Comments on: The economics and usefulness of domestic rooftop solar PV installations http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/05/the-economics-and-usefulness-of-domestic-rooftop-solar-pv-installations/ A sanctuary for young free-thinkers Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:32:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Greg T http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/05/the-economics-and-usefulness-of-domestic-rooftop-solar-pv-installations/comment-page-2/#comment-14591 Greg T Mon, 24 May 2010 08:58:13 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=1817#comment-14591 Just from another slant; How much energy does it take to produce one of these photo cells ? Will it save that energy in its 20 - 25 year lifetime ? I guess only the smoke signals from China will know. I do agree with your statistics (which is how I came across your article) doing research on the subject for an intended installation Thanks for your co-operation. Regards, Greg Just from another slant; How much energy does it take to produce one of these photo cells ? Will it save that energy in its 20 — 25 year lifetime ? I guess only the smoke signals from China will know.
I do agree with your statistics (which is how I came across your article) doing research on the subject for an intended installation

Thanks for your co-operation.

Regards,
Greg

]]> By: Steve http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/05/the-economics-and-usefulness-of-domestic-rooftop-solar-pv-installations/comment-page-2/#comment-8524 Steve Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:43:35 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=1817#comment-8524 There would be no nuclear power plants if not for large amounts of government subsidies. Governments also provide large amounts of subsidies to Oil & Coal producing companies for R&D, even during record earning quarters. The argument can not work only one way, if subsidies are accepted as driving R&D for Coal, Oil and Nuclear then the same applies to PV. Note, when delivering electricity, line loss (resistive loss) can be as much as 30%. PVs on rooftops produces electricity at the point of use! There would be no nuclear power plants if not for large amounts of government subsidies. Governments also provide large amounts of subsidies to Oil & Coal producing companies for R&D, even during record earning quarters. The argument can not work only one way, if subsidies are accepted as driving R&D for Coal, Oil and Nuclear then the same applies to PV.

Note, when delivering electricity, line loss (resistive loss) can be as much as 30%. PVs on rooftops produces electricity at the point of use!

]]> By: Sunshine http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/05/the-economics-and-usefulness-of-domestic-rooftop-solar-pv-installations/comment-page-1/#comment-7791 Sunshine Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:29:39 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=1817#comment-7791 Luke, 1. Could you please tell me where you can get electricity supplied to your premises for 13c/kWh (Try 16-17c/kWh) 2. A very important point you have overlooked is the increasing cost of electricity from the grid. How much will electricity supplied from the grid cost in say 5 years time? ( A lot more than 13c/kWh I'd say) Luke,
1. Could you please tell me where you can get electricity supplied to your premises for 13c/kWh (Try 16-17c/kWh)
2. A very important point you have overlooked is the increasing cost of electricity from the grid.

How much will electricity supplied from the grid cost in say 5 years time?
( A lot more than 13c/kWh I’d say)

]]> By: Young Aus Skeptic Admin http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/05/the-economics-and-usefulness-of-domestic-rooftop-solar-pv-installations/comment-page-1/#comment-4874 Young Aus Skeptic Admin Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:24:13 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=1817#comment-4874 Jason, you will find that is due to my SEO skills ;). Oh and Luke wrote a good meaningful article. Google likes that. Jason, you will find that is due to my SEO skills ;). Oh and Luke wrote a good meaningful article. Google likes that.

