rooferguy

GE to Close Its Only U.S. Solar Panel Factory

Let’s get real about the jobs creation capacity of domestic solar panel manufacturing.

The article says that GE’s factory produced 34 megawatts of panels with 82 people. The entire U.S. demand for solar panels is about 400 MW in 2009 — that would employ 965 people TOTAL in the U.S. With production line automation, the trend is towards fewer jobs per megawatt.

At the same time there are about 10,000 people in the U.S. involved with marketing, selling, installing and operating solar power systems, and this number of people is growing very rapidly as the prices go down.

Take a look at the Country of Origin label on the computer you’re reading this on. It probably says “China.” So what? Be glad you can do your job (or your stock trading) more efficiently because you can do it on a cheap, high performance computer.

Availability of cheap solar panels — regardless of where they are made — is creating a very large installation industry, is saving a tremendous amount of energy by reducing electric bills, and freeing up consumer spending for other things.

The jobs are on the installation side, with more jobs as prices go down. These installation jobs can NEVER be outsourced. The sad fact is that subsidizing or requiring domestic manufacturing results in net FEWER jobs in the solar industry.

Oversupply Issues Plague Solar Manufacturers

Oversupply - TERRIFIC, bring it on. That reduces the installed price for solar power systems. Lower cost=higher volumes=greater energy savings.

Jobs? The solar industry is creating installation jobs at a feverish pace. If you don't know it, one of the biggest panel factories in the U.S. only employs 200 people. We're creating 10x that many jobs on the installation and services side with cheap panels. And inexpensive, plug & play panels that are easy to install will put even more electricians and roofers to work installing solar.

So the way to create the most net U.S. jobs is to make solar panels as inexpensively as possible in China, not to insist that panels are made -- at a high price -- in the U.S. Because those high-priced U.S. panels won't result in a lot of installed customers (unless we also naively require U.S.-made content, which further distorts the economics).

The Trouble with Clean Coal

CO2 Belch, well EXCUUSE MEE -

The “burping” problem occurred in Cameroon (and probably elsewhere) when CO2 was dissolved in water at depth. The higher pressure at depth kept the CO2 dissolved, but convection currents started to bring up bubbles, and those bubbles brought up more water dissolved with CO2, causing all the dissolved CO2 to be released in the air. Suffice it to say that we should indeed be very skeptical of sequestration efforts that do not store CO2 in some kind of stable, solid form. Pumping it into a salt dome or underground structure sounds OK — but one big crack or leak and it all goes right back up into the atmosphere.

The impurities in coal do not release energy when they “burn”; these elements (nitrogen, sulfur) actually create more harmful gases (nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides were regulated since they created acid rain). I’d have to look up how much energy and equipment is required to sequester carbon in limestone.

My point is that to do a good, safe, permanent job of sequestration, the immutable laws of thermodynamics say that you don’t generate any net energy.

At best we should leave these ideas to “science projects” until pilot plants are built and operating that show favorable economics. The engineering reality is that we’re not even close with clean coal.

The Trouble with Clean Coal

Clean coal is an oxymoron and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Before you invest in any Clean Coal system, take some basic engineering courses.

When we combust coal (by burning it) we break the molecules apart into CO2 (the green house gas) and H2O (water). We also create lots of heat. If you want to sequester the CO2 again it will take a lot of energy, as well as expensive equipment to do so.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics basically states that it is impossible to generate net energy from a system that you are trying to put back to its original state (perpetual motion machines are also a violation). So in principal it is thermodynamically impossible to get net energy out of burning coal if you also need to put the CO2 back into a permanently sequestered state.

Of course you could still pump the CO2 into the ground and hope it doesn’t leak out — but just the pumping equipment and energy to do so will also be quite expensive. And no one is every going to want to live near those underground CO2 reservoirs (In 1986, a tremendous CO2 “burp” from the lake Nyos, West of Cameroon, killed more than 1700 people and livestock up to 25 km away).

Market to Shine on Solar Industry Through 2011

Please direct me to the study that objectively shows that installing 1kw of PV generates 75 tons of CO2.


On Oct 30 11:25 AM keithfeather wrote:

> If you can connect 1kw of solar capacity to the grid for $1.00, the
> overall balance is this:
>
> CO2 generated to produce all the energy to install 1kw: 75 tons
>
> CO2 avoided per year based on 300days, 8 hours, 75% output: 3 tons
>
>
> So to break even at $1 per kw connected to the grid will only take
> 25 years to break even on the CO2 balance.

