Eager to learn

[zog]

I am well aware that solar energy input does not affect oil consumption directly to any appreciable degree, and I am quick to point that out when someone links solar to "foreign oil", but in a larger sense, energy is energy, and we are using up fossil energy millions of times faster than it is being renewed. If we do not start developing renewable sources while we can leverage what existing sources exist to do it, we are in for a very rough road. We are, anyway, but we have to do what we can to ameliorate it.

But at what price? In case you did not hear our country is broke and I don;t think it is wise to be paying everyone who wants a system on thier roof 30-35% of the cost of thier system (Plus other state incentives, credits, and programs) for a technology that is not quite there yet, specifically in areas of lower solar radiation. If you look at some of the programs that are getting cut from the budget you have to wonder if it makes more sense to stock a food bank or fund Joe Smiths PV system for his house in Seattle or Trenton.

R&D is very important and is where we should be investing resources, but I see some of these rebate porgrams as a use of tax revenue that could be going to a better program, just my opinion. When the technology is there the systems will pay for themselves without assistance for federal and state programs, starting with places like CA and AZ where the numbers work first.

 

[ggunn]

But at what price? In case you did not hear our country is broke and I don;t think it is wise to be paying everyone who wants a system on thier roof 30-35% of the cost of thier system (Plus other state incentives, credits, and programs) for a technology that is not quite there yet, specifically in areas of lower solar radiation.

I really cannot respond to this without veering off into a political discussion. This country is nowhere near broke.

I'll just say this: R&D does nothing toward making a technology economically viable or manufacturable on a large scale.

And this: what price is too high for survival?

 

[zog]

I really cannot respond to this without veering off into a political discussion. This country is nowhere near broke.

I don't want to get into a policical discussiion either, so lets agree to disagree on that, this has been a great thread and lets keep it technical. But I am not following you on this:

I'll just say this: R&D does nothing toward making a technology economically viable or manufacturable on a large scale.

Would you mind explaining the reasoning you have for this?

 

[ggunn]

I don't want to get into a policical discussiion either, so lets agree to disagree on that, this has been a great thread and lets keep it technical. But I am not following you on this:



Would you mind explaining the reasoning you have for this?

Sure. Large scale manufacturability comes from building a market and moving product.

 

[weressl]

I really cannot respond to this without veering off into a political discussion. This country is nowhere near broke.

Interesting, then why does our Government and CBO says so? If your debt and interest payments exceeds your earnig potential, then what are you if not broke? Try to get a loan or a mortgae from a bank with the same finances as the US and see how far you get. Of course if we would be allowed to operate Ponzi schemes, like the Government does, we could do the same thing.

I'll just say this: R&D does nothing toward making a technology economically viable or manufacturable on a large scale.

Indeed R&D that is produces more and more efficient solar cells, fuel cells and storage options. The key issue is efficiency and initial cost. Efficiency comes from R&D development and cost is driven down by the volume that can be produced. Look back at LED development and pricing for just the past 5 years and you can clearly see how it happens. Unfortunately it does not matter how hard solar is being pushed, there is no breakthrough yet. A glass ceiling has been hit with the current technology and no new technology emerged yet.

And this: what price is too high for survival?

That question has just no basis in reality.

 

[iwire]

Just a heads up.

Political type posts will be edited or deleted depending on the mood of the moderator.

 

[ggunn]

That question has just no basis in reality.

Everyone has his own reality, I guess. I believe that, taking the long view, our survival depends on the replacement of fossil fuels with sustainable energy sources. There is a very long lead time in accomplishing this, so I also believe that our only hope of bringing it about is to get started on it now while we have the resources to leverage such a huge undertaking.

And this will probably get deleted:

It is hard to imagine how this country could possibly be broke when such a large percentage of the planet's wealth resides within its borders. The overriding reason for the difficulties in which we now find ourselves is that this country has been financing private prosperity with public debt. IMO that is the worst form of socialism.

FWIW, that is not a political comment, at least not in the Dem vs. Rep sense. There is plenty of blame on both sides of the aisle.

 

[iwire]

Lets keep the discussion technical as the OP has requested.

 

[ggunn]

Lets keep the discussion technical as the OP has requested.

As you wish.

FWIW, it was the OP himself who submitted the "this country is broke" comment.

