American manufacturing of solar panels -- worth protecting?

[J.P.M.]

At 17 watts per panel I cannot imagine any other way it could be done. Can you imagine say a 5000 watt system with 294 Micro Inverters? Perhaps maybe 15 shingles per Micro-Inverter. Bad enough there would be more than 588 connections to fail with String or Micro-Inverters. All of them concealed and inaccessible.

I hope I am missing something, otherwise history will just repeat itself. You can sure bet Musk has himself isolated so when/if it collapse, will not come from his pockets.

Replacing existing roofing with shingles may be a B.S. con idea for any number of very good reasons, but there may be some logic ( ??) in a system that "looks" like a plain old roof , but sits ~ 6 " or so off the existing surface with standardized attachment methods and under panel roof coverings that would add protection and life to the existing roof, allow section removal for array servicing of larger/smaller/different shaped panels (like Penfield's darts and kites for tessellation of panels on irregular shaped roofs).

Lots of possibilities for those who can think outside the box, or get rid of the box altogether, but simply replacing regular roofs with PV roofs ignores the details in what may be a disastrous, shortsighted way with respect to long term requirements, practical servicing and costs. At this time it's a B.S. idea and, IMO only, typical of the Musk con.

[SunEagle]

At 17 watts per panel I cannot imagine any other way it could be done. Can you imagine say a 5000 watt system with 294 Micro Inverters? Perhaps maybe 15 shingles per Micro-Inverter. Bad enough there would be more than 588 connections to fail with String or Micro-Inverters. All of them concealed and inaccessible.

I hope I am missing something, otherwise history will just repeat itself. You can sure bet Musk has himself isolated so when/if it collapse, will not come from his pockets.

The DeSol website shows some installations (including 3 different colors schemes) but they do not show how all of those tiles are connected together or wired to the grid tie inverter.

Like you I fear that the more connections in a pv system the better chance of a failure let alone the shot comings of thin film cells that can't cool themselves.

[jflorey2]

The DeSol website shows some installations (including 3 different colors schemes) but they do not show how all of those tiles are connected together or wired to the grid tie inverter.

I took a look at Intersolar, and they use standard MC4 connectors. The guy there recommended standard string inverter wiring - NOT microinverters due to high temperatures on the roof. (BTW estimate is $2.80/watt for the tiles.)

BTW there was another company there - Aenergy+ - who had a standing-seam BIPV panel there for about $1.50 a watt. That's a lot more reasonable - 75W per 18 cell panel, so 4 connections to get to a "standard" 300W 72 cell arrangement.

[Sunking]

At this time it's a B.S. idea and, IMO only, typical of the Musk con.

I suspect anything Musk does is a conn job.

[SWFLA]

So far he has all but screwed South Buffalo Next Stop South Australia.

[J.P.M.]

So far he has all but screwed South Buffalo Next Stop South Australia.

Screwed so. Buffalo and the rest of WNY by fueling expectations that won't be realized as promised, and screwed all the taxpayers in NYS out of $750MM.

[littleharbor]

Amazing what White Collar Criminals are able to get away with.

[J.P.M.]

Amazing what White Collar Criminals are able to get away with.

Yea, somethin' to see ain't it ? The less amazing it becomes to me in proportion to the increasing extent of human gullibility I see as I age. Saying Caveat Emptor seems a greater exercise in futility the longer I live.

[thejumpingsheep]

Dan Oil Subsides are not subsidies. It is the best investment the government can make with huge ROI's that would be illegal if it were not government. It would be called Racketeering like Loan Sharking with 500% yearly interest rate. Solar produces almost not tax revenue. Every EV owner and Grid tied user is a Free-Loader paying no road fuel tax or energy tax on energy they generate. Those subsidies you talk of pay for all the roads. Time you paid up and shut up hypocrite.

Like I said every reply and post you make is to start trouble. You cannot take a hint you are not welcome here. That is why you cannot post links anymore. They are telling you to get lost.

Im not a solar guy (educated in bioengineering, then CS and later business). My expertise is investments and one of my areas of specialization is energy. You are wrong about the subsidies. Sorry.

The subsidies are what created the massive profits. If you take away those subs and mountains of tax breaks like depletion and such, the profitability of oil drops about 80% for most US based producers. You read that right. 80%. In fact, some smaller production based companies (like many MLP's pre-oil crash) only survive due to subsidies. They make no inherent profit otherwise. Larger companies are better off only because they practically own all the good reserves and it is they who sell off bad pieces to smaller companies. Most of the time, these companies are simply spin-offs for big companies who are trying to trim bad land at a premium price (a bit like how its done in the REIT industry).

