ART005

Solar Market Declines for First Time Ever

The never ending faith in residential grid-tie PV amazes me. I don't remember Robert Cast's article but 1.5 yrs ago I was the only one in an SA article saying LDK was not destined from $15 to $26, I suggested $10 for kicks, now I think it's $6. Look at some basic energy numbers: Coal power plants sell commercially at $0.07/kWhr and residentially at $0.085/kWhr. Nuclear costs less than $0.08/kWhr. Solar is still trying to break $0.15/kWhr, jerrydd's numbers are pretty good but he misses the point that the power companys will add to consumer's cost to use grid-tie PV and if you try to use batteries your cost for the batteries alone is over $0.25/kWhr. My residential power bill is $0.085/kWhr but my monthly service fee just went from $5 to $20/mo as a gov. subsidy for wind turbine installation. Wind turbines cost half as much as PV on a $$/kWhr basis. So my 100 kWhr/mo elec. bill is $29. That is almost $0.30/kWhr for power that my company 30 miles away pays $0.07/kWhr!! Basically I am being taxed $15/mo or half my bill to solve the illusion of global warming.

You can not produce grid-tie residential PV from a 3 kWp system at under $0.10/kWhr if the panels were free! Racks, cables, labor, inverter and such alone will break the budget!! Don't suggest hiding the cost in subsidies, it cost what it cost regardless of who is paying for it.

The whole residential grid-tie PV concept is based on lies with more lies. While you're clicking thumbs-down, keep this in mind: I own a solar water heater, geothermal heat pump, 1 kWp turbine, passive solar home, biomass stove and water heater, $4000 30+ mpg car, registered PE, my inventions are saving industry enough energy to run a small town. I live what I'm talking about, those of you getting your info from Google need to wake up to the lies! If you don't think lies on that scale are possible then read the gov.'s proposal for improving health care......

Solar Stocks Feeling the Heat

I don't think it's right to cut the solar industry so much slack calling them a new industry. Solar panels have been popular for at least 30-40 years that I can remember. I don't think it's right to cut them slack on economies of scale. They are receiving strong subsidies and production facilities are near capacity.

All of this is their favor and they are still over $5/watt. More than all the traditional energy options people say they don't like anymore. More than wind. And more than other mechanical type options like wave or geothermal.

Solar has a couple nagging problems that keep it a loosing proposition: it takes tremendous electrical energy quantities to manufacture solar panels, solar panels have low capture efficiency per area. If these govern economic efficiency of solar panels no increase is size improves their benefit! Until collection efficiency is improved over 200%, subsidized installation of solar panels is a loosing proposition. I wish it wasn't so....

Consider simple comparison at consumer level:
2.5 sq. meter solar water heater colector: ~$6300, 7500 BTU/hr = 2.2 kW. shop.solardirect.com/p...

2.2 kW PV panel at $5/watt = $11,000 plus ~$1300 inverter = +$12,000 minimum plus racks and maybe more.

35% sunlight * 365 days * 24 hrs * 2.2kW * $0.10/kW*hr = $675/yr. and that is on the high side.

Example gives 10.7%/yr for solar heat, and 5.5% for PV. After installation costs they each loose a couple percentage points and then PV is too close to 0% while heat is equitable. Every hotwater user should evaluate solar heat. Subsidizing PV research to at least cut costs in half before extensive uneconomical installations helps preserve financial assets for future opportunities.