Posted on 02/21/2008 11:00:25 AM PST by Ben Mugged
Despite increasing popular support for solar photovoltaic panels in the United States, their costs far outweigh the benefits, according to a new analysis by Severin Borenstein, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business and director of the UC Energy Institute.
"Solar photovoltaic (PV) is a very exciting technology, but the current technology is not economic," said Borenstein. "We are throwing money away by installing the current solar PV technology, which is a loser."
In his January working paper, "The Market Value and Cost of Solar Photovoltaic Electricity Product," Borenstein also found that, even after considering that the panels reduce greenhouse gases, their costs still far outweigh their social benefits.
The bottom line, Borenstein argues in his paper, is that solar PV panels are not ready for widespread installation. Rather than subsidizing residential solar PV installations, as many states do, he favors more state and federal funding for research and development.
"We need a major scientific breakthrough, and we won't get it by putting panels up on houses," he said in a recent interview on campus. "It is going to come in the labs."
~snip~ He found that the favorable timing of solar PV production increases its value by up to 20 percent. However, the premium value of solar PV could be from 30 percent to 50 percent higher if U.S. systems were run with less capacity and prices were allowed to rise as demand increases at different times of the day, said Borenstein, who has long advocated for such variable time pricing. He noted that U.S. systems typically operate with excess capacity and that consumers pay the same price for electricity at all times of the day.
“Basically, the benefits of solar PV are undermined by the way most grids are run today,” Borenstein said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newswise.com ...
Nuclear power ping?
The government can make PV systems more enticing by allowing electricity rates to double.
After eight years it needed a hundreds-of-thousands upgrade.
They said it had produced $40,000 worth of electricity.
Solar PV is a toy for the wealthy greens- I put $30,000 worth of panels on MY house! I’m much greener than you!
Solar hot water, though, is the real deal, it works and is cost-effective even in northern areas.
It keeps your hot water hot when you're not home to use it, which is still better than using gas or electricity to do the same thing. I prefer tank-less gas water heaters. You only heat what you use and they are very efficient. Just like cars, the Japanese make the best ones.
Almost like the ethanol boondoggle, but at least no huge tax $$$$ subsidies are involved.
Screw the planet - we want them on our future mountain home so we can live off the grid.
Are you certain?
If the product enables self-sufficiency and cuts the ties of dependency, then it is worth the cost. I live in CA and want to have my own water source and electrical source so when that next catastrophic event occurs, I don’t need gov’t. And I’ll access the 2nd amendment to keep what is mine.
Certain community’s do not allow tankless hot water systems. Mine included.
That’s ridiculous.
Once a PV is manufactured and installed, it need only be maintained thereafter. The electricty, as with wind and water turbines and the like, is entirely free.
So he’s saying don’t make devices that provide free fuel, instead put the money into maybe possibly finding a method of making - free fuel.
Many states have adopted or will adopt renewable mandates (wind and solar). The rats want mandates nationally. Solar is one of the annointed green technologies, like hybrids, wind, and bio fuels. All hail to green!
What is the logic behind that ban?
I don’t agree with him. Price of PV panels will continue to decrease as more capacity is added (economies of scale). Therefore subsidies are actually a good idea. By 2015-2020 PV will be cheaper than grid electricity.
He has just looked at the total benefits and costs of PV technology. Although the rats have not applied a meter to the sun’s rays, PV technology has a high fixed cost, limited usage periods, maintenance costs, and limited power output. I think that his analysis makes good sense. Why should we commit to an immature technology with poor economic prospects?
When will the subsidies end? Never.
Subsidies are only encouraging usage of immature technologies. Remove the market and let the technology prove itself. No subsidies will be needed and we will not be stuck with immature technology when the breakthroughs occur.
works for daughter off the grid.
Project past trends linearly forward at your own peril as well.
No city inspectors versed in tankless H2O. So city just banned them for new home construction as well as replacement for tank system. You have to get a city inspection to sell your house so you wind up tearing out the tankless system before you get the inspection. If you don’t, no city certification to sell plus a fine for having the tankless system plus a re-inspection fee plus the permit cost to install a tank system. Better known as ‘pocket change’ to the city - your costs are $1,000.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.