Dow’s Solar Shingles: A Solar Product People May Actually Buy

Not many people have actually installed shingle-level PV panels. It’s hard to imagine a solar shingle that would meet the fire rating requirements unless there is layer of non-combustible material between the shingle and PV material. Moreover, every shingle needs a pair of wires (+ and -). If there’s any metal frame, every shingle needs a ground connection to meet NEC requirements.

So the reality of installing 5 kw of solar shingles (say each one has 10 watts of output, about a square foot) is that you’ll need 1,000 wiring connections (+ and -), and maybe another 500 ground connections. Do you want that on the surface of your roof, in an accessible attic, or concealed between roofing materials? Or not at all.

The practical and reliable alternative is to get standard solar panels that can achieve the same output with only 50 wiring connections and 25 grounding connections (200 watt panels), all done underneath the panels in an accessible place. Potentially those 75 wiring connections can be reduced to zero if any of those new plug & play AC modules are installed.

Because of fire and wiring concerns, BIPV solar shingles have historically been a great idea hitting the impenetrable walls of reality. Sort of like a flying car.

Picking Solar Energy Winners

Don't forget to add in the costs for a mammoth transmission and distribution system to the Chinese Solar Field everyone is talking about.

Without a doubt the total costs (installed $/kw or lifecycle $/kwh generated) for a Solar Field PLUS transmission and distribution will be much higher than the comparable cost for commercial or residential rooftop systems.

Here in the U.S. we're beginning to realize the same dilemma: total costs of centralized solar are higher than distributed solar.

China's Solar Wafer Production Seems Out of Control

spuddle - I think you're mis-informed about Yingli. I read somewhere that they are pretty far along in building their own poly plant. Once that plant is on line then they will be much more vertically integrated than Renesola -- who is just now getting into the module biz (which will take a big sales and marketing push to get going).


On Sep 07 02:43 PM spuddle wrote:

> Dave, you are quite right.
>
> Unfortunately, the author of this article clearly has no logic, and,
> as a Yingli stockholder, no moral fibre as he attempts to spread
> misinformation.
>
> If poly prices fall, both Yingli and Renesola benefit. If poly prices
> rise, which they are, Renesola benefits from it's in-house supply
> whereas Yingli will need to buy the higher priced poly. Currently,
> spot poly prices are around $63/kg, Renesola is producing poly internally
> at $50/kg falling to $35/kg next year (500MW worth).
>
> Yingli does not produce poly and is therefore not fully integrated
> and at a cost disadvantage. Renesola produces poly and also produces
> cells/modules/systems with the acquisition of JC Solar. They plan
> module capacity expansion to just under 400MW by the end of next
> year.
>
> Perhaps the author, being long YGE, fears competition, since Renesola's
> lower cost structure and hefty module production, will enable them
> to undercut Yingli and pressure their markets too.
>
> I am not sure that Renesola will wish to be 'compatible' with FSLR
> as the author states YGE will be. Renesola already has a far better
> product in terms of reliability, durability and efficiency than FSLR.
> It is now aiming to include comprehensively beating them on price....
>
>
> On Sep 07 09:41 AM Dave Marsh wrote:

One in Two Solar Firms Will Fail, Say Analysts

Solar is an industry with lots of players in the value chain. The fact that there is an oversupply of modules only means that one part of the value chain will suffer (and I agree, the suffering will result in a lot of module manufacturers disappearing). Silicon suppliers may do well. Inverter companies should thrive. As much lower prices make the economics for customers very compelling, installers should do very well. The business is likely to take off when cheap, easy-to-install panels are available to electricians and roofers all over the country.

There is a great deal of price elasticity in consumer behavior. We're likely to see a sustainable boom in solar power installations starting next year when these lower prices filter down to residential and commercial customers.

Balance Sheet Wars: U.S. Solar Companies vs. Chinese Government

These studies miss the forest for the trees. Nobody buys just a solar cell -- they buy a complete system. Cells (and modules) have dropped in price by 50%+, and are likely to continue to decline. But installation, permitting, engineering and documentation costs have not been reduced -- hence total installed costs are still relatively high.

I'm looking forward to a time when I can buy an easy-to-install plug and play solar panel. That innovation will crack the retail market wide open and will lower the non-cell costs most dramatically.

Suntech Claims New World Record in Silicon Panel Efficiency

I'll bet I can get cheaper power out of my Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor (especially when I connect it to my Flux Capacitor) than you can get out of your polywell fusion reactor! It will be awhile before we can go fission again here in the U.S.

In the mean time my handy-dandy solar fusion converter (AKA solar panel) will crank out the watts, cheaply and reliably.


