SOLAR ENERGY MAY SOON GET MUCH CHEAPER
in [Physics]
|
Prev: neutrino oscillation
Next: math solution, fyi
From: JD on 12 Jun 2010 13:58 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: >> In article <d61be7-3pe.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com>, >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted: >> >>> In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: >>>> Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper >>> <snip> >>> >>>> The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is >>>> composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other >>>> 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into >>>> significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar >>>> cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the >>>> rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power. >>> Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a >>> particularly significant part of delivered cost. >>> >>> <snip rest> >> So they don't know what they are talkng about at the URL below? >> >> http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Solar-Energy-May-Soon-Get-Much-Cheaper.htm > > They wrote a breathless press release, nothing more. > > The delivered cost of just about any manufactured item has little to do > with the raw material cost to build it. > > Add to that the fact that a solar energy system is far more than just a PV > cell of some sort and requires permits and licensed installers. Are these permits and installers the price of getting subsidies? What if one can do the job with one's own funds and labor? > In all the systems I seen to date the cost of the solar panel is about > a third of the installed system cost and the material cost is a tiny fraction > of the panel cost. The info that started this thread suggests a much lower cost because of the increased efficiency but, I guess as usual, time will tell.
From: jimp on 12 Jun 2010 13:56 M.P. Android <me(a)privacy.com> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >>They wrote a breathless press release, nothing more. >> > Google the OP and be enlightened. > So what was there in the press release other than the usual press release "maybes"? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 12 Jun 2010 14:27 In sci.physics JD <JD(a)somewhere.con> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: >>> In article <d61be7-3pe.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com>, >>> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted: >>> >>>> In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: >>>>> Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is >>>>> composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other >>>>> 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into >>>>> significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar >>>>> cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the >>>>> rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power. >>>> Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a >>>> particularly significant part of delivered cost. >>>> >>>> <snip rest> >>> So they don't know what they are talkng about at the URL below? >>> >>> http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Solar-Energy-May-Soon-Get-Much-Cheaper.htm >> >> They wrote a breathless press release, nothing more. >> >> The delivered cost of just about any manufactured item has little to do >> with the raw material cost to build it. >> >> Add to that the fact that a solar energy system is far more than just a PV >> cell of some sort and requires permits and licensed installers. > > Are these permits and installers the price of > getting subsidies? Umm, no, they are the price of having building codes to make sure your roof doesn't blow away with the solar panel in the first windstorm. > What if one can do the job with one's own funds > and labor? In the US and most first world countries, attaching to the local grid will require a licensed electrician and in many places just running wires through your house will require one unless you want to void your homeowners insurance. If you just want to put lights in a barn, you could do it yourself. >> In all the systems I seen to date the cost of the solar panel is about >> a third of the installed system cost and the material cost is a tiny fraction >> of the panel cost. > > The info that started this thread suggests a much > lower cost because of > the increased efficiency but, I guess as usual, > time will tell. Reread the first sentence of the quoted paragraph: "The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component." If in fact effiency goes up less panel area would be required and the system cost should come down, if. One day we may see something more substantial than yet another press release, but personally I've been waiting for that to happen for several decades, so pardon me if I'm a bit dubious. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Mauried on 12 Jun 2010 19:58 On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:27:19 -0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics JD <JD(a)somewhere.con> wrote: >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: >>>> In article <d61be7-3pe.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com>, >>>> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics usenet(a)mantra.com wrote: >>>>>> Solar Energy May Soon Get Much Cheaper >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>> The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is >>>>>> composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component. The other >>>>>> 98% is made from inexpensive plastic, which should translate into >>>>>> significantly lower prices for consumers compared to existing solar >>>>>> cell technologies. That lower price is in inverse proportion to the >>>>>> rate at which the cells convert sunlight to electrical power. >>>>> Material costs for anything other than jewelry is typically not a >>>>> particularly significant part of delivered cost. >>>>> >>>>> <snip rest> >>>> So they don't know what they are talkng about at the URL below? >>>> >>>> http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Solar-Energy-May-Soon-Get-Much-Cheaper.htm >>> >>> They wrote a breathless press release, nothing more. >>> >>> The delivered cost of just about any manufactured item has little to do >>> with the raw material cost to build it. >>> >>> Add to that the fact that a solar energy system is far more than just a PV >>> cell of some sort and requires permits and licensed installers. >> >> Are these permits and installers the price of >> getting subsidies? > >Umm, no, they are the price of having building codes to make sure your roof >doesn't blow away with the solar panel in the first windstorm. > >> What if one can do the job with one's own funds >> and labor? > >In the US and most first world countries, attaching to the local grid will >require a licensed electrician and in many places just running wires through >your house will require one unless you want to void your homeowners insurance. > >If you just want to put lights in a barn, you could do it yourself. > >>> In all the systems I seen to date the cost of the solar panel is about >>> a third of the installed system cost and the material cost is a tiny fraction >>> of the panel cost. >> >> The info that started this thread suggests a much >> lower cost because of >> the increased efficiency but, I guess as usual, >> time will tell. > >Reread the first sentence of the quoted paragraph: > >"The savings in the new cell technology is that only 2% of the cell is >composed of semiconductors -- the most expensive component." > >If in fact effiency goes up less panel area would be required and the system >cost should come down, if. > >One day we may see something more substantial than yet another press release, >but personally I've been waiting for that to happen for several decades, so >pardon me if I'm a bit dubious. > > >-- >Jim Pennino > >Remove .spam.sux to reply. The key figures that are always missing from these types of press releases is what is the cost comparison between what it currently costs to actually make conventional Solar Panels, and the proposed cost of the new technology. The only cost people ever see is the end cost to the user, ie the sale price, which bears no relationship to manufacturing costs. Ive been trying for years to find out the actual manufacturing costs of conventional mono and poly silicon panels, and you simply cant get any numbers.
From: jimp on 12 Jun 2010 20:59
Mauried <mauried(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > The key figures that are always missing from these types of press > releases is what is the cost comparison between what it currently > costs to actually make conventional Solar Panels, and the proposed > cost of the new technology. If the technology is new, you aren't going to know much until you actually have a factory up and running complete with yield and overhead numbers. The best you could do is get a couple of manufacturing engineers to look at the process and make a swag on what it would cost to set up a factory and estimate the delivered cost at X units after amortizing the setup costs. But the people that write press releases about new "discoveries" don't seek input from manufacturing engineers. > The only cost people ever see is the end cost to the user, ie the sale > price, which bears no relationship to manufacturing costs. > Ive been trying for years to find out the actual manufacturing costs > of conventional mono and poly silicon panels, and you simply cant get > any numbers. In getting the manufacturing costs, don't forget to include the cost of utilities, support people like secretaries and janitors, permits and licenses, machinery amortization, direct labor wages and benefits, business insurance, taxes, the facility cost, etc. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |