2 hours ago, martin-w said:

Not huge savings over 25 years but worth it if you intend to stay in the property long term. 

How is it worth it? You want to take on that asset ownership risk just to break even in 25 years?

The average cost in the US per a quick internet search is $16,000 including federal rebates. $16,000/$45/month=355 months=30 years just to break even for me. I'm better off investing the money elswhere and buying my power from Xcel Energy which claims to be all renewable by 2040. And that is assuming that I would save the entire $45 which is not true. If I am connected to the grid for net metering I will have to pay for the right to use the distribution system which is only fair. If I am not connected to the grid I am faced with purchasing a whole house battery backup system also. What does insurance cost to cover the potential failure of any component of that solar system? That is not a cost you have to consider buying electricity from the utility. The risk of purchasing from the utility is future price increases but that will be moderated by the fact that any one can buy solar panels now. That is how the improvement in solar panel technology benefits everyone even if you don't own a solar panel. So I hope the ownership costs keep coming down.

1 hour ago, goates said:

Or start by building them on mall roof tops and over top of the vast uncovered parking lots that exist all over cities (at least in North America).

This makes the most sense to me. Locate the generation where the demand is. Constructing huge plants in the desert and building transmissions lines to get it where you need it is an injustice to that environment. That's what the large corporations prefer though because it is easier for them to purchase and permit the remote land and also to maintain large installations versus thousands of residential and parking lot installations. Utilities also want to build the large installations because they can own and control the generation that way and also earn a rate of return on that investment. They have to purchase the power from the smaller installations.

Ted

Just now, Ted Striker said:

Constructing huge plants in the desert and building transmissions lines to get it where you need it is an injustice to that environment

A fair point well made, but I suppose it would be better to do that than clear away forests and grasslands. (Keep the plant life!)

1 minute ago, HighBypass said:

A fair point well made, but I suppose it would be better to do that than clear away forests and grasslands. (Keep the plant life!)

I think there is more to many deserts than you give them credit for. While they may not have the same amount of life as a rain forest, they aren't barren waste lands either.

For those places that do get lots of sun, I think the best route will be incorporating solar into existing houses, buildings and infrastructure. Between conventional solar panels, solar tiles/roofs, and things like solar windows and paint, I think we could do far better than paving over more of the Earth. We are still a little ways off from all of these options being economic for everyone, but they are developing and improving fairly quickly.

51 minutes ago, Mace said:

There aren't very many people there.  But it could generate a LOT of solar energy, but no real practical way to get it out of Mauretania. 

The problem would be that if/when we have that technology, it would also likely be far more efficient to generate the electricity from solar panels and nuclear reactors (fission or maybe fusion) in orbit, or maybe even on the moon. Could probably also mine the moon for many of the minerals required too.

2 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Keep the plant life!

While inhospitable to humans there is actually a lot of plant and animal life in the american deserts. The large solar installations want to fence in there property for security but it is a problem for migrating desert tortoises and other animals. The desert is preferable to cutting down large amounts of forest but just not as logical as putting the generation where the load is. Another plus for the building and parking lot installations is that they do not offer a large target for terrorists and other loonies as do both the large generating plants and transmission lines. One thing I have never understood is why cities in the deserts like Phoenix don't have all their parking lots covered with solar panels. I know even in Denver I am always trying to find shade to park my car under in the summer. I guess the economics don't justify it yet. Perhaps when electric cars are more prevalent.

24 minutes ago, Ted Striker said:

I guess the economics don't justify it yet. Perhaps when electric cars are more prevalent.

Economics is a big part of it, but current regulations are also a major factor. Probably a bit of lobbying from current power companies too to preserve their profits too. Most regulations are designed around coal/natural gas/nuclear/hydro power plants and large wind or solar farms (that basically act like spread out conventional power plants), and not the more distributed model that would be needed to build solar everywhere. Basically anyone who built a solar farm over top of a parking lot would need to either be or become a utility company, and I'm not sure many want to go that route.

On top of the regulations, the electric grid itself isn't designed to have widely distributed power sources either. Having a few home and business owners feeding small amounts of electricity back into the grid is one thing, but if everyone does that, you a new system to properly manage it. This is where the idea of a Smart Grid comes into play.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid

11 hours ago, Ted Striker said:

How is it worth it? You want to take on that asset ownership risk just to break even in 25 years?

