To Become Truly Mainstream, Solar Will Need to Cost 25 Cents per Watt by 2050

[Mike90250]

25 cents watt. Assuming that what happens to the dollar in 14 years ? Valued up? Down? Yuan, Peso, Gold plated Latinum ?

[Engineer]

Edit: Some of the data I was reviewing are old. Just found this... kind of neat ...

Yes I was referring to that elsewhere. Even better they have an iPhone app, you can get up to the minute reporting, with a map showing where the renewables are.

[jflorey2]

That is not what killed the company. The Market killed the company, their stock went to ZERO and delisted.

And what started that slide was the SEC investigation, and what put the final nail in their coffin was the indictment of their chief executives.

If the government could kill them then BP, Toyota, and VW would be out of biz.

Uh - no.

If the government did find the level of fraud within Toyota that they found within Enron, Toyota would no longer be selling cars in the US. They did not - so they are.

It is still made and used.

Yes, it is. It is now used so little that CFC levels are declining worldwide and have been since 1996, and the ozone hole is recovering and has been since 2006. Sorry, once again the facts are not on your side.

Guess what? Standard still exist today and reconsolidated.

Yes, after the government broke it up, smaller companies that could not prevent competition remained. The system worked.

I agree and it keeps correcting itself. The consumer decides period. Do you buy gas from from Dino Fuel for $2/Gal or go across the Street to Mr Green Jeans for $10/gal fuel. I know who's fuel and stock I am buying. Do you?

Nope, generally I charge my car at home.

But let's ask you a similar question. Let's say you notice that Dino Fuel across the street is selling that cheap $2 gas - and they are stealing it from your tanks. And they have hired some very well armed men to prevent you from stopping them. You going to be OK with that? You still going to mock Dan for buying from Green Jeans instead of Dino Fuel, and encourage your friends to buy from the cheaper source, like the smart consumers operating in a free market that they are?

[Engineer]

25 cents watt. Assuming that what happens to the dollar in 14 years ? Valued up? Down? Yuan, Peso, Gold plated Latinum ?

Assume priced in today's dollars if it's not specified.

[SunEagle]

And what started that slide was the SEC investigation, and what put the final nail in their coffin was the indictment of their chief executives.

Uh - no.

If the government did find the level of fraud within Toyota that they found within Enron, Toyota would no longer be selling cars in the US. They did not - so they are.

Yes, it is. It is now used so little that CFC levels are declining worldwide and have been since 1996, and the ozone hole is recovering and has been since 2006. Sorry, once again the facts are not on your side.

Yes, after the government broke it up, smaller companies that could not prevent competition remained. The system worked.

Nope, generally I charge my car at home.

But let's ask you a similar question. Let's say you notice that Dino Fuel across the street is selling that cheap $2 gas - and they are stealing it from your tanks. And they have hired some very well armed men to prevent you from stopping them. You going to be OK with that? You still going to mock Dan for buying from Green Jeans instead of Dino Fuel, and encourage your friends to buy from the cheaper source, like the smart consumers operating in a free market that they are?

The sad part is most people will still purchase the cheaper gas no matter how it is obtained or who owns it. Only people that have higher incomes will be able to decide to purchase the expensive gas or an EV.

While I agree with you on most topics I have to say a lot of people with solar have becomes elitists and believe they can do (or purchase) anything they want so then everyone else must be able to do the same. That is false thinking, especially with more states looking at much lower income and much higher unemployment.

[SunEagle]

Assume priced in today's dollars if it's not specified.

I still say it is not the cost per watt of solar but the cost per kWh. In some places a $4/watt installation is both affordable and can have a 5 year payback. In other places a $2/watt may be affordable but has a very long payback due to the amount of power being used and the cost / kWh they are charged by the POCO.

Even if the cost of hardware goes down to 25 cents per watt the labor portion for the installation will only get higher due to minimum wages going up.

[J.P.M.]

I still say it is not the cost per watt of solar but the cost per kWh. In some places a $4/watt installation is both affordable and can have a 5 year payback. In other places a $2/watt may be affordable but has a very long payback due to the amount of power being used and the cost / kWh they are charged by the POCO.

Pretty much. Which is what an LCOE type analysis will estimate. When the LCOE cost ( $$/kWh) of the PV <= the LCOE cost of another (POCO ?) means of supplying power, PV is the more cost effective method. The trick is to understand that any method, including LCOE, using estimates of future costs or events is at best a dart throw. Most estimates hit the wall rather than the target. Still, better than oversizing based on ignorance that blows the wall off.

