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 ...
These stories annoy me. In a couple of years I am going to save up enough money to put a solar array on my roof. Why? Because I can.
First and foremost, I want a backup power supply in case the grid goes down due to ice or downed power lines because of wind storms.
When a major automaker comes out with a plug-in electric, I want to be first in line to buy one and hook it up to my solar array/battery bank so I can shove it in the faces of my “greener-than-thou” co-workers.
If I don’t see payback for 10 or 15 years, it doesn’t matter to me. That’s not the point. I don’t want to rely on the local power monopoly or imported foreign oil for my car. If it costs me $20K or $30K up front to have it happen, I’ll be happy to write the check.
I wish I would have had that line to toss out during the LEED seminar I attended a few months ago. There would have been a few gasps from the crowd.
No accounting for the environmental impact that comes when government seizes private wealth to spend on projects it favors.
As to the complaint about excess capacity, the answer is simple: the electric supply system must always operate with a surplus of capacity. The instant that demand exceeds supply, the system crashes. Some supply disruptions are huge, such as when a large power plant suddenly goes offline. This system is far more vast in scope and scale than hooking up a few more D cells.
“The typical ranch house has an non-air conditioned attic, where temperatures can exceed 150 degrees”
You are exactly right. I live in the desert southwest and wanted to use my attic for storage. The incredibly high summer temperature up there made that impossible. I installed a fairly large solar powered attic fan, added several soffit vents, and insulated the entire roof with R13 pink stuff. The difference was astounding. It didn’t do much for winter heating costs, but summer air conditioning costs really dropped - I had a complete payback for everything in only 3 years. Plus I now have a lot of usable attic storage space.
Photovoltaic panels have been $5 a watt since 1975 and need to come down to 5 cents a watt to make it worthwhile. We get these ‘30% cheaper’ articles all the time yet the price seems to be stuck on $5 and it’s actually headed up.
This is fine for a personal decision, but a disaster if it is a public policy one. In the former case, it is an expression of preference, for private reasons, and an expression of the liberty we are supposed to have. In the latter case, it destroys both prosperity and liberty.
Interesting graph, one of those “PVs are the future and always will be” type of graphs.
|
Most of the cost of a kWh is already taxes. As people go solar the government will have to raise other taxes to compensate. When comparing solar to conventional first subtract the taxes from the conventional and add subsidy costs to the solar to get a real cost comparison.
The problem with tankless hot water heaters is that if you have lots of bathrooms, you need several heaters. We would need three. That’s a lot of money.
|
Glad to hear solar power cost is dropping - but if it is such a great potential business, let Oerlikon and Applied Materials pay for the research and development to get their costs there. NOT ME!
Despite any maintenance you do to a PV panel, UV breaks down the cells over time and the already low efficiency drops. Current commercially available PV banks are not cost effective.
I’ve lived off-grid for months at a time on an ocean sailboat. Wind, solar and diesel makes a great triad. If the cost of far off-grid land is way below connected land, then yes, off grid energy will certainly pay for itself. And no neighbors to hassle you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1974124/posts
Commercials running in California about "State Rebates" should trigger jail time for fraud.
By far the greater expense with these pie-in-the-sky scams is the cost of storage, and the time and expense of maintaining complex electronics controls and keeping the freakin' panels clean!
Triple hilarious, actually; might as well plot cost against sales of Hummers.
All that "proves" is that an increasing number of people with more money than good sense is scamming the taxpayers to feel good and to get to government subsidies pushed by scam artists.
And no, I have no affiliation with the company.
Do you realize that I have been hearing that same BS, almost word for word since 1973?
How far ahead is this pollyanna claim justified? Fifty more years? 500?
Nano is backed by Google VC money
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.