Via Slashdot Hugh Pickens writes:
According to Rhone Resch, the last three years have seen the U.S. solar industry go from a start-up to a major industry that is creating well-paying jobs and growing the economy in all 50 states, employing 93,000 Americans in 2010, a number that is expected to grow between 25,000 to 50,000 this year (PDF). In the first quarter of 2011, the solar industry installed 252 megawatts of new solar electric capacity, a 66 percent growth from the same time frame in 2010.
Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source (PDF) with the capability, according to one study, of generating over 4 million jobs by 2030 with aggressive energy efficiency measures. There are now almost 3,000 megawatts of solar electric energy installed in the U.S., enough to power 600,000 homes.
In the manufacturing sector, solar panel production jumped 31 percent. ‘The U.S. market is expected to more than double yet again in 2011, installing enough solar for more than 400,000 homes,’ writes Resch. ‘Last year, the industry set the ambitious yet achievable goal of installing 10 gigawatts annually by 2015 (PDF) – enough to power 2 million more homes each and every year.’
My husband was a top executive at two different solar companies within the last 3 years. He knows how much money is required to produce each watt. And he also knows that it isn’t possible to make a profit without a government subsidy. If the solar companies had to produce a product on their own, they would all quickly go under. The numbers don’t lie. And all the wishful thinking in the world isn’t going to change the facts.
Which is why he is no longer involved in the solar industry….
“There are now almost 3,000 megawatts of solar electric energy installed in the U.S.”
OK – So that is about equal to 3 large base-load coal or nuclear plants. But its not even that, the base-load plants run 24 hours a day while solar doesn’t. The “3,000 megawatts” is capacity not output. Solar doesn’t run at night, it runs at reduced output at all times other than noon. Overcaste reduces it still further. So in actuality the total installed U.S. solar output equals 1 rather small generating station.
Then there is land usage. Large base-load plants take about 40 acres each (so a total of 120 acres to match the 3,000 megawatt capacity). How much land is required for the 3,000 megawatt solar capacity? I don’t know, but it is in the multiple square mile range.
The amount of solar energy varies by area. For those interested, here’s a link to maps and tables:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/
Or if you like, here’s the link to the detailed data:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/
Mark Wilson – you math isn’t adding up (again)
A 2.5kW system will drop you bill by a lot more than $50/mo during the summer for most people
Your latitude isn’t the only one on earth – try this in NM, AZ, TX, NV,CA etc. Not every area is equal in output.
A HELOC after tax is probably under 5% net cost.
Put that all together and you are looking at 7-10 repay, which is shorter than panel lifespan.
Actually – 7-10 is probably a bit too aggressive although I’ve seen it. 9-15 is probably safer to use.
Bystander
Most systems are specified in peak power capability of the panels. This is determined by an industry term ‘STC’ (standard test conditions). You might exceed this value slightly when the sunlight is intense and your panels are cold. More likely you will start to factor in losses when the panels are not incident to the sun, there is dirt/etc. reducing panel efficiency, the cell temperature is above STC (this loss can be huge), and the sunlight is passing through more atmosphere (early am/evenings). There are also losses in the inverters (5% typ.) and of course you don’t produce this ‘peak’ power throughout the day/year. The 2.5kW system dropping costs $50/month
fits in very nicely with my empirical testing.
“Solar industry on the rise”? Normally that would be fantastic news, especially in a down economy as we have now. And, 93 k jobs is certainly nothing to sneeze at. Too bad it’s an “industry” built on the backs of both ratepayers as well as taxpayers though. As such, it is a sham, and an expensive one at that. And in a down economy, at a time when here in the USA we’re bumping our heads up against a debt ceiling of over 14 $trillion, with the possibility of default. Greenies must be thrilled.
Keith wrote: As a nation our trash generates more electricity than photovoltaics.
That’s true, and harvesting trash is spreading, a good development. That is no argument against developing solar power.
Brewster wrote: The 2.5kW system dropping costs $50/month
fits in very nicely with my empirical testing.
How much you save depends on how much electricity you consume, what time of day you consume it, how much sunlight you receive, and the local electricity rates. I have neighbors who in the summer and spring and autumn spend as much as $300/month on electricity, 90% of that for daytime A/C. We have enough sun that they could power their A/C entirely by solar, and then power a heat pump in winter to save most of their gas bill. In consequence, more and more rooftop systems are being installed. It’s cheaper to reduce electricity usage the way I do (which makes solar prohibitively expensive), but for people who want A/C, solar is a very attractive alternative at today’s prices.
Fred2 wrote: It does not take an economist to realize that each MW of solar therefore costs not only the cost of the solar + subsidy + eyesore rating, but also the investment for the standby power, which “oh by the way” could have handled the load without the solar.
In most parts of the U.S. the standby power is already in place, but is wearing out and will have to be replaced. In most parts of the U.S., the standby power is not sufficient to meet peak loads, so new generators must be purchased to meet the increasing peak demand, and those generators for peak demand produce high-priced electricity because they only sell their electricity for a few hours per day. In some of these places, such as CA, AZ, NM, and TX, solar is currently the most cost-effective way to add new peak generating capacity. To the degree that it reduces the demand on the standby power plants, it increases their lifespan.
The only general truth here is that all of the economic calculations depend on time of day, use of the electricity, and locality; and that the costs are changing rapidly, compared to the historical trend.
Solar=CO2 Increase? The solar advocates claim that a 5 kW residential solar system is equivalent to planting an acre of trees.. which is just about the amount of trees I would have to cut for sun to reach the solar collectors on my roof. Of course doing so would also significantly increase the heat loading on my house and I’d be operating the a/c all summer like my neighbors rather than a couple of hot nights each year.
And then there’s the increased emissions from all the backup. I understand that solar can change output much more rapidly than wind– 50% change in 30 seconds —which means more CO2-..producing spinning reserve.
The installation of more efficient air conditioners would cost much less in terms of $$/CO2 than solar.
What is the situation in Flanders, a region in Belgium? Here, solar energy is generously subsidied. I give an example.
If I install this year solar panels of 3 kWp:
1. Cost of installation, including VAT: 12,720 euro.
– federal tax refund: 40% or 5,088 euro (spread over three years)
– local tax refund: 7.5% of 5,088 or 381.6 euro
– total tax refund: 5,469.6 euro
Final cost of installation: 12,720 – 5,469.6 = 7,250.4 euro.
2. Saving
– of energy costs: 3 kWp produces about 2,550 kWh per year. This renders a saving of € 433.5 per year.
– You receives certificates for the production of green energy: € 330 per 1,000 kWh or € 330 x 2.55 = € 841.5 per year (during 20 years).
Total saving per year (during 20 years): € 433.5 + € 841.5 = € 1,275
But the sting is in the tail! Finally, the certificates have to be paid by all consumers! The more there are solar panels in a region, the more the consumers have to pay. Due to the certificates for the production of green energy, the consumer will in 2020 have to pay about € 132 per year. An average electricity bill of a family amounts to € 700. So, there will be an increase with 18% of the electricity cost (supposing the prices of energy remain constant). And 28% of all costs of green energy will be related to solar panels in 2020 while the solar panels represent only 14% of all renewable energy. So the government promotes the most expensive renewable energy projects. It is known that the inhabitants of Belgium have already a very high fiscal pressure. (Source: De Standaard, July 26, 2011) The implications of this policy are that the poor cannot afford to pay their energy bill. Where is reason?
“Solar energy is creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source (PDF) with the capability, according to one study, of generating over 4 million jobs by 2030 with aggressive energy efficiency measures. There are now almost 3,000 megawatts of solar electric energy installed in the U.S., enough to power 600,000 homes.”
This is total bull crap. Without massive subsidies and back-up generation during the night and even in daylight when it is cloudy. Solar power cannot otherwise be part of the base load power.
If new, high paying jobs is the objective, turn the oil and gas companies loose in the Gulf, coastal waters,in various states and Alaska with known deposits. This would yield 1,000,000 new, very high paying jobs within a year or two. In the Santa Barbara Channel alone there are numerous capped well to be turned on, and known deposits that that can begin producing within 18 moths or so. CA would get $2 billion/year in royalty income once full production is restored.
With roof PV’s you are actually paying the capitol cost and maintenance of an intermittent power station, assuming the power goes back into the grid. This is an enormous swindle, the power companies should rent your roof space, supply and maintain the structure in return for a long term rental agreement.
At least with solar thermal, the hot water created is yours and is not shared.
Keith Minto says:
July 29, 2011 at 4:37 pm
With roof PV’s you are actually paying the capitol cost and maintenance of an intermittent power station, assuming the power goes back into the grid. This is an enormous swindle, the power companies should rent your roof space, supply and maintain the structure in return for a long term rental agreement.
That’s absurd. Power companies do not in any way benefit from these backyard power stations, and who would end up paying that rent? Why, the rest of us, who are already subsidizing those solar panels either through our rates or taxes, or both. That, friend, is where the big swindle is.