But lets not mince words. Oil is all about subsidies. There is no return of profit to society. It was even founded on subsidies. The government actually paid startups around $100/barrel (inflation adjusted) to go and drill and on top of that, they got to keep the oil and sell it. This was free money. No strings attached. But unlike solar subsidies, these subsidies were permanent and they added more like depletion, intangible costs (which is mostly BS), etc over time. Again I point out that oil subsidies, unlike solar, are permanent which is why oil is such a popular investment. Solar is not working because it is always under fire and the subsidies are not consistent nor permanent. Every few years the industry has to fight for its life. No investor is going to put money into something so dependent on changing politics. If solar subs become permanent, the oil industry days will be numbered. Its just a matter of batteries becoming cheap and its the end of oil as we know it because by every measure, solar is much cheaper and more scalable. At least, this is how it looks from the business end.

[bcroe]

The subsidies are what created the massive profits. If you take away those subs and mountains of tax breaks like depletion and such, the profitability of oil drops about 80% for most US based producers. You read that right. 80%.

If solar subs become permanent, the oil industry days will be numbered. Its just a matter of batteries becoming cheap and its the end of oil as we know it because by every measure, solar is much cheaper and more scalable. At least, this is how it looks from the business end.

Like undertakers, there is no danger of the oil companies going out of business. Profitability drop, FINE, its
still a PROFIT, trimmed to something more reasonable. Solar CANNOT replace oil.

No ones knows the future, but a little history reveals we have been fighting the battery problem for a couple
of centuries with only a few incremental improvements. Don't hold your breath for that to change. DON'T
confuse recent amazing advances in communication with the difficulties of the physical sciences. Bruce Roe

[J.P.M.]

Im not a solar guy (educated in bioengineering, then CS and later business). My expertise is investments and one of my areas of specialization is energy. You are wrong about the subsidies. Sorry.

The subsidies are what created the massive profits. If you take away those subs and mountains of tax breaks like depletion and such, the profitability of oil drops about 80% for most US based producers. You read that right. 80%. In fact, some smaller production based companies (like many MLP's pre-oil crash) only survive due to subsidies. They make no inherent profit otherwise. Larger companies are better off only because they practically own all the good reserves and it is they who sell off bad pieces to smaller companies. Most of the time, these companies are simply spin-offs for big companies who are trying to trim bad land at a premium price (a bit like how its done in the REIT industry).

But lets not mince words. Oil is all about subsidies. There is no return of profit to society. It was even founded on subsidies. The government actually paid startups around $100/barrel (inflation adjusted) to go and drill and on top of that, they got to keep the oil and sell it. This was free money. No strings attached. But unlike solar subsidies, these subsidies were permanent and they added more like depletion, intangible costs (which is mostly BS), etc over time. Again I point out that oil subsidies, unlike solar, are permanent which is why oil is such a popular investment. Solar is not working because it is always under fire and the subsidies are not consistent nor permanent. Every few years the industry has to fight for its life. No investor is going to put money into something so dependent on changing politics. If solar subs become permanent, the oil industry days will be numbered. Its just a matter of batteries becoming cheap and its the end of oil as we know it because by every measure, solar is much cheaper and more scalable. At least, this is how it looks from the business end.

Interesting perspective. Sounds like your thoughts and opinions about solar are not necessarily negative. Mine are also not negative. But while not a big fan of oil, or those that remove it from the ground, and no fan of oil depletion allowances, which by any name still make it easier to make profits through the tax code, I'm usually skeptical of alleged facts presented in such a way as your 80% number, having often found, to the point of being usual and common, that the veracity of such shoot from the hip factoids depend on more interpretation of the numbers than I'm comfortable with, as well as twisting those numbers and situations alleged to be facts in such a way as to make a trap for fools and to fit a particular point of view. I believe the in vogue term is "alternate facts" - What B.S.

I agree that there is no return to society in subsidies, and that we should not mince words. So, I'd say that all subsidies, oil, solar, farm price supports, having children, mortgage interest deductions, you name it - have no real net return to society as a whole. So, I'd get rid of all of them.

Solar subsidies for consumers only give the appearance of saving consumers money (which attribute of appearance is an attribute that oil depletion allowances, as bad as they may be, do not seem to have).