]]> By: Greg Macmillan http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/05/the-economics-and-usefulness-of-domestic-rooftop-solar-pv-installations/comment-page-1/#comment-4871 Greg Macmillan Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:54:35 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=1817#comment-4871 Luke, It's one thing to be a skeptic, but to be a miserable pessimist is something else all together. Honestly you have the foresight of a slug with blinkers. I do agree however that the government does like to look as though they are doing something. The fact is that the cost of PV is coming down substantially and that is driven by demand. If you look at the small amounts of government money that are invested in solar research in Australia and where most of our research has ended up, it's not surprising that we have gone from world leader in PV to world losers. I'm not great with maths but it seems the 15,995,000 megawatt-hours Loy Yang produces (assuming it was all used and sold) at $35 or so per megawatt-hours must cost about $559,825000 per year. Multiplied by 25 years (the life of a solar cell) = $13,995,625,000 (14 billion). So about 1/6 of the cost of Solar roof top arrays at current market price. Of course if we actually put all those cells on the roofs of all those houses and (perhaps invested 10 billion in development as well to make it cheaper) the cost would no doubt come down to at least half the price or so over a period of 10 years (probably far greater with recent developments). Further, if we realize that with increases in efficiency we could easily use half the power we now use, the cost to power our homes would not be that great. Far from being rooftop bling, it is actually easily possible to run an entire house on a 3 kilowatt system, assuming you have solar hot water and a well insulated house. Even though this would cost about $32,000 (current prices), many people spend $250 per quarter on there electricity bill anyway, which equals $25,000 over 25 years. Sure there are cheaper ways to produce green power and we should spend much more on them also, but solar PV is definitely part of the equation. With new developments prices ARE coming down. Take a look at these examples. 31% efficiency cells made in Australia, especially look at information page and scroll to the bottom where it shows the output in kilowatt-hours per day per square meter http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/ 40% efficiency solar cells http://www.physorg.com/news99904887.html This is only one example of the many amazing developments that are taking place right now if you care to look. There are 100's of dedicated scientist developing this stuff now. The last thing we need now is boring pessimists to stifle this development. Luke,
It’s one thing to be a skeptic, but to be a miserable pessimist is something else all together. Honestly you have the foresight of a slug with blinkers.
I do agree however that the government does like to look as though they are doing something.
The fact is that the cost of PV is coming down substantially and that is driven by demand. If you look at the small amounts of government money that are invested in solar research in Australia and where most of our research has ended up, it’s not surprising that we have gone from world leader in PV to world losers.
I’m not great with maths but it seems the 15,995,000 megawatt-hours Loy Yang produces (assuming it was all used and sold) at $35 or so per megawatt-hours must cost about $559,825000 per year. Multiplied by 25 years (the life of a solar cell) = $13,995,625,000 (14 billion). So about 1/6 of the cost of Solar roof top arrays at current market price.
Of course if we actually put all those cells on the roofs of all those houses and (perhaps invested 10 billion in development as well to make it cheaper) the cost would no doubt come down to at least half the price or so over a period of 10 years (probably far greater with recent developments).
Further, if we realize that with increases in efficiency we could easily use half the power we now use, the cost to power our homes would not be that great.
Far from being rooftop bling, it is actually easily possible to run an entire house on a 3 kilowatt system, assuming you have solar hot water and a well insulated house. Even though this would cost about $32,000 (current prices), many people spend $250 per quarter on there electricity bill anyway, which equals $25,000 over 25 years.
Sure there are cheaper ways to produce green power and we should spend much more on them also, but solar PV is definitely part of the equation. With new developments prices ARE coming down.
Take a look at these examples.
31% efficiency cells made in Australia, especially look at information page and scroll to the bottom where it shows the output in kilowatt-hours per day per square meter
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/
40% efficiency solar cells
http://www.physorg.com/news99904887.html

This is only one example of the many amazing developments that are taking place right now if you care to look. There are 100’s of dedicated scientist developing this stuff now.
The last thing we need now is boring pessimists to stifle this development.

]]> By: Jason http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/05/the-economics-and-usefulness-of-domestic-rooftop-solar-pv-installations/comment-page-1/#comment-2682 Jason Tue, 05 May 2009 13:55:25 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=1817#comment-2682 Luke, I love how when you google 'rooftop solar PV installations' your article is the fourth site that comes up ^ ^ Luke, I love how when you google ‘rooftop solar PV installations’ your article is the fourth site that comes up ^ ^

