The following is a guest essay by Jim Raras, Jr., COO of Inpower Systems.
-----
Every year the biggest players in the solar industry convene at the Solar Power Conference in Long Beach, Calif., to discuss the latest advancements in solar technology. This year, one of the most notable facets of the meetings was what was not said. During a 90 minute CEO panel discussion about the current and future state of the solar industry, the word "breakthrough" was never uttered. Not a surprise to any industry participants, but surely surprising to the average consumer.
The technology-superstar status bestowed on the solar industry by the mainstream press is a serious problem. This media-fed hyperbole has encouraged consumers to wait for advancements rather than purchasing existing systems, which are economically viable and solve real energy problems today.
Traditional consumer technology industries, such as electronics, function according to a price/performance profile. A flat-panel TV or laptop undergoes several upgrades through the course of a year, and as a result, prices will continue to drop every three to six months. Solar industries, on the other hand, are primarily driven by basic supply and demand trends, and photovoltaic technology has changed very little in the last thirty years. The real advance has been the power processors that enable buying and selling of power to the grid by normal consumers -- but that technology is here, now, and mature. There is no Moore's Law effect for solar. Sure, there have been some incremental efficiency gains and prices have dropped a little (though not for the new super-efficient panels), but nothing like Apple's recent drop in price on iPhones or the steady decline in LCD television prices. Consumers of PV panels needn't fear obsolescence any time soon.
The media is doing the consumer and the planet a disservice by over-hyping new solar technologies. Even the "major" advances, thin-film and CSP (Concentrating Solar Power), have little impact on residential or light-commercial customers. CSP isn't used outside of utility-grade systems, given the high demand, cost, and area required. The average consumer or small business doesn't have the surface area for thin-film -- it takes three times the amount of thin films to provide the same wattage as traditional silicon based solar electric.
To provide 100% annual power for an average 3,000 square foot house:
|
TECHNOLOGY |
SURFACE AREA REQUIRED (Sq. Ft.) |
PANEL COST TODAY |
|
Silicon solar cells (middle of the road) |
500 square feet (easily doable on most homes) |
$35-40,000 |
|
Thin film solar cells |
1,500 square feet (nearly impossible to place) |
$40-50,000 |
Beyond space considerations and cost, the reliability of thin film is unproven. One can be 99% sure that silicon PV will last 30-50 years -- it's been clearly demonstrated. Thin films may only last 10 years -- nobody knows its longevity, since it is relatively new to the market. So while thin films and other new technologies add value in specific applications, the best method for the average customer to reduce risk across several fronts (technological, economic, and social) is to act now, not later.
Consumers need to be aware that there are no revolutionizing advancements on the solar front and that PV is a safe and secure investment today. The current solar installation subsidies offered by several major power companies are a huge incentive to act now. Waiting for technology advancements only increases the chance that the subsidies will be discontinued, forcing consumers to pay more to the utility companies in the long run, versus making an investment in generating their own clean power today. Spread the good word -- no news is actually good news!
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
The must-read solutions book by Al Gore
Paging Dr. Chu, venture capitalist
Comments
View as Threaded
odograph Posted 3:21 am
03 Oct 2007
Slashdot says a Method for $1/Watt Solar Panels Will Soon See Commercial Use
Who's right?
I guess you pays your money takes your chances.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:27 am
03 Oct 2007
Another thing to consider is the cost of a solar system is more than the panel. You need inverters, installation, various types of safety equipment. And if you were really going to go "100% solar" you would need storage. (Or maybe they mean 100% NET solar - relying on the grid for storage). So even if $1 a watt panels occur soon, $1 a watt installed is further down the road.
Incidentally is 3,000 square feet really now the "typical" new home?
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:34 am
03 Oct 2007
With a $15 electric bill this is kind of academic. But, if I had some large demand that I couldn't reduce through efficiency, I think I might view this as a special time. Right now we are exploring thin film and nanotech, and if they'll actually add anything of value.
I might give it a couple years to see.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:29 am
03 Oct 2007
Here's a challenge to the editors of Grist (a.k.a. The Climatemen):
Assume that there will be no energy breakthroughs in the 21st Century.
Assume (for a second) that the ideal lifestyle for most people in the world is the industrialized American suburban sprawl style.
Assume (and we all do) that for 6 billion or more people, this lifestyle is "unsustainable".
Now -- tell me is it possible for any number of people to live the American lifestyle? For example, (and I mean worldwide) could 1 Billion people live like suburban Americans worldwide? Or 100 million?
Does it have to be all or nothing?
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
scatter Posted 4:44 am
03 Oct 2007
I'm not sure what you mean by "the American lifestyle" (or do you mean the American quality of life?), but I'm sorry to say that I don't think the rest of the world sees the US lifestyle as ideal at all.
Can the author of the post explain what he means by cost effective solar power? Payback within its own lifetime?
What does PV typically generate per kWp in the US (a big range I'm sure), how much does it cost per kWp and what's the average domestic electricity bill?
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 5:59 am
03 Oct 2007
I'm not sure what you mean by "the American lifestyle" (or do you mean the American quality of life?), but I'm sorry to say that I don't think the rest of the world sees the US lifestyle as ideal at all.
The rest of the world may not find "the American lifestyle" ideal, but economies that are modernizing are increasingly looking to enjoy many of the same energy-intensive "luxuries" that we enjoy...such as electricity that stays on more than a few hours a day, modern health care, meat for dinner, running water, bigger houses, cars, more roads, TVs, computers, cell phones, etc...
If the rest of the world is moving toward more modernized economies, their lifestyles will inevitably require more energy...maybe we should all Think About It
.
Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi
Read Lights Out reviews
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:35 am
03 Oct 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:36 am
03 Oct 2007
Permalink
scatter Posted 6:42 am
03 Oct 2007
I know I'm preaching to the converted here but the whole point is that the quality of life that many aspire to doesn't have to come with the consumption.
The same mistakes don't have to be made again.
Permalink
trock Posted 11:46 am
03 Oct 2007
What if somebody figured out how to reduce the cost of PV's by 2 or 3? What used to cost 30 000 dollars now costs 10 000 dollars. Wouldn't that be news and wouldn't that be good?
Are we so used to hype news, fake news, not real news that we think that not having any real news that would bring us farther along to cheaper PV's is now good news?
Is that it or am I missing something?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:41 am
04 Oct 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 1:01 am
04 Oct 2007
While we believe strongly (!!!) in the power of technology to create novel ways to improve efficiencies, it's also important that we just think about thinking LESS!
Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi
Read Lights Out reviews
Permalink
odograph Posted 2:25 am
04 Oct 2007
also, if you go with 'zero energy' design processes, does size become as much a factor as it would in 'zero insulation' homes?
Permalink