 

[zog]

As you wish.

FWIW, it was the OP himself who submitted the "this country is broke" comment.

Sorry about that, just wondering if we are investing our money in the right places, for example
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoo...ptcy-means-for-silicon-valley-solar-startups/

Maybe the rebates on PV systems should have only applied to US made equipment?

 

[ggunn]

Sorry about that, just wondering if we are investing our money in the right places, for example
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoo...ptcy-means-for-silicon-valley-solar-startups/

Maybe the rebates on PV systems should have only applied to US made equipment?

Some of them are. See ARRA.

But as to whether "we" are investing money wisely, that's a discussion that can make heads explode.

 

[jaggedben]

I will only weigh in on this discussion to concur with ggunn that it is not R&D that affects prices, but the scale of manufacturing and other market factors. What has happened over the last couple of years is that the PV industry became large enough to support its own sector of the polysilicon production industry, rather than relying on the dregs left by the digital electronics industry. That has led to roughly a halving of the price of silicon PV panels. None of the technology has changed, just the supply of polysilicon. Technology does not have an inherent price that exists in a vacuum outside the market.

The reason that the PV market became large enough to do this - well, one important factor, anyway - is government support in several countries. So government subsidies have led to a reduction in the price of PV panels that really has nothing to do with any technological advancement. If I haven't said it yet on this forum (I've certainly said it elsewhere), I support incentive programs that are designed to build a market and then wean the solar industry off subsidy to stand economically on its own. It is, however, simply a truth that such programs can advance the solar industry to a point it simply would not achieve merely on the basis of incremental technological advancement. Many of the solar cells we are now putting on roofs by the billions are not technologically different from those created decades ago. What has changed (aside from the price of other resources) is attitudes towards them.

 

[zog]

Very well stated, but while I see your point that R&D won't make panels cheaper, it will make them more efficient and therefore more economical by increasing power production and shortening the ROI of an installed system.

 

[jaggedben]

Very well stated, but while I see your point that R&D won't make panels cheaper, it will make them more efficient and therefore more economical by increasing power production and shortening the ROI of an installed system.

Sorry, but no. Making panels more efficient doesn't shorten ROI. That would only be true if making them more efficient doesn't also make them more expensive, and this hasn't really been the case. If you buy Sunpower you get panels that are about 30% more efficient than other panels. But you pay a little bit more for the same amount of power, so ROI is longer. The only advantage is that you can fit more power in the same amount of space.

 

[zog]

Sorry, but no. Making panels more efficient doesn't shorten ROI. That would only be true if making them more efficient doesn't also make them more expensive, and this hasn't really been the case. If you buy Sunpower you get panels that are about 30% more efficient than other panels. But you pay a little bit more for the same amount of power, so ROI is longer. The only advantage is that you can fit more power in the same amount of space.

OK, fair enough arguement, I forgot to factor in manufactures greed . I should have said more efficient for the same price. So it looks like cheap, Chineese made, inefficient PV systems are the future of the industry.

 

[jaggedben]

So it looks like cheap, Chineese made, inefficient PV systems are the future of the industry.

Calling 14% efficient Chinese silicon panels 'inefficient' is a 'glass half empty' kind of statement. They are actually more efficient than the cheapest panels on the market, which are thin film CdTe panels made by First Solar in Arizona. Meanwhile Sunpower, which I mentioned before, currently has the largest market share, I believe. I would say the future of the industry is far from clear one way or the other.

 

[ggunn]

OK, fair enough arguement, I forgot to factor in manufactures greed . I should have said more efficient for the same price. So it looks like cheap, Chineese made, inefficient PV systems are the future of the industry.

I'm not sure why you would call it greed. More efficient modules are usually more expensive to manufacture.

 

[zog]

I'm not sure why you would call it greed. More efficient modules are usually more expensive to manufacture.

A little smiley face usually means a comment was made as a joke.

 

[ggunn]

A little smiley face usually means a comment was made as a joke.

I get that, but there are jokes and then there are jokes.

 

[weressl]

I'm not sure why you would call it greed. More efficient modules are usually more expensive to manufacture.

More efficiency means higher market share and higher market share means higher volume production which reduces per unit cost. Even in that case ZOG would still be right as manufacturers do NOT pass all the cost reduction onto the consumer, just enough to beat their competition.