Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Solar power costs dropping, nearing competition
Reuters ^ | 6/22/2007 | Rebekah Kebede

Posted on 06/22/2007 6:06:55 AM PDT by Uncledave

Solar power costs dropping, nearing competition Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:35PM EDT

By Rebekah Kebede

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Solar energy is fast closing the price gap with conventional U.S. power sources and is likely to drop to near even in cost in many regions in the next few years, industry sources said this week.

Price declines for the clean energy have been driven by the ramp up in production of solar cells and panels and advances in technology that have increased the cells' efficiency.

Under current laws that expire in 2008, installation of solar power systems are subsidized by a 30 percent investment tax credit that helps narrow the gap between the cost of 20 to 40 cents per kwh and typical U.S. retail electricity costs of about 10.5 cents per kwh.

Congress is debating a possible extension and expansion of current solar subsidies as part of a broader energy legislation package.

But much of solar's viability hinges on whether the systems can feed power directly into the grid systems used by utilities, Michael Ahern, CEO of solar module manufacturer First Solar Inc., told Reuters Wednesday at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum.

Currently, utilities can buy power from low-cost coal-fired plants for around 4 cents per kilowatt, and sell the power to households and business at about 12 cents per kwh, although prices can be much higher during peak usage hours, said Ahearn.

However, in a supply-constrained market such as California, Ahearn said, power prices ranged from 12 to 23 cents per kwh, making solar nearly competitive.

First Solar hopes to offer retail energy buyers competitive power prices of 8 to 11 cents per kwh as early as 2010, Ahearn said.

"If we can hit 8 to 10 cents, I think we're going to open some markets," he said.

With power prices climbing and the cost of solar power falling, the outlook for solar energy is bright, said Alf Bjorseth, CEO of Swedish company Scatec.

In some markets, solar energy is already a cost effective source of power, Bjorseth said, and that trend is set to expand, especially in larger markets.

New technologies such as thin film solar modules and the use of nanotechnology will further boost solar energy affordability, according to company executives at the conference.

Tempering that optimism, however, were several challenges to the industry, including a shortage of the silicon that is used to make solar modules, which has hampered industry growth, said Bjorseth.

The regulatory environment may also prove to be an obstacle to solar power, according to Ahearn.

Investing in new solar installations also remained risky because no clear regulatory framework existed to compare how renewables would fare economically over the long-term against more conventional sources, even with federal subsidies, Ahearn said.

(Additional reporting by Matt Daily)


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: energy; renewableenergy; renewenergy; solar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last
To: OCCASparky
Unless you’re paying over a grand a month for electricity, it’s hardly worth it.

Paging Al Gore!
41 posted on 06/22/2007 8:38:00 AM PDT by RushingWater (Pres. Bush honors Mexican sovereignty over our own - Pardon Ramos/Campeon/Hernandez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GoMeanGreen
new research is making solar power cheaper

Mainly the cost to the customer is being reduced through gov't subsidy if you can get it. The cost of solar cells does not appear to be moving, hasn't moved in 1/4 century.

42 posted on 06/22/2007 8:39:54 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Ovonics new thin flexible solar film - not your father's old solar panels:


43 posted on 06/22/2007 8:40:28 AM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Solar will reach cost effectiveness for most people within the next 10 to 20 years or less based on current trends.

If I lived out west in a desert state its a no brainer... here, in the temperate rain forest, its a more dubious proposition.


44 posted on 06/22/2007 8:42:13 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
$5 a watt until we hear otherwise.

You heard now - I just copied this off a "solar power cost" query on ask.com:

"Raw silicon crystaline cells are produced near the $3 per watt level now".

45 posted on 06/22/2007 8:44:14 AM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Thanks for the ping, bump for later reading


46 posted on 06/22/2007 8:44:23 AM PDT by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GoMeanGreen

I just want my own nukular reactor and the hell with everybody else.


47 posted on 06/22/2007 8:45:06 AM PDT by ichabod1 ("Liberals read Karl Marx. Conservatives UNDERSTAND Karl Marx." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tokra

Like I said, $5 a watt remains. Production costs are not retail costs.


48 posted on 06/22/2007 8:46:12 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tokra
I know. But in some ways these schemes make me think we're going back to the future. I'm old enough to (vaguely) remember my grandfather's farm that had a windmill to pump water from the well into a cistern. My Mom told me stories of how her father had no end of worries about running out of water during times of high usage and not much wind blowing. When rural electrification came in the first thing he did was tear down his windmill and put in an electric water pump. Sure, he had a monthly utility bill to pay. But he also had water on demand, basically at the turn of the tap. No more worries about not having enough water. That good old electric motor, powered from the grid, was always there when he needed it.

Availability and reliability seem to be the Achilles' Heel of any kind of system that depends on the vagaries of natural phenomena. Just the other night it was bloody hot and humid with not a hint of a whiff of breeze in the air. But I was very happy to get a good night's sleep thanks to the faithful old A/C and the reliable old grid. A windmill would likely have zero output under the same conditions.

49 posted on 06/22/2007 8:47:34 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
but it does make me wonder if there may be the possibility of a connection between government involvement and high prices.

Probably the opposite. As the article states, one of the biggest costs was in getting sufficient production capacity. The government subsidies would have helped to create that capacity without generating correspondingly high prices for the buyer.

