Photovoltaics
Part 1: Solar Panel Efficiency Going Up as Costs are Falling
Part 2: PPAs and Other Ways to Pay for PV Systems
Solar Panel Efficiency Going Up as Costs are Falling
By Greg Zimmerman, Executive Editor - October 2010 - Energy Efficiency
Right now, despite the ongoing renaissance of all things sustainable, the power produced from photovoltaic (PV) panels makes up less than 1 percent of all the power produced in the U.S. By most accounts, the two biggest hurdles to wider scale adoption of solar electricity are the perception that PV panels are way too expensive to justify on a payback basis and the notion that outside of super-sunny areas like Florida and Arizona, not enough solar electricity would be produced to make PVs worthwhile at all, even if cost wasn't a factor.
To start with the second: Analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows that even in Alaska, the average annual irradiation (the amount of the sun's energy hitting the panels) is about 1,100 kWh/m2 of panel per year. To calculate the energy produced, multiply by the efficiency of the PV panels — say, conservatively, 11 percent. So, even in arctic Alaska, a square meter of PV panel can produce 110 kwh per year. By way of comparison, in parts of Arizona, the average irradiation can be as high as 2,500 kWh/m2 per year.
That Alaskan total is actually more than the average amount of power produced by PV panels in most parts of Germany, a country with the highest PV adoption rate in the world. So those numbers should dispel the myth that electricity produced by PVs in northern climates can't be significant, says Gary Gerber, president and CEO of Sun Light & Power, a PV design and installation firm. "Remember, no matter where you are, solar is paying for itself every day," he says.
But at what cost, skeptics still ask. Yes, on a kilowatt-hour basis, solar power is still more expensive than fossil fuel power. And yes, PVs can still have a payback in excess of 10 years, making the justification argument difficult. But as manufacturing technology is improving and panels are being produced more cheaply, and as the panels themselves are becoming more efficient, both expense and payback numbers are coming down. According to the 2009 Solar Industry Year in Review report from the Solar Energies Industry Association, the price per watt of PV modules dropped 40 percent — from $3.50 to $4.00 a watt in mid-2008 down to $1.85 to $2.25 per watt in 2009. And average installed cost of a PV system fell 10 percent from 2008 to 2009.
What's more, as states are ramping up their renewable portfolio standards, they're also increasing tax incentives for PV installations. And utilities are chiming in with rebate programs as well.
For a frequently updated list of state incentive and utility rebate programs, visit www.dsireusa.org For more information on property assessed clean energy (PACE) programs, including a list of states with PACE-enabling legislation, visit www.pacenow.org. |
Comments
jcoplin wrote re: Solar Panel Efficiency Going Up as Costs are Falling
on 11/23/2010 5:24:16 PM
Good point about Government subsidies for Nuclear, people forget about that. We tend to forget about the many ways that Government subsidizes every form of energy production including coal, natural gas and hydro. Oil is by far the biggest without even taking into account the use of the military to protect the oil companies and their assetts in countries that don't want them there.
Solar gets about 1/2 as much as nuclear and less than 1/2 of what coal gets, and that's just at the Federal level.
WichKan wrote re: Solar Panel Efficiency Going Up as Costs are Falling
on 11/22/2010 11:15:32 PM
It is sad that the average Joe will have to wait for a government subsidy to be encouraged or to be able to afford a solar or wind power solution! Just like anyone else, I would like to leave this planet in better shape than when I found it or it found me!
As a small business owner, I am compelled to consider ROI (my return on investment) when it comes to spending or investing money in anything like PV or such. Some of us may call it "pay off" as much as I dislike the expression, I have to use it to justify the expense or investment.
Last week, I put up an offer to buy "Solar powered street/parking lot lights" on a website! I had over one hundred messages directing me to their websites and telling me they can sell me what I am looking for.
What Saddened me is that all but one are from China! Like someone mentioned earlier in the comments, China is not doing it to save the planet. It is the opportunity! knowing that the average wage in China is less than $200 a month, I could not comprehend the asking export price is up to $2,000 per light with a pole!!
I am sure there is no gold used in making these light but they know the American consumer is hungry for such products.
I don't understand why we don't have hundreds of companies here in the States manufacturing these solar light or solar panels to light the indoors and keeping the cost in check!
Yes, we want to save the planet but the benefit has to over weigh the cost; and that is what some folks are calling "pay off". I think.
jeff487 wrote re: Solar Panel Efficiency Going Up as Costs are Falling
on 11/22/2010 12:37:53 PM
MissionCriticalWest claims that solar won't be cost effective without government subsidy, but then suggests that the answer lies in "absurdly cost effective" nuclear? There has never been a nuclear power plant built without government subsidies. In fact, if you research the nuclear power plant proposed by Constellation Energy at their Calvert Cliffs reactor in Maryland, you will see that they recently just cancelled the project. The reason? The federal government's incentives/loan guarantees weren't good enough! If the taxpayers can't take on more of the risk of the project, they aren't moving forward. Doesn't sound like a low cost alternative to me...
MissionCriticalWest wrote re: Solar Panel Efficiency Going Up as Costs are Falling
on 11/22/2010 12:21:14 PM
As I stated in a recent piece for FOX NEWS, solar/PV has never been, is not now, and likely never will be even close to cost-effective without huge government subsidy. Consider the Spanish debacle. I consult for Wall St on alternative energy (fuel cells, lithium/nickel/sodium batteries, flywheels, wind, PV, thermal, etc.) The fact that China (as mentioned) is chasing PV production only makes sense as they study the American market and see $$$ in our misunderstanding. The way out of our requisite relationship to fossel fuels is unquestionably nuclear. Problem is still too many "average" Americans do not understand just how very green, safe and absurdly cost-effective nuclear is. The lamestream media did too good a job assassinating the approach two decades back!
garyfarrar wrote re: Solar Panel Efficiency Going Up as Costs are Falling
on 11/22/2010 11:46:53 AM
I just finished reading another article about the costs of PV (photovoltaic) coming down and making them more competitive to oil, gas, and coal. I have to confess that I have had it up to here regarding this comparison and argument.....the so called "pay-off". In my mind (which is subject to question, I'll agree) this term "pay-off" is misleading and a detriment to progress. It should be dropped. How can one compare the " pay-off" cost of PV to fossil fuel, which has no "pay-off"?
Case in point....say you spend $1000.00 per year on coal for the electricity required to run your home, and let's say that at current investment costs, a similar PV unit, if purchased and installed this year will "pay-off" in 10 years. So what? In ten years, even if coal prices remain exactly the same, in year 11 you will pay $1000.00 for the coal, and $1000.00 the year after that, and $1000.00 the year after that, etc., etc., ad nauseum.....in the meantime, the PV costs have been reduced to maintenance and upkeep only. There is no "pay-off" with fossil fuel. It only runs out.
I don't get it. Am I missing something? Is the current thought fossil fuel will last forever, and can always be compared to PV using so called "pay-off" criteria? Why is it that the dwindling supply of fossil fuel does not have a "finally used up" or "too expensive to extract" cost attached to it when its in competition with PV?
