Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 3 Jun 2010 11:54 On 03/06/2010 16:26, Don Lancaster wrote: > >> Depends if you want to sell the energy. >> In S Europe, without subsidies, domestic PV electricity is already >> comparable to domestic grid cost. >> > > Highly questionable. > > If that were the case, the utilities would immediately switch to pv for > their peaking power. Did not and will not happen till costs drop > dramatically. What part of "grid parity" escaped you? It means that the electricity cost from PV for a domestic user is the same (or cheaper) than buying it retail over the grid from a conventional utility. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: John Larkin on 3 Jun 2010 12:17 On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:54:50 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 03/06/2010 16:26, Don Lancaster wrote: >> >>> Depends if you want to sell the energy. >>> In S Europe, without subsidies, domestic PV electricity is already >>> comparable to domestic grid cost. >>> >> >> Highly questionable. >> >> If that were the case, the utilities would immediately switch to pv for >> their peaking power. Did not and will not happen till costs drop >> dramatically. > >What part of "grid parity" escaped you? >It means that the electricity cost from PV for a domestic user is the >same (or cheaper) than buying it retail over the grid from a >conventional utility. Without subsidies? I also wonder whether solar panels will have the actual lifetimes needed to meet their payback calculations. And what extra maintanance costs will be like. I sure don't want one of them on my roof. Don's point could well be: Since there is significant economy of scale for a solar PV installation, a utility-sized one must make power cheaper than a rooftop installation. So if the rooftop is break-even, a big installation would be better. So why aren't utilities eager to put up big solar arrays? John
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 3 Jun 2010 12:32 On 03/06/2010 17:17, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:54:50 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 03/06/2010 16:26, Don Lancaster wrote: >>> >>>> Depends if you want to sell the energy. >>>> In S Europe, without subsidies, domestic PV electricity is already >>>> comparable to domestic grid cost. >>>> >>> >>> Highly questionable. >>> >>> If that were the case, the utilities would immediately switch to pv for >>> their peaking power. Did not and will not happen till costs drop >>> dramatically. >> >> What part of "grid parity" escaped you? >> It means that the electricity cost from PV for a domestic user is the >> same (or cheaper) than buying it retail over the grid from a >> conventional utility. > > Without subsidies? In some parts of S Europe with very high insolation, yes. I just googled PV panels at $2.70 per peak watt (20% efficient monochrystal Si) http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/solar-insolation Look at the hot spots with around 5kWh/day/m^2 insolation and do the sums. Bear in mind that European grid costs are around $0.15 per kWh > I also wonder whether solar panels will have the actual lifetimes > needed to meet their payback calculations. And what extra maintanance > costs will be like. I sure don't want one of them on my roof. Call me back in 30 years and I'll have the answer. > Don's point could well be: > > Since there is significant economy of scale for a solar PV > installation, a utility-sized one must make power cheaper than a > rooftop installation. So if the rooftop is break-even, a big > installation would be better. So why aren't utilities eager to put up > big solar arrays? Because for utilities conventional makes more money? -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 3 Jun 2010 12:37 On 03/06/2010 17:32, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > On 03/06/2010 17:17, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:54:50 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 03/06/2010 16:26, Don Lancaster wrote: >>>> >>>>> Depends if you want to sell the energy. >>>>> In S Europe, without subsidies, domestic PV electricity is already >>>>> comparable to domestic grid cost. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Highly questionable. >>>> >>>> If that were the case, the utilities would immediately switch to pv for >>>> their peaking power. Did not and will not happen till costs drop >>>> dramatically. >>> >>> What part of "grid parity" escaped you? >>> It means that the electricity cost from PV for a domestic user is the >>> same (or cheaper) than buying it retail over the grid from a >>> conventional utility. >> >> Without subsidies? > > In some parts of S Europe with very high insolation, yes. > I just googled PV panels at $2.70 per peak watt (20% efficient > monochrystal Si) > http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/solar-insolation > > Look at the hot spots with around 5kWh/day/m^2 insolation and do the > sums. Bear in mind that European grid costs are around $0.15 per kWh > >> I also wonder whether solar panels will have the actual lifetimes >> needed to meet their payback calculations. And what extra maintanance >> costs will be like. I sure don't want one of them on my roof. > > Call me back in 30 years and I'll have the answer. > >> Don's point could well be: >> >> Since there is significant economy of scale for a solar PV >> installation, a utility-sized one must make power cheaper than a >> rooftop installation. So if the rooftop is break-even, a big >> installation would be better. So why aren't utilities eager to put up >> big solar arrays? > > Because for utilities conventional makes more money? > http://www.pv-tech.org/news/_a/has_first_solar_achieved_grid_parity_report_claims_the_numbers_add_up/ According to Greentech Media�s report, it seems that First Solar has managed to achieve grid parity with its 12.6MW system in the Nevada desert, installed for Sempra Generation. Mark Bachman, a senior research analyst with Pacific Crest and a specialist in cleantech energy, has aggregated the numbers in the Greentech Media report. Mr. Bachman claims that the Nevada desert system costs $0.075 per kilowatt-hour to install without any subsidies, compared to costs incurred by �conventional� power of $0.09 per kilowatt-hour. Looking solely at these figures, it would seem that this is an achievement that should have the solar energy industry rubbing its hands together in joy. However, naysayers will always challenge such claims. Bachman�s cost calculations are based on one particular location and one particular panel type; different results may have resulted from use of the same panels in a different location, or using different technology in conditions similar to those found in the Nevada desert. "In our view, the industry leaders will be those companies that can deliver electricity at or below grid parity pricing without the aid of subsidies while also delivering superior return to shareholders," said Mr. Bachman. "Currently, only First Solar can claim these achievements, in our view." First Solar has managed to produce large numbers of panels at a low cost for the past few years, claiming recently that it had lowered the cost-per-watt of production of its modules to $1.08 per watt. According to Greentech Media, this figure is an amalgamated average of the individual costs of production in each of the company�s manufacturing facilities, although First Solar has reached a low cost of 75 cents per watt in its Malaysia-based plants. Bachman noted that while the installation for Sempra cost around $3.17 per watt, this price incorporated the cost of frames and installation as well as the cost of the modules themselves. He also pointed out that the solar industry spends too much time focussing on the cost of production and installation of panels, and not enough time looking at the overall cost of the entire project in terms of kilowatt-hours. "By focusing on the cost/kWh calculation, we can compare competing business models on a defined metric that is independent of technologies," he said. This report also highlighted the potential competitors First Solar may encounter in the next few years in the race for grid parity. Cypress Semiconductor�s CEO T.J. Rodgers was reported as saying that power produced by crystalline silicon solar panels will be cheaper than that produced by coal by 2012. SunPower is another potential runner: the company�s 14.2MW system at the Nellis Air Force base in Nevada features crystalline silicon panels that cost $7.04 per watt to install. In terms of kilowatt-hour cost, Bachman figured that it worked out at $0.164 per kilowatt-hour. For SunPower to rival First Solar�s kilowatt-hour rate of electricity generation, however, Bachman reckons that SunPower�s panels, despite the fact that they boast a much higher conversion efficiency rate, would have to be sold at 52% less, or $3.4 per watt. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Paul Keinanen on 3 Jun 2010 15:00
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:38:25 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 03/06/2010 06:22, Sylvia Else wrote: >> In place where grid power is available, PV cells never repay the >> financial cost of their manufacture. That is, absent subsidies, you >> cannot sell the energy they generate for enough money to justify the >> expenditure of the money invested in them. > >Depends if you want to sell the energy. >In S Europe, without subsidies, domestic PV electricity is already >comparable to domestic grid cost. I _might_ even believe something like this, assuming: * the electricity price varies hour by hour * there is a huge day/night consumption difference in the country * the high day peak demand is handled by a simple (non-combined cycle) gas turbine burning some expensive fuel During some high demand hours a year, there even might be price parity. |