The suggestions of Minto are not absurd. They are standard
practice in SoCal. The energy companies payed municipalities to
replace stoplight bulbs so as to reduce demand. The energy
companies pay for upgraded residential lights, refrigerators,
freezers, doors, windows and insulation. In SoCal electricity
rates consist of a base rate that varies by zip code and time of
year, plus a 4-part exponential escalator based on usage.
Power demand peaks at or near time of peak insolation. Due
to line heating, and peaker power plants, grid efficiency declines
at peak insolation. PV is a good fit for SoCal, even without
all the tax rebates.
Bruce Cobb says:
July 29, 2011 at 4:56 pm.
Precisely my point, if the power companies, by doing a long term cost-benefit analysis would consider my proposition unviable, why should the householder shoulder the burden of owning their own intermittent power station ?
It is a swindle, these proud greenish naive PV householders have been sold a pup, and we all share the cost burden.
I’m in the central UK, I’m just enquiring about solar PV. The company offering it claims that they’ll supply, install & maintain for free.
The UK government in (currently) offering silly feed-in tarrif prices. So I’ll be asking plenty of questions when they contact me.
Here’s some actual numbers from Southern California. One can drive to the local store (Costco) and purchase a 5 kW solar PV kit for $16,999 (US dollars) plus approximately 7 percent sales tax. This kit provides 22 panels, with each panel producing 230 watts (peak). http://www.costco.com/ and input “solar panels” into the search box. The description is “Grape Solar 5060 Watt, Grid-tied Solar Kit, Includes: 22-230 Watt Solar Panels, 1 PVP-4800 Inverter, Roof Mounting Kit, Item # 573492.” There are several rebates and subsidies available that bring the cost down somewhat, but installation must be included. The approximate net number of $17,000 is used for this example.
Locally, we obtain about 8 hours per day of decent sunshine, for about 5 months of the year. If the solar output replaces purchased power at the next-to-highest price tier, for the SCE (Southern California Edison) utility, the solar power is worth $0.27 per kWh. The annual savings in electricity not purchased is then $1,639. The payback period is then approximately 10 years.
Note that this relatively attractive payback period is only possible due to two reasons: 1) rebates and subsidies, and 2) the tiered electricity rate structure. Before California adopted the tiered-rate structure, electric power was much cheaper. Now, the more the customer uses, the more expensive the electricity becomes. If there were no rebates nor subsidies, the installed cost of the above system would be approximately $27,000. Also, if electricity was sold at a flat rate, of $0.14 per kWh, then the economics of a roof-top solar PV system would degrade to 31 years payback.
Interesting, Adam, that is getting closer to a reasonable proposition, are they renting your roof space ?, if you have more details on this I would be curious.
I am in rural Queensland on a property and ground based PV’s are viable here with ‘trackers’ that move the panels from east to west to give 30% more output.
Of course sales are up. Hard working citizen of modest means like myself are paying half of the price for the rich folks buying these status symbols. Tax credits make it a bargain.
Thanks for laying another liberal externality on me. This is not sustainable.
Maybe in Hollywood, but not in the real world.
Roger Sowell says (July 30 at 3:01 pm) ……… “Costco and pv system costs and payback.”
Roger thanks for the details on what is available at Costco. I put a PV system (6.12 kw sts) in back in 2006 (Northern CA- PG&E territory). I found it beneficial to use the web to get some estimates of what kind of actual (vs. the STS ratings noted above) output I could expect at my location with the panel orientation and pitch that would be specific for my roofs. There are lots of sites these days on the web that allow you to independently estimate the monthly output of any particular combination of panels, inverter, pitch, and panel orientation. I have found the Sharp site to be fairly accurate for my systems actual performance- http://sharpusa.cleanpowerestimator.com/default.aspx
The Sharp site allows you to select from different rate schedule options, based on your zip code, to calculate ROI based on a few assumptions. My 6.12 kw PV system will produce (as measured at my E-7 time of use Net meter from PG&E) 1088 +/-2 kwh this month. I will be using a total of about 1600 kwh this month.
Now we need to convince the giant energy suppliers to finance solar installation on all homes, including wind turbines in areas of the states that can make use of that technology. I’m sure that might create some jobs, refit some empty factories and reduce reliance upon stripping the earth to the point where our water and lands are inhabitable.
Let’s hope that you’re right about the surge in solar. I bet you’d find this interesting: CharsolGrill.com