Also, the results are sensitive to the actual inputs used. For example, how long will a user live with the system, what discount rate is realistic/appropriate, what will a resale value be, etc. The method is pretty well understood. The inputs are the biggest unknowns. Sometimes, changing the inputs and observing how it changes the results (the LCOE) can be informative.

It's sure not the only tool available, but it's perhaps one of the better information estimators for those who take the time to understand it. Without the understanding, using it is similar to giving a loaded pistol to a 2 yr. old. As always, GIGO.

[Engineer]

LCOE? Leveled Cost of Energy is my only guess

[sensij]

Your only guess? What other method do you think would be used to determine cost per kWh in a serious analysis? One weakness of the LCOE calculation is that it doesn't really penalize a source for resource availability... two sources that produce the same energy for the same cost over the same period of time will have the same LCOE, even if one can produce at high power only during 10 AM to 4 PM and the other at lower power around the clock. It makes a lot of these &quot;PV compared to fossil fuel&quot; cost comparisons really misleading.

[Engineer]

I was just asking what the acronym meant.

[jflorey2]

The sad part is most people will still purchase the cheaper gas no matter how it is obtained or who owns it. Only people that have higher incomes will be able to decide to purchase the expensive gas or an EV.

That's very true. And that's one reason we have a government that enforces laws against theft, fraud, pollution etc - so that people are not tempted to support the criminals, even if they can offer something at a lower price by stealing it..

While I agree with you on most topics I have to say a lot of people with solar have becomes elitists and believe they can do (or purchase) anything they want so then everyone else must be able to do the same. That is false thinking, especially with more states looking at much lower income and much higher unemployment.

You and I ARE elitists compared to the rest of the world. Most Americans are. The only people who can afford to spend extra money to be "green" (or who can afford education, or health care, or good food, or any of the other things we take for granted) are the rich, like us. The poor just suffer. No one is going to spend extra money on solar (or sustainable food, or whatever) if they're not sure they are going to be able to feed their kids.

Which is why any plan to make the world a better place (by reducing pollution, going to more renewable power, educating more people, getting health care for more people) has to start with helping people do more for themselves. Sometimes it takes decades, starting with education and infrastructure, which slowly expands as people learn more, become more productive, start paying taxes and thereby support the government (or other organization) that is out there building the schools and roads.

When that happens, then they are ready to make decisions on (and support) things like pollution reduction and renewable energy. Here in the US almost everyone can do so; the work we have done over the years means that even the people we consider poor can buy a safe, efficient used car that doesn't pollute a lot. As time goes on, the point at which they can decide to do that will move into the lower and lower incomes, which means that poorer and poorer people can take advantage of what us "elites" can.

In addition, solar is having a very direct effect on some of the poorest people in the world. Because as much as we say "don't go off-grid; it costs too much" often it is the cheapest way to get power. There are villages in sub-Saharan Africa powered entirely by solar - not because they want to be green, but because it's the cheapest way they have to get power. A third-hand 10 watt panel and a car charger is often enough to charge the two or three cellphones in the village. A $3 solar yard light, stuck in the roof and used for home lighting, is cheaper than kerosene or candles. Those are happening in part because us "elitists" have driven the price of solar down to the point where you can get solar yard lights for $3.

[SunEagle]

That's very true. And that's one reason we have a government that enforces laws against theft, fraud, pollution etc - so that people are not tempted to support the criminals, even if they can offer something at a lower price by stealing it..

You and I ARE elitists compared to the rest of the world. Most Americans are. The only people who can afford to spend extra money to be "green" (or who can afford education, or health care, or good food, or any of the other things we take for granted) are the rich, like us. The poor just suffer. No one is going to spend extra money on solar (or sustainable food, or whatever) if they're not sure they are going to be able to feed their kids.

Which is why any plan to make the world a better place (by reducing pollution, going to more renewable power, educating more people, getting health care for more people) has to start with helping people do more for themselves. Sometimes it takes decades, starting with education and infrastructure, which slowly expands as people learn more, become more productive, start paying taxes and thereby support the government (or other organization) that is out there building the schools and roads.