Ted

 

You misunderstand Ted. Payback isn't in 25 years. Average payback in the UK is 9.7 years. the 25 years is the warranty period. They're also warrantied not to lose more than 20% of the efficiency they had from new, within that 25 years. After that 9.7 years its worth it in terms of money saved and its worth it of course in terms of the reduction in CO2 emitted. 

 

Quote

The average cost in the US per a quick internet search is $16,000 including federal rebates.

 

So that's £11,480. Which is ridiculously high. Average cost of solar panels on your roof, in the UK, is £5,940. You guys in the US are being ripped off!

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/solar-panels/cost#:~:text=Finding an installer-,How much do solar panels cost%3F,around 20m² of roof space.

Quote

How much do solar panels cost?

Solar panels for the average household in the UK cost £5,940, according to the latest government data. 

 

Quote

 I'm better off investing the money elswhere and buying my power from Xcel Energy which claims to be all renewable by 2040. 

 

Well that's 19 years away of course, but if you are being ripped off in regard to installation cost in the US, then yes, I don't blame you. We are incentivised here, not discouraged. 

 

Quote

What does insurance cost to cover the potential failure of any component of that solar system? 

 

25 years warranty Ted, some companies 30 years. Invertors are warrantied for less than that, usually 10 years. A basic string invertor isn't expensive if it needs replacing, usually about £500. Micro invertors are more expensive, but usually last much longer than 10 years. 

 

Quote

So I hope the ownership costs keep coming down.

 

Yep, they will do. Efficiency is continuing to improve and prices are plummeting. fallen 82% since since 2010. 

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/03/solar-costs-have-fallen-82-since-2010/#:~:text=The levelized cost of energy,the International Renewable Energy Agency.

Matt Ferrell's video is interesting. He's in the Boston area, and does have challenges re solar panels due to the lack of sunshine in winter months, and the orientation of his house. But he did actually do quite well.

His bills before were averaged to $212 per month before solar was installed and averaged to $97.80 per month after the solar panels were installed.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 20215 yr by martin-w

9 hours ago, Ted Striker said:

 

This makes the most sense to me. Locate the generation where the demand is. Constructing huge plants in the desert and building transmissions lines to get it where you need it is an injustice to that environment. That's what the large corporations prefer though because it is easier for them to purchase and permit the remote land and also to maintain large installations versus thousands of residential and parking lot installations. Utilities also want to build the large installations because they can own and control the generation that way and also earn a rate of return on that investment. They have to purchase the power from the smaller installations.

Ted

 

Germany seems to be well up there, frequently hitting 50% of its needs from solar power. China at the top though. Shame you have to pay so much for rooftop solar in the US.

The Tesla solar roof is an option for those replacing their roof's. Doesn't make sense to remove a perfectly good roof of course.

 

Edited February 26, 20215 yr by martin-w

10 hours ago, HighBypass said:

Not if you build the solar farms out in a desert. Granted there are flora and fauna which exist, but at least we are not talking chopping down acres of rain forest. In fact some deserts already have a helpful infrastructure - a railway: The ability to transport a lot of supplies a great distance in one go.

 

 

 

Wildlife is certainly a consideration. What I would say though, is its a pity we don't have the same consideration for wildlife when we build nuclear power stations, coal fired power stations, offshore oil rigs and gas platforms etc. 

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/sep/07/nuclear-power-station-could-destroy-minsmere-wildlife-haven-i-have-loved-since-childhood

Quote

Environmentalists and environmental scientists have criticized wind energy in various forums for its negative impacts on wildlife, especially birds. This article highlights that nuclear power and fossil-fuelled power systems have a host of environmental and wildlife costs as well, particularly for birds. Therefore, as a low-emission, low-pollution energy source, the wider use of wind energy can save wildlife and birds as it displaces these more harmful sources of electricity.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/027046760102100606

 

Quote

According to the MIT authors, powering 100 percent of estimated U.S. electricity demand in 2050 with solar energy would require roughly 33,000 square kilometers (sq-km) of land. That’s if we spread solar panels evenly across the entire country. If we concentrate solar production in the sunniest regions, the total land footprint falls to 12,000 sq-km.

Those sound like big numbers. On the one hand they are. Massachusetts (where I reside) spans about 27,000 sq-km, for comparison.