]]> By: Andrew Bagnara http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/05/the-economics-and-usefulness-of-domestic-rooftop-solar-pv-installations/comment-page-1/#comment-2681 Andrew Bagnara Tue, 05 May 2009 13:49:09 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=1817#comment-2681 Ok, i see your point. This is my view. I just had a 1.7KW high quality system put on my roof using Thin Film Panels. WA is about to have a rebate on 4 times the rate of electricity, meaning my investment will be paid for in about 7 years. People go spend 35k on a car that depreciates instantly and costs money to run and repair all year, so in that fact, a car can be a waste of money. This weekend, my Panels generated 50% of my weekend power use, and I have Wii, Flat Panel TV, but I also invested in low wattage globes. YEs, it is a bit of roof bling, but I can alos feel comfortable that with my Solar Hot Water, I have reduced my energy consumption massively. Screw the price, it still makes money, unlike anything else you buy Ok, i see your point. This is my view. I just had a 1.7KW high quality system put on my roof using Thin Film Panels. WA is about to have a rebate on 4 times the rate of electricity, meaning my investment will be paid for in about 7 years. People go spend 35k on a car that depreciates instantly and costs money to run and repair all year, so in that fact, a car can be a waste of money. This weekend, my Panels generated 50% of my weekend power use, and I have Wii, Flat Panel TV, but I also invested in low wattage globes. YEs, it is a bit of roof bling, but I can alos feel comfortable that with my Solar Hot Water, I have reduced my energy consumption massively. Screw the price, it still makes money, unlike anything else you buy

]]> By: Luke Weston http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/05/the-economics-and-usefulness-of-domestic-rooftop-solar-pv-installations/comment-page-1/#comment-2604 Luke Weston Mon, 04 May 2009 09:34:21 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=1817#comment-2604 Moth Eyes: Does it really promote R&D into more efficient solar panels? I'm not sure that it really does. We hear a lot about thin-film solar cells, and cadmium telluride cells, and sliver cells, dye-sensitized titanium dioxide cells, organic semiconductors, and all this kind of stuff. But, if you go and buy PV panels to put on your house, they are always just the plain old polycrystalline silicon wafers; the same technology that has been around for decades. This economic stimulus for the industry isn't leading to innovation in the deployment of new technologies, it's leading to people trying to take the existing technology (polycrystalline silicon wafer pn-junction cells) and drive down the cost as much as possible to make it attractive to buy it - if they can drive the cost down to the point that the government subsidies can pay for the whole thing, clearly that's attractive to customers, and everyone will want it. But these attempts to produce conventional silicon wafer cells as cheaply as possible are having some negative environmental consequences: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html Fuller: Well, if you're getting it for "zero cost", clearly you can't really lose out much at all, as an individual. If the inverter dies after 10 years, just forget about the system and switch over to grid power only, and you still come out ahead. Moth Eyes: Does it really promote R&D into more efficient solar panels? I’m not sure that it really does.

We hear a lot about thin-film solar cells, and cadmium telluride cells, and sliver cells, dye-sensitized titanium dioxide cells, organic semiconductors, and all this kind of stuff.

But, if you go and buy PV panels to put on your house, they are always just the plain old polycrystalline silicon wafers; the same technology that has been around for decades.

This economic stimulus for the industry isn’t leading to innovation in the deployment of new technologies, it’s leading to people trying to take the existing technology (polycrystalline silicon wafer pn-junction cells) and drive down the cost as much as possible to make it attractive to buy it — if they can drive the cost down to the point that the government subsidies can pay for the whole thing, clearly that’s attractive to customers, and everyone will want it.

But these attempts to produce conventional silicon wafer cells as cheaply as possible are having some negative environmental consequences:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html

Fuller: Well, if you’re getting it for “zero cost”, clearly you can’t really lose out much at all, as an individual. If the inverter dies after 10 years, just forget about the system and switch over to grid power only, and you still come out ahead.

]]> By: Fuller http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/05/the-economics-and-usefulness-of-domestic-rooftop-solar-pv-installations/comment-page-1/#comment-2590 Fuller Mon, 04 May 2009 04:33:04 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=1817#comment-2590 I saw this advertised on TV and thought pretty much the same thing - would the benefit match the cost? I concluded "maybe if you're super rich" and then shut my brain off again. I saw this advertised on TV and thought pretty much the same thing — would the benefit match the cost? I concluded “maybe if you’re super rich” and then shut my brain off again.

]]> By: The 327th Male http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/05/the-economics-and-usefulness-of-domestic-rooftop-solar-pv-installations/comment-page-1/#comment-2580 The 327th Male Sun, 03 May 2009 23:36:48 +0000 http://www.youngausskeptics.com/?p=1817#comment-2580 That's why we need cheaper solar tech. Catalyst recently did <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2550612.htm" rel="nofollow">a story about cheaply printed solar cells</a>. Bring 'em on I say! That’s why we need cheaper solar tech. Catalyst recently did a story about cheaply printed solar cells. Bring ‘em on I say!

]]>