When that happens, then they are ready to make decisions on (and support) things like pollution reduction and renewable energy. Here in the US almost everyone can do so; the work we have done over the years means that even the people we consider poor can buy a safe, efficient used car that doesn't pollute a lot. As time goes on, the point at which they can decide to do that will move into the lower and lower incomes, which means that poorer and poorer people can take advantage of what us "elites" can.

In addition, solar is having a very direct effect on some of the poorest people in the world. Because as much as we say "don't go off-grid; it costs too much" often it is the cheapest way to get power. There are villages in sub-Saharan Africa powered entirely by solar - not because they want to be green, but because it's the cheapest way they have to get power. A third-hand 10 watt panel and a car charger is often enough to charge the two or three cellphones in the village. A $3 solar yard light, stuck in the roof and used for home lighting, is cheaper than kerosene or candles. Those are happening in part because us "elitists" have driven the price of solar down to the point where you can get solar yard lights for $3.

There are those rich people that can help and have by giving and supporting the poor or by designing off grid systems to be used by those that have no grid or power of any kind. There is nothing wrong with that and I applaud those people that can and want to contribute to improving and expanding solar technology.

I am talking about those people that are way above me and you, that can spend whatever they want whenever they want on anything they want. Those are the "elitists" that will never understand how the rest of the world lives because they are more concerned about getting a new car because the ashtrays are now full.

I am not talking down to you because I respect you and your knowledge. I am just a little put off by others that seem to feel they are above the rest of the us and do not care about wasting energy or what it costs them.

[Sunking]

Those are happening in part because us "elitists" have driven the price of solar down to the point where you can get solar yard lights for $3.

You bet as long as it is not made in the USA. To be $3 requires Chi-Coms to make it.

FWIW I do Mission work and give 4 weeks a year to go to Po Dump countries at my expense and give them clean water, shelter, and power. I also donate more money to chartities of MY CHOICE than a lot of people make. I create high paying jobs. Do you?

[J.P.M.]

Your only guess? What other method do you think would be used to determine cost per kWh in a serious analysis? One weakness of the LCOE calculation is that it doesn't really penalize a source for resource availability... two sources that produce the same energy for the same cost over the same period of time will have the same LCOE, even if one can produce at high power only during 10 AM to 4 PM and the other at lower power around the clock. It makes a lot of these &quot;PV compared to fossil fuel&quot; cost comparisons really misleading.

The cost of the storage is accounted for in the cost of the intermittent source as any other cost would be.

[jflorey2]

FWIW I do Mission work and give 4 weeks a year to go to Po Dump countries at my expense and give them clean water, shelter, and power. I also donate more money to chartities of MY CHOICE than a lot of people make. I create high paying jobs. Do you?

I donate quite a bit (MSF and IRC are my two main charities) and I've created a bunch of jobs through the IP I've developed, the patents I've filed and the new industries I've helped create. I am sure I have not done as much as you, but we all do what we can.

[Sunking]

I donate quite a bit (MSF and IRC are my two main charities) and I've created a bunch of jobs through the IP I've developed, the patents I've filed and the new industries I've helped create. I am sure I have not done as much as you, but we all do what we can.

Noted and God Bless you. Everyone should help the less fortunate at whatever level they can afford. I give both money and my time.

[sensij]

The cost of the storage is accounted for in the cost of the intermittent source as any other cost would be.

It should be... but when you see new PV farms going in and the press declaring that they are less expensive per kWh than fossil fuels, I am skeptical that any storage costs are considered.

[J.P.M.]

It should be... but when you see new PV farms going in and the press declaring that they are less expensive per kWh than fossil fuels, I am skeptical that any storage costs are considered.

FWIW, I'm skeptical for most anything the press has to say about most any form of energy, and most anything else for that matter.

In doing life cycle costing or LCOE type analysis on solar thermal or passive solar heating for dwellings applications or solar thermal for SDHW, or process heat or power applications for that matter, the storage and its cost implications are always considered. I don't know why storage costs wouldn't be considered for other generation methods like PV. LCOE is really little more than a subset of life cycle costing anyway.

As for the intermittent nature of some sources, part of the deal might be the difficulty in assigning a cost to the PITA factor, or assigning a cost for the degree to which the required backup facilities are underutilized. I could construct an argument citing that underutilization of a conventional facility is due to the intermittency of the solar resource and so is a cost that rightfully ought to be bourne by the solar facility. And/or, perhaps the intermittent facilities would be deemed less cost effective if their savings were only gauged against the avoided fuel costs they allowed. Payback/ROI/LCOE might be a bit longer in that case.