On the other hand, the United States apparently devotes about 10,000 sq-km of land just to golf courses. And as the infographic illustrates, it’s agriculture and forestry that truly drives humanity’s footprint on the natural landscape.

 

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/how-much-land-does-solar-wind-and-nuclear-energy-require

Not that covering huge areas in just solar is sensible of course. A mix of renewable energy types is required. Use what works in the appropriate situation. 

Edited February 26, 20215 yr by martin-w

On 2/26/2021 at 2:22 AM, martin-w said:

Average cost of solar panels on your roof, in the UK, is £5,940. You guys in the US are being ripped off!

I don't think that the systems are any less expensive in the UK, more likely a higher percentage of your taxes and/or utility rates is subsidizing people who purchase solar systems. I did a little more internet surfing and it appears that the average cost for a 5 kw system in Denver is $15,000 with tax credits bringing it down to $11,000. Still not worth the risk and hassle for me. I have plenty of solar salesmen ringing my door bell after they see my roof. I let 2 of them provide me a free estimate. Neither one got back to me after seeing what my electric costs are. I kept calling one to get an estimate as I was curious and I wanted some documentation for the next salesman that rang my door bell. He kept saying he was working on it and then finally said that in my case solar system didn't make sense. Perhaps if prices continue to drop I'll be tempted. Also we now have a liberal state governor and a liberal president. I expect that the "free" government subsidies to help purchase these will increase in the future.

If I was 30 or 40 I might be interested. When you are younger you like to consume and collect the latest and greatest gizmos. Now that I am retired I find that I want to get rid of a lot of what I have acquired over the years and simplify my life. I spent all day yesterday repairing my refrigerator. At my age the last thing I want is another thing to maintain.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against rooftop solar, they just don't make much economic sense for me.

Ted

8 hours ago, Ted Striker said:

I don't think that the systems are any less expensive in the UK, more likely a higher percentage of your taxes and/or utility rates is subsidizing people who purchase solar systems.

Ted

Nope. All the incentives have ended in the UK a while ago. The "green Deal" was scraped back in 2015. There is the GDHF, but it focuses on other home improvements and doesn't cover solar panels. There isn't even a feed in tariff anymore, the government scraped it in 2019. Even a very big 6kw array is only £8000. Average installation cost is "5,940 as I say. It really does seem that you guys in the US pay much more than we do for panels and installation. 

I don't know if you watched the Matt Ferrell video above, he's in Boston, and it seems to be viable for him. 

Quote

 spent all day yesterday repairing my refrigerator. At my age the last thing I want is another thing to maintain. 

What sort of warrantees do they do in Denver? As I mentioned, 25 - 30 years here and 10 years for the invertor. 

Quote

5 kw system in Denver is $15,000 with tax credits bringing it down to $11,000.

Yeah that's higher than us. We don't get any tax credits and its still only £7000 for 5kw. $9,747. You are still more expensive than us and we don't get tax credits. 

Quote

Still not worth the risk and hassle for me.

Fair enough Ted, you live in Denver not me, not up to me to tell you what to do. 🙂

 

Something we haven't mentioned re solar panels is the creative way they are being deployed to improve efficiency. 

Floatovoltaics is a thing believe it or not. Floating on manmade reservoirs they offer several advantages. The panels are cooled so that they are at their optimum temperature for electricity generation, and they reduce evaporation of the water.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/floating-solar-farms-how-floatovoltaics-could-provide-power-without-taking-ncna969091

Solar Trackers. Automatically point themselves in the direction of the sun. Can increase power generation by 45%.

Agrivoltaics: Again, by locating above crops, they operate at lower temperatures and thus with greater efficiency Solar ceils don't like to be too warm. 

https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2019/benefits-of-agrivoltaics-across-the-food-energy-water-nexus.html

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

What sort of warrantees do they do in Denver? As I mentioned, 25 - 30 years here and 10 years for the invertor. 

I received an email this morning citing a 25 year inclusive warranty. However, a tiny symbol followed that claim, which if one took to time to read in smaller font at the bottom, indicated that the "control system" was only warranted for 5 years... 

I guess it depends what they mean by control system, and the replacement cost of those parts. As I mentioned, the investors are guaranteed for 10 years in UK. 

16 hours ago, martin-w said:

I guess it depends what they mean by control system

That includes the inverter as well as the battery charging/conditioning system.