On Aug 21 03:54 PM Jasper M wrote:

> No, no, not comparing different solar tech - commneting on All solar
> tech.
>
> 1) Depression will destroy commercial petro demand, driving down
> oil prices below where solar can hope to compete.
> 2) Government meddling insures this depression will have Serious
> legs; going to last aWhile.
> 3) Grotesque federal debt, and attendant taxpayer revolt, will put
> an end to industry subsidies which much of the solar industry is
> depending on.
> 4) By the time the depression is allowed to run its course, the first
> wave of new gen fission reactors (at POINT 2 CENTS/kilowatt-hour)
> will have been deployed, if not here in the US, then certainly overseas,
> picking off high consumption customers, and keeping oil demand (and
> thus prices) on its knees. Can solar really compete at those low
> energy prices?
> 5) And farther out, there's polywell fusion reactors coming.
>
> So when I say buggy whips, I am referring to solar in general. It
> is soon to be obsolete technology.

Suntech Claims New World Record in Silicon Panel Efficiency

Huh?

Jasper, I think you've got it backwards. Low efficiency thin film is a buggy whip; expensive, centralized power stations are buggy whips; gasoline-powered cars are buggy whips.

Suntech (and other major solar panel manufacturers) are the horseless carriage circa 1900. Suntech is the biggest manufacturer of highly efficient crystalline solar panels. They've got scale, stability, distribution, OEM relationships and new technology with even higher efficiencies. They'll be around and are likely to displace many conventional sources of energy for the simple reason that Suntech panels are the cheapest way to make electricity where you need it.


On Aug 19 04:34 PM Jasper M wrote:

> The FINEst buggy-whips around!

6 Ways to Play Clean Energy

I can't put a nuclear plant on my roof, nor solar thermal or geothermal. So with each of these ostensibly cheap sources of power you need an expensive and time-consuming transmission and distribution system. With solar electric panels on my roof you don't need incremental transmission and distribution infrastructure.

Look at your electric bill. Typically HALF of the cost of residential and commercial electricity is the generation cost -- the rest is transmission, distribution and in some cases nuclear decommissioning. You have none of that with Distributed Generation power.

According to the IER report you quoted for comparison purposes: "Since the availability of wind or solar is dependent of forces outside of the operator’s control, their levelized costs are not directly comparable to those for other technologies."

Commercial and residential customers are going to flock to rooftop sources of power in greater numbers as costs for these systems continue on their rapidly declining path. These customers will look at their electric bills and make their own decisions -- and won't rely on their utilities to choose expensive power sources that are more profitable for utilities.


On Aug 14 02:17 PM Davewmart wrote:

> rooferguy said:
> 'Marc, you're making two contradictory statements. First you say
> that solar and wind have enormous start-up costs. Then you say that
> the one big problem with geothermal is the initial cost: drilling,
> turbines and some maintenance (by the way, nuclear is off the charts
> in this regard).'
> Er, no it's not. Here are the levelised costs:
> www.instituteforenergy.../
>
> Nuclear: 107.3
> And here is your favourite, solar
> Solar thermal: 229.6
> Solar PV: 395.7
>
> And here are the costs for the subject of this article, geothermal:
> 111.5
>
> As can be seen, where available geothermal is very competitive.<br/>Of
> course, if the US had a reasonable regulatory regime which was interested
> in facilitating safe nuclear power instead of hindering it in any
> way possible, nuclear costs would be far lower.
> As it is, the cheapest power may be available by buying Russian or
> Chinese modular reactors and simply importing them at a fraction
> of US
> build costs:
> nextbigfuture.com/2009...
>
> Where available though geothermal looks good, especially in it's
> low temperature variety:
> www.greencarcongress.c...

6 Ways to Play Clean Energy

Marc, you're making two contradictory statements. First you say that solar and wind have enormous start-up costs. Then you say that the one big problem with geothermal is the initial cost: drilling, turbines and some maintenance (by the way, nuclear is off the charts in this regard).

The key distinction with solar is that the costs are dropping very rapidly. Technology is being deployed to reduce those total installed costs for solar even more. For the next 10 years or so it will trend like the computer industry; effectively much lower costs per watt every year.

Take it from one who knows. The costs to drill a geothermal well have only gone up. It’s a very installation-intensive business with minimal technology. Solar is benefitting now from manufacturing scale and technology improvements that are reducing costs dramatically, resulting in very favorable prices for solar generated electricity.

Dark Skies Ahead for Solar Sector

The solar sector is much more than the upstream suppliers. Continued solar panel price declines are the absolute best thing for customers. When we go from $4.00/watt to $1.75/watt for panels -- and find ways to reduce installation costs even further -- commercial and residential customers can generate their own electricity for much less than their utility. It's called grid parity and demand will increase rapidly. Commodity panel suppliers will suffer with low margins (that's why it's called a commodity) but other parts of the value chain will benefit.