50 posted on 06/22/2007 8:48:20 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Yes, I'm a Republican (and we DO recycle) , and I have NEVER been able to understand:

~ Why aren't using nearly 100% solar power in places like Florida, California, and Hawaii?

~ Why aren't we putting EZ Turf (or another such real-looking grass product) in all public areas? (i.e. islands in intersections, neighborhood parks, parkways along roadsides, etc.) --no water, no maintenance!

We could ALWAYS be/act "smarter" toward conservation.

51 posted on 06/22/2007 9:18:25 AM PDT by NordP (The greatest gift God can give us is LIFE. The greatest gift man can give to another is FREEDOM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Bump


52 posted on 06/22/2007 9:40:52 AM PDT by AmericaUnite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NordP
Conservation is fine as far as it goes. Nobody is advocating deliberately wasteful energy use. But it is important to remember that conservation in and of itself does not produce a single watt of new capacity. You are always going to need an energy source to conserve. From the numbers I’ve seen, growth in demand alone, not even including retirement of older generating assets because of age, reliability, or GHG emissions, will dwarf whatever savings we might gain from conservation, and also dwarf whatever we might reasonably expect from development of so-called “renewable” energy sources. So where do we go to meet the additional demand? It means either sticking with carbon-based combustion, like coal or expensive, depletable natural gas, or, ta da, nuclear.
53 posted on 06/22/2007 10:07:15 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: chimera

I wouldn’t characterize incorporating renewables into the energy mix as making people go back to the choices your grandpa made — water or no water.

These technologies promise to be a good piece of the puzzle and I’m glad we’re pursuing them.


54 posted on 06/22/2007 10:16:57 AM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Basically, the glass roof functions like a greenhouse.

The three largest windows on my house function like a greenhouse. Unfortunately, it's summer and all that does is increase my cooling bill.

Needless to say, I'm currently looking at alternatives to reduce the amount of radiant heat I'm getting in the summer.

55 posted on 06/22/2007 10:18:24 AM PDT by meyer (RNC, DNC, two sides of the same coin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NordP
~ Why aren't we putting EZ Turf (or another such real-looking grass product) in all public areas? (i.e. islands in intersections, neighborhood parks, parkways along roadsides, etc.) --no water, no maintenance!

I live in CT and drive 20 miles down I-84 to work. I drive passed what's eaily a couple of thousand of acres of frequently mowed grassy median -- the media is 30-40 yards wide for stretches of miles. Why not let trees grow there? For the liberal global warming crew, of which CT is infested, wouldn't this mean less gas used in lawnmowers, millions of dollars of maintenance costs saved, and more trees to absorb CO2, not to mention a prettier drive?

56 posted on 06/22/2007 10:20:47 AM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
I wouldn’t characterize incorporating renewables into the energy mix as making people go back to the choices your grandpa made — water or no water.

Well, that's the concern. If we rely heavily (and some advocate this, not necessarily you) on energy sources that are inherently chaotic and unreliable, we may be faced with that very choice, although it may not be so much of a choice as a requirement.

The folks in CA got a taste of this a few years ago when they had their electricity shortages. Their choices came down to, blackout now, or blackout later. Thing is, there were people just a few years before agitating for the trashing of the Rancho Seco nuclear plant that used this very argument, that we didn't need nukes to provide the capacity we needed, wind would do as well. Turned out, reality bit them in their a$$e$. During their heat wave, wind-generated electricity in CA averaged about a 5% capacity factor. IOW, when they needed it most, it wasn't there. Contrast that with the nuclear industry, where 90-100% capacity factors are becoming routine.

57 posted on 06/22/2007 10:28:02 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: NordP
NordP said: "Yes, I'm a Republican (and we DO recycle) , and I have NEVER been able to understand: ~ Why aren't using nearly 100% solar power in places like Florida, California, and Hawaii? "

Do you buy a new car every month? Why not?

For most of us, the reason would be that the expense would not be justified.

The answer to YOUR question is the same. The expense is not justified. Such "solutions" may have become MORE attractive over time, but there are no true savings to be had.

You mustn't base your decisions on highly biased reports of how damaging CO2 is going to be or how limited the world supply of crude oil is.

I worked in a business environment in which a one year payback on investment was considered quite attractive. Two years was also pretty much a no-brainer. But when you calculate a ten year payback, then you are dealing with a situation where circumstances might quickly change and cause the investment to have no payback or possibly even a long term cost that was not anticipated.

When solar energy installations have payback periods close to two years, without the uncertainty of continued government subsidy, then you will see significant activity.

58 posted on 06/22/2007 10:39:28 AM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
When solar energy installations have payback periods close to two years,

Your points about investments are sound, but to be fair there's no energy generation projects with two year paybacks.

59 posted on 06/22/2007 10:51:57 AM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: chimera
If we rely heavily (and some advocate this, not necessarily you) on energy sources that are inherently chaotic and unreliable,

Not gonna happen - we're not going back to your grandpa's off-grid days. California had those brownouts, and continues to have problems meeting demand, due to short-sighted infrastructure investment and power contracting, not because of depending on a chaotic energy resource. Certainly nukes are essential and would have helped them, but it was never the intent that a few hundred megawatts of installed wind energy would displace that base load requirement.

Nevertheless, renewables, given modern technology, can be an attractive piece of the puzzle.

60 posted on 06/22/2007 10:58:34 AM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson