
My inverter shuts down when it doesn't detect line voltage, which has made me think, instead why isn't their a solution between your panel and the line that kills voltage if there's no line current detected? Seems like a win-win situation in that case. Besides it should be SOP for power guys to test the line before handling it.
 
Nafensoriel said:
There are two camps which claim the lack of viability of solar. One is the camp which is effectively stupid and focuses entirely on a series of numbers which might as well be pulled directly from the anus of whatever 4 legged mammal is nearby at the time.

The other camp is not talking about static residential, industrial, or commercial demands. The direct problem with solar and wind is and has always been location based. It doesn't matter how cheap it is if it can't help you on site and be fast enough to set up to equal other options. If a contractor cant use battery vehicles cheaply(which they flat out cant) on site and with the same or nearly the same effectiveness as diesel, gas, or CNG options they quite physically can not use such options. Trust me. Anyone with a brain WANTS electric instant 100% torque precision controlled vehicles on their worksites. WHEN they are viable and priced in the sane range the conversion time will be stunningly fast.

Additionally, cars are a joke for fuel consumption. Transport is far worse. Container and tanker ships are some of our most significant polluters even with recent sulfur reduction fuel options. These ships flat out cannot be converted to solar options cheaply or really safely.
The reality is it is functionally impossible to stop the current generation of kids from being rabid consumers. They grew up with cushy instant on demand goods and we have done nothing socially to bring production more locally. We could go 100% renewable tomorrow. Hell we could go 100% nuclear(pretty much the only easy realistic option for many areas) and it wouldn't make a dent because it is the panacea problem.

Until consumer expectations shift to reliable longer-term purchases and we get rid of the disposable planned obsolescence culture no amount of static power efficiency changes will matter. Any, and I do mean any, improvements in efficiency will simply result in a ramp-up of consumer good productions nullifying any gains made environmentally.


Side note.. Can we please end the stupid falacy that oil and coal are only for power and fuels? Over two-thirds of the plastic sh*t you buy is oil based. Every moving thing could convert to electric tomorrow and the demand for oil would still be rising because we will still be buying new TVs, new carpets, etc.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, but your whole argument does strike me as allowing the (non-existent) perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Will solar power fix all of our problems? Of course not. But it's a step in the right direction, and the "drill baby, drill" people (NOT saying you are one) need to take their FUD and GTFO of the way.
 
Aireoth said:
I look forward to solar roofs on every home, at the very least it creates a backup decentralized electrical grid (which I think is likely).
Click to expand...

I'd go farther and put an outright requirement that all new buildings must be self-sufficient during the daytime on pre-installed solar panels.

My inverter shuts down when it doesn't detect line voltage, which has made me think, instead why isn't their a solution between your panel and the line that kills voltage if there's no line current detected? Seems like a win-win situation in that case. Besides it should be SOP for power guys to test the line before handling it.
Click to expand...

Because the sensor that would detect the condition and disconnect the home line would cost like $10, and that's $10 of profit the local power company will never see again.

Really, it's that simple.
 
sfsuphysics said:
My inverter shuts down when it doesn't detect line voltage, which has made me think, instead why isn't their a solution between your panel and the line that kills voltage if there's no line current detected? Seems like a win-win situation in that case. Besides it should be SOP for power guys to test the line before handling it.
Click to expand...


Because if it fails, you now have a hot line outside that the linesman think is shut off. If I ever put solar, I will add some kind of manual switch to disconnect from the grid so I can power back up if needed. After the final inspection of course.
 
Biznatch said:
Except it doesn't work like that with grid attached systems. If the power grid goes down, there is a breaker the MUST be installed that also shuts down your solar. This is so you don't toast someone feeding power back into the grid when they are repairing/working on the lines.

Same goes for the telsa power pack. None of these systems will power your house when the grid is down.


Most people don't realize this and think they need solar to protect from power outtages.
Click to expand...

Who said it would be grid attached? At most, there might be a battery charger system to charge the battery pack during long cloudy periods. The system I am thinking of won't have a 120V inverter setup that back feeds the grid. It just provides low voltage DC for LED lights, maybe a few DC fans, USB charging ports and whatever other DC power devices you can find to connect.
 
sfsuphysics said:
7 cents per kwh? That makes no sense unless you're either a) leasing, or b) they count the entire life of the solar cell in which case 7 cents per kwh isn't really anything to write home about, you can easily find solar panels for $1/watt which means after about 14 years or so the net cost ends up being 7c per kwh. So ummm what's new again?

Labor to install is what absolutely kills solar power in most cases, if you are handy enough to do all the work yourself then it's great, if not, multiply your materials cost by 3
Click to expand...
Yep, we knew you were coming, so we got ya this:

burning-barrel.jpg
 
Verge said:
This article seems like B.S. propaganda quite frankly. If you click and read the source is University of Michigan. How the hell are they "ready for market?" Is the University going to start selling solar panels?


This doesn't smell right.
Click to expand...
Not quite as nice as burning crude, am I right?
 
Biznatch said:
Except it doesn't work like that with grid attached systems. If the power grid goes down, there is a breaker the MUST be installed that also shuts down your solar. This is so you don't toast someone feeding power back into the grid when they are repairing/working on the lines.

Same goes for the telsa power pack. None of these systems will power your house when the grid is down.


Most people don't realize this and think they need solar to protect from power outtages.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely true. The isolator panel just trips breakers that isolate the house's power from the grid (they use these with automatic backup generators all the time); the panel system can still power the house in a limited fashion, depending on the amount of panels & their output.

Of course, none of that works at night.
 
Progress is progress, I'll take it even if the tech isn't as ready to market as the article suggests.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Yeah a quick google on 300 watt panels finds a 310W panel for $145, but that seems really cheap, so lets just bump that up to $300 which seems to be an average, they guarantee 90% power at 10 years an 80% at 25, for sake of ease lets do a linear drop off in efficiency drop off, so first 10 years the average efficiency is 95%, if you assume 3 hours of usable sunlight per day (not a stretch either) 0.95 x 0.31 kW x 3 hrs/day x 365 day/year x 10 years, that's 3224 kWh produced from one panel, that already puts us at 9.3c per kWh for the first 10 years. Toss in the next 15 years at 85% efficiency, .85 x .31 x 3 x 365 x 15, that's another 4327 kWh for a grand total of 7552, which means over 25 years that solar panel had a cost efficiency of about 4cents per kWh, half that if the $145 price is actually legit.

Now true you can go over surfaces and roll stuff out, but the reality is the physical installation of solar panels really isn't that difficult, you put a frame up, make sure to water proof where said frame enters your roof, then bolt on the panels. Even if you rolled them out some how you'll need to secure them to the surface lest the wind blow them away (or live in some area where someone climbs on your roof ot steal your shit!), wiring to the main panel of your house will presumably be the same, as current panels don't need to be individually wired to one another by an electrician as they almost all have water proof screw in connectors.

Overall, this might be a push for organic panels, but that's not going to be what sells to people, price is, and as far as price goes... this isn't anything new.
Click to expand...
There's always solar shingles:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_shingle

smymubU.jpg
 
sfsuphysics said:
which means over 25 years that solar panel had a cost efficiency of about 4cents per kWh, half that if the $145 price is actually legit..
Click to expand...

There are considerably more costs than just a bare panel. Panel cost is probably 1/3 price.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Who said it would be grid attached? At most, there might be a battery charger system to charge the battery pack during long cloudy periods. The system I am thinking of won't have a 120V inverter setup that back feeds the grid. It just provides low voltage DC for LED lights, maybe a few DC fans, USB charging ports and whatever other DC power devices you can find to connect.
Click to expand...

Your house is attached to the grid..... Unless you only use solar on an isolated breaker, it is also attached. It is a legal requirement in my state at least.


Big_Rig_Stig said:
That's not entirely true. The isolator panel just trips breakers that isolate the house's power from the grid (they use these with automatic backup generators all the time); the panel system can still power the house in a limited fashion, depending on the amount of panels & their output.

Of course, none of that works at night.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you live, but you won't get your solar approved here in the republic of Taxifornia, and without that you can't legally turn on the system.
 
"Soon"

Just like flying cars and Mr. Fusion soon?

Also - can certainly run solar off grid, but it takes a good bit of equipment to do so correctly and have it pass permitting. You need a different inverter than your generic grid-connected string inverter, a surprisingly large amount of batteries (which also are supposed to be getting less expensive, "Soon") which aren't cheap, and often it still needs to be paired with a standby generator. But entirely possible to do, even in Kalifornistan.
 
Biznatch said:
Because if it fails, you now have a hot line outside that the linesman think is shut off. If I ever put solar, I will add some kind of manual switch to disconnect from the grid so I can power back up if needed. After the final inspection of course.
Click to expand...

Grid-connected string inverters all have to meet a UL listing. UL specification will shut the inverter down on loss of utility, including the appropriate failsafes.

Off-grid inverters can also act as grid-connect, and meet UL listing, they will have their own pre-approved internal switching. They can also handle a standby generator and everything else that would be needed, if you want them to.

Look for UL 1741. If it meets that, you can connect it, and you won't need to use a Manual Transfer switch. Granted, off-grid UL1741 inverters are going to run roughly twice what a generic grid-connected string inverter will cost.

But you don't want to run a non-offgrid inverter in parallel with a standby generator or just off a battery bank. They won't even turn on unless they are in sync with something else, and they are built to push current back into the grid, and if there's no grid, they will push it back into your standby (and something will give there).

There are kits that let you convert a string inverter into an off-grid inverter, and they are absolutely horrible ideas. They work by just running a big-ass heater/fan to burn off the excess energy, since you wouldn't have a grid to push it back on. Your better off just going with an off-grid inverter/charger than you are one of those conversion kits.
 
It's already crazy cheap, but it's cool to see such regular progress in technology.

Old 2016 estimates:
solar-energy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png


2018 is even better, noticeably so.

09b624c450338502ee14d403dc3d81f07c39fef2.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top