Eager to learn

[ggunn]

You're kidding right?!

You understand the difference between manufacturing tolerance and conversion efficacy of the product, right?:roll:

Why don't you explain it to me?

 

[jaggedben]

You're kidding right?!

You understand the difference between manufacturing tolerance and conversion efficacy of the product, right?:roll:

He's not kidding. What he described is what many of the manufacturers actually do.

 

[weressl]

Why don't you explain it to me?

..and shatter your apparent faith in Santa Claus?

 

[weressl]

He's not kidding. What he described is what many of the manufacturers actually do.

Perhaps, but THAT has nothing to do with the efficacy of the conversion method, which is the linchpin of the argument against the insufficiently advanced stage of solar cell development. Incremental improvement in the same technology had so far failed to bring a competitive product to the market that can survive without subsidies and snake oil salesmanship. The quality control of manufacturing variance by statistical controls to bring a product within an acceptable range of performance is an accepted method of product control.

 

[jaggedben]

Perhaps, but THAT has nothing to do with the efficacy of the conversion method, which is the linchpin of the argument against the insufficiently advanced stage of solar cell development. Incremental improvement in the same technology had so far failed to bring a competitive product to the market that can survive without subsidies and snake oil salesmanship.

One more time ... the linchpin of the economic argument against solar isn't low sunlight conversion efficiency, it's COST.

If someone comes along with a higher efficiency panel that doesn't COST less for the energy produced, that will have no effect on subsidies or snake oil. Zilch, zero, nada. As far as whether incremental improvement in the COST of silicon solar cells has provided a competitive product, well, your mileage may vary, but it's undeniable that it has brought the industry much, much closer than it was a few years ago. So has as least one thin film tech breakthrough (First Solar's CdTe) that is actually LESS EFFICIENT than silicon.

If anyone is charging more for higher efficiency panels than is justified by the reduced cost of space for them, I consider that to be snake-oil salesmanship.

 

[ggunn]

Never mind.

 

[weressl]

One more time ... the linchpin of the economic argument against solar isn't low sunlight conversion efficiency, it's COST.

If someone comes along with a higher efficiency panel that doesn't COST less for the energy produced, that will have no effect on subsidies or snake oil. Zilch, zero, nada. As far as whether incremental improvement in the COST of silicon solar cells has provided a competitive product, well, your mileage may vary, but it's undeniable that it has brought the industry much, much closer than it was a few years ago. So has as least one thin film tech breakthrough (First Solar's CdTe) that is actually LESS EFFICIENT than silicon.

If anyone is charging more for higher efficiency panels than is justified by the reduced cost of space for them, I consider that to be snake-oil salesmanship.

To be even more precise and fundamental; it is cost efficiency. If somebody can produce a solar plant whose kW/$ is competitive with any other alternative, be it combined cycle, nuclear or other fossile source, then you will see the proliferation of solar.

 

[tallgirl]

If you go here http://www.fatspaniel.com/fat-spaniel-in-action/live-sites/ you can see actual power production from systems all over the place. The also tell you the system size ......... compare the system sizes to the actual output, I think it is very telling.

ASSUMING the obese pooch is working.

Fat Spaniel got snatched up by Power One and has been less than working great. PVWatts is still the best way to go about it because you never know exactly how the Plump Puppy system was configured, relative to what the OP wants to do.

 

[tallgirl]

To be even more precise and fundamental; it is cost efficiency. If somebody can produce a solar plant whose kW/$ is competitive with any other alternative, be it combined cycle, nuclear or other fossile source, then you will see the proliferation of solar.

Solar already has an ROI in the 10 to 12 percent range, which is better than quite a few other investments.

At $4.50 per watt DC installed, solar makes more sense than the grid in most of the United States. What people who are opposed to solar typically do is calculate the cost of the system as though it were a consumable, which it isn't.

FWIW, $6.00 per watt DC is a realistic pre-rebate, pre-credit cost in many parts of the country with a thriving solar market. $6.50 is common in less mature markets. My system was $10 per watt four years ago, so you can do the trendline and figure out when we get to $4.50 ...

 

[K8MHZ]

Solar already has an ROI in the 10 to 12 percent range, which is better than quite a few other investments.

At $4.50 per watt DC installed, solar makes more sense than the grid in most of the United States. What people who are opposed to solar typically do is calculate the cost of the system as though it were a consumable, which it isn't.

FWIW, $6.00 per watt DC is a realistic pre-rebate, pre-credit cost in many parts of the country with a thriving solar market. $6.50 is common in less mature markets. My system was $10 per watt four years ago, so you can do the trendline and figure out when we get to $4.50 ...

How did you get an ROI (mathematically) of 10 to 12 percent?

We figure 3.8 to 4.0 hours per day here. (Michigan)

I am looking for ways to sell PV, but the more I learn, the more I find reasons not to put money into it. (Yet).

An ROI of 10 percent (per year, right?) would mean that a 50,000 dollar system would generate 5,000 dollars worth of electricity per year, right?

I figured that a 50,000 dollar system here would generate about 600 dollars worth of energy per year at 12.5 cents per kWh.

That's far from a 10 percent ROI.

I realize you are in Texas, but is the difference between Texas and Michigan really that huge??

 

[zog]

A $50,000 system earns a $17,500 rebate (But not for much longer I think) and if SREC's are issued, and trading for a good price, a 12 year ROI is possible.

 

[K8MHZ]

A $50,000 system earns a $17,500 rebate (But not for much longer I think) and if SREC's are issued, and trading for a good price, a 12 year ROI is possible.

No SRECs here, the rebate is over and all we get is a standard tax credit. Same credit we would get for upgrading a furnace or putting insulation in, except the cap is higher. The amount of tax credit is 30 percent. So, if you spent 50 grand, you would get a 15 grand credit. Now, I don't know how it works if you paid less than 15 grand in taxes as a cash payment in excess of taxes paid would be rebate of sorts.

Where I live, that 50 grand system, regardless of how much is returned in credits or rebates, will still only produce less than 1000 dollars per year. More like 600.

We are pretty conservative. It's not uncommon to see electric bills of less than 500 kWh per month. My last bill was for 376 kWh, my highest last year was 697. Before taxes, by bill was 49 dollars. With bills that low, it's hard to justify a 30 to 50 thousand dollar solar system. Now, in CA, the land of excess, is much different. I know a guy that lives in LA and used 3,600 kWh from the POCO last month, plus has a decent solar array. His bills are over 500 per month. Solar panels are everywhere in LA. The price for energy is not that high, 17.5 cents per KWh.

 

[ggunn]

... I don't know how it works if you paid less than 15 grand in taxes as a cash payment in excess of taxes paid would be a rebate of sorts.

You cannot get a bigger tax credit than your total liability in a given year, but you can move the excess over into the following year.