So, I agree, let's not mince words.

From my observation and follow-on conclusions, the bottom line realities are closer to something like consumer solar prices are probably close to something like 30% higher than they would have been without the 30% tax credit. Like a rising tide lifts all boats, the residential U.S. tax credit (and other solar subsidies) raised prices, and among other things, and as a small example, allowed vendors to sell a save story to the mostly and still solar ignorant consumer.

Perhaps ironically, the biggest damage solar subsidies have done is not to consumers (who for the most part are the more well heeled segment of society, and also seem to often be blessed with more money than brains, and who, in their solar ignorance and general hubris, may be able to justify their actions as noblesse oblige), but to the solar industry.

Subsidies have allowed people who would otherwise be less than qualified to sell leftover driveway sealer to door, or work with Al Bundy in the shoe store, to claim solar expertize and so give solar a bad name by producing shoddy products that haven't been forged in the fire of true competition, and without the accompanying high(er) rate of innovation, improved quality and lower prices that real competition can and often does bring. Subsidies also makes it easier for "Larry with a ladder" type solar vendors to survive more easily, only adding to quality problems, and maybe equally as bad, making it tougher for honest, ethical and knowledgeable vendors to make a living (and a profit = not a bad word) while at the same time carrying the albatross of the losers crap actions and results around the neck of their efforts.

Whether solar is working or (as you contend) not, has nothing to do with it being under fire. Seems to me anyway, folks are generally more positively inclined toward solar and renewable energy than not, maybe mostly because they're sheeple, and also because the media needs fluff and feel good stories to fill the airwaves, and print and electronic media.

From my perspective, if solar is not having a cake walk, it's mostly a simple case of costing too much in the eyes of consumers. The right product, at the right price will find a market. That's called competition. Get rid of all subsidies and let competition prevail. The market will decide. In the meantime, subsidies of any and all sort will skew competition and generally raise all prices.

Sometimes, or maybe most times, that market needs to be created by highlighting a need, or creating the perception of need(s) where they may not actually exist. Whether solar or renewable energy "works" or not - and it does - is largely a matter of finding the right applications that are appropriate to the technology, and getting the engineering right. But that's of no matter in the area of public acceptance - it's of no matter at all - people are too ignorant to intelligently make that determination (stick around here long enough and you may come to agree with that statement, or at least understand why some may feel that way). And, if there's any match with reality to my observation about price and how all subsidies raise prices and hurt or at least slow down innovation and progress, then I'd conclude that solar subsidies, like all subsidies regardless of what they're called, are detrimental to public perception because they raise prices and that hurts perception.

In the end, all subsidies, and in this case, solar and other subsidies are no more than another way to separate fools from their assets, and no more or less justifiable than oil depletion allowances. Thay're all unfair, but no one ever said anything about fair. It's just the way it is.

[jflorey2]

No ones knows the future, but a little history reveals we have been fighting the battery problem for a couple
of centuries with only a few incremental improvements.

I've been designing cellphones (and cellphone like devices) for ~25 years now. And at first people actually used lead acid batteries for cellphones, then nicads for a bit. Our very first portable CDMA phone used a lead acid; it was a monster.

Then in 1996 we were designing a satellite phone and needed considerably more energy than we could get from nicads. So we tried lithium ions. We first tried 18650's - which at that point were an underwhelming 1300mah. (They are more than twice that now) That resulted in a battery that was too big to be marketable. So we went with a lithium polymer, from one of the first companies (HET) doing lithium polymer. And they worked, eventually - the industry still had a lot to learn about lithium ion.

Now here we are 20 years later. Lithium ion batteries are twice the capacity and 1/3 the cost. Cars that use them have 300 mile ranges, and cellphone thicknesses are today measured in millimeters. You can get residential scale storage for $400/kilowatt-hour. They've enabled drones and wearables. And they are in the process of replacing IC engines in RC airplanes, since they are so much easier to use. There are even battery powered _airplanes_ now.

So I'd disagree that we've only seen "a few incremental improvements" in the past few centuries. Just in the past few _decades_ we've seen tremendous improvements. If we take the technology we have right now, and change nothing about it except to streamline production and recycling (i.e. process, not technology, improvements) we've got workable transportation and grid solutions. But of course we will also see technology improvements. Silicon anode, intrinsically safe structures, solid state - these will all, in the future, continue to improve capacity, watts per dollar and lifetime.

I agree no one should "hold their breath" for those changes. Fortunately they don't need to.

[SunEagle]

Like undertakers, there is no danger of the oil companies going out of business. Profitability drop, FINE, its
still a PROFIT, trimmed to something more reasonable. Solar CANNOT replace oil.

No ones knows the future, but a little history reveals we have been fighting the battery problem for a couple
of centuries with only a few incremental improvements. Don't hold your breath for that to change. DON'T
confuse recent amazing advances in communication with the difficulties of the physical sciences. Bruce Roe

I wonder how many people really understand the total market of products that rely on oil or one of its by products. They don't have to burn that stuff to make a profit. It is actually the high end chemicals that come from the barrel that is very profitable. The low ends (bunker, diesel, jet fuel and even gasoline) do not make a lot of money per gallon. It is the chemicals that bring in the money and Solar will never replace those chemicals.

[SunEagle]

I've been designing cellphones (and cellphone like devices) for ~25 years now. And at first people actually used lead acid batteries for cellphones, then nicads for a bit. Our very first portable CDMA phone used a lead acid; it was a monster.

Then in 1996 we were designing a satellite phone and needed considerably more energy than we could get from nicads. So we tried lithium ions. We first tried 18650's - which at that point were an underwhelming 1300mah. (They are more than twice that now) That resulted in a battery that was too big to be marketable. So we went with a lithium polymer, from one of the first companies (HET) doing lithium polymer. And they worked, eventually - the industry still had a lot to learn about lithium ion.

Now here we are 20 years later. Lithium ion batteries are twice the capacity and 1/3 the cost. Cars that use them have 300 mile ranges, and cellphone thicknesses are today measured in millimeters. You can get residential scale storage for $400/kilowatt-hour. They've enabled drones and wearables. And they are in the process of replacing IC engines in RC airplanes, since they are so much easier to use. There are even battery powered _airplanes_ now.

So I'd disagree that we've only seen "a few incremental improvements" in the past few centuries. Just in the past few _decades_ we've seen tremendous improvements. If we take the technology we have right now, and change nothing about it except to streamline production and recycling (i.e. process, not technology, improvements) we've got workable transportation and grid solutions. But of course we will also see technology improvements. Silicon anode, intrinsically safe structures, solid state - these will all, in the future, continue to improve capacity, watts per dollar and lifetime.

I agree no one should "hold their breath" for those changes. Fortunately they don't need to.

Batteries for energy storage or EV's will continue to come down in price. Yet due to the size and need to deliver a lot of energy quickly (not like those puny cell phone or drone batteries) the costs will stay high for the general public.

On top of that if for some reason the US has any issues with the countries that mine Lithium you will see the cost of batteries staying high due to limited material to make them.

Maybe the next generation battery chemistry will use something very easy and cheap to get. But until that is found I would not hold my breath for cheap and easy to find batteries.

[jflorey2]

Batteries for energy storage or EV's will continue to come down in price. Yet due to the size and need to deliver a lot of energy quickly (not like those puny cell phone or drone batteries) the costs will stay high for the general public.

Well, but you are saying two different things here - "costs will come down" (I agree) and "costs will stay high" (disagree.)

Power delivery is an issue primarily because batteries tend to be small now - because they are expensive. Want to have a Nissan Leaf battery pack deliver 80kW from its 24kwhr battery? You have to discharge it over 3C. Might be an issue for some batteries. Want to have a Bolt deliver 150kW from its 60kwhr battery? Lots more power - but only a 2.5C discharge rate. So as time goes on, the power vs energy issues for EV and home batteries decline.

On top of that if for some reason the US has any issues with the countries that mine Lithium you will see the cost of batteries staying high due to limited material to make them.

That's true of every consumer item out there. It used to be that oil was the big worry - now it's lithium. But I don't see that as a big deal. I have a friend who is a geologist and works as a mining engineer, and she travels to South Africa, Mexico, Australia, Chile and Argentina to work on their lithium mines. It's not likely that the US will suddenly have issues with all those countries.

Maybe the next generation battery chemistry will use something very easy and cheap to get. But until that is found I would not hold my breath for cheap and easy to find batteries.

Cheap - they are heading in that direction now, as they have been for decades.
Easy to find - that's purely a personal call. To me, batteries are easy to find. To others, they might be hard - but fortunately with more and more solar installers doing battery installations for self consumption, that won't matter as much.