Reliability of Solar Panels

[J.P.M.]

Solar prices have been steadily declining since the 1970's. Solar prices have declined 50% in the last five years. To think that a 30-40% price drop by 2020 is unreasonable goes against a long established trend and the majority of forecasts of analysts and companies in the industry You offer no evidence or detailed analysis for why you think prices won't decline. For someone who allegedly wants to see more solar installed you would think you would welcome a price decline. Just look at the forecasts for solar costs by Solar City and First solar and many analysts in the industry. Please show me evidence that backs up you assertion that solar prices won't decline much.

I don't believe you read what I wrote, or if you did, you may be inferring something different than the subject of my post. I don't think I mentioned anything about price changes vs. the future. Looks like you also missed the font I used.

However, since you seem to have a woody for anyone who may disagree with your opinions, this time it seems about the direction of energy prices:

Similar to past performance being no indication of the future, I consider pie in the sky scenarios of the R.E.'s future about as plausible as gloom & doom big oil crowd. I do try to consider all sides of an issue without cherry picking only what suits my opinion(s).

I have no proof that R.E. prices will not decline any more than you or anyone else has evidence that they will not increase.

Therefore, as to how much R.E. prices may change, or for that matter, just what the future holds, I don't know. My my crystal ball is in the shop just now. Part of whatever the future may hold for R.E depends on other energy prices. Part of it depends on how much the solar ignorant can be duped.

I do remember reading/hearing from a lot of sources back in the '70's that the world would run out of oil in 20-40 years +/- , depending on the prognosticator(s), and we better turn to solar before the lights go out. Anyone else remember things like that ? Anyone see anything of a similar nature happening now ? I think the lights are still on, but there are still a lot of derelict solar thermal units that were installed to alleviate the fears that crap generated.

Based on experience and observation, I am of the opinion that the portion of the pro solar crowd that is technically less informed does more harm than good in the furtherance of a solar future by often using half truths or inappropriate innuendo, sometimes out of ignorance, other times for a dollar sign, or because they can't do anything productive other than cynically glom off the fear and ignorance of people. People such as you buy that bill of goods, and the pitch, hook, line and sinker, and it spreads around like a rash.

I don't give much of a damn about having any type of dialogue with anyone who impugns my motives and takes cheap shots at my sincerity without proof as you have done in a prior post. I only respond to your above post to clear up any confusion other readers may have as to what I wrote.

Take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest.

The last word is yours.

[veritass]

I always believe everything I read, especially when it agrees with and reinforces what I've already convinced myself to be reality and the truth.

Obviously your post was as a cheap shot at me and insinuated that I am naively believe the analysts opinion because I want to. However you don't offer a reason as to why the analyst's projection is wrong. You offer a condescending attitude without refuting any points or producing your own projections.
You argue via extremely misleading analogies. You are drawing a false equivalency between solar power in 1970's and solar power now when in the 1970's solar modules were 150 times more expensive than they are today. Your lame argument boils down to, solar has always been too expensive and will always be too expensive. Most analysts don't agree with your assessment. You know the facts aren't in favor in your favor so you just offer logical fallacies, condescending attitudes and personal attacks. I enjoy debating the truth not bs.


"portion of the pro solar crowd that is technically less informed does more harm than good in the furtherance of a solar future by often using half truths or inappropriate innuendo, sometimes out of ignorance, other times for a dollar sign, or because they can't do anything productive other than cynically glom off the fear and ignorance of people. " See no facts, just personal attacks.

[SunEagle]

Obviously your post was as a cheap shot at me and insinuated that I am naively believe the analysts opinion because I want to. However you don't offer a reason as to why the analyst's projection is wrong. You offer a condescending attitude without refuting any points or producing your own projections.
You argue via extremely misleading analogies. You are drawing a false equivalency between solar power in 1970's and solar power now when in the 1970's solar modules were 150 times more expensive than they are today. Your lame argument boils down to, solar has always been too expensive and will always be too expensive. Most analysts don't agree with your assessment. You know the facts aren't in favor in your favor so you just offer logical fallacies, condescending attitudes and personal attacks. I enjoy debating the truth not bs.


"portion of the pro solar crowd that is technically less informed does more harm than good in the furtherance of a solar future by often using half truths or inappropriate innuendo, sometimes out of ignorance, other times for a dollar sign, or because they can't do anything productive other than cynically glom off the fear and ignorance of people. " See no facts, just personal attacks.

Having a bright outlook on the idea that the cost of solar will cause the amount of installs to sky rocket is ok, but I would caution you to not blindly invest a lot of money in any solar manufacturing company.

While the cost of solar has dropped considerably from the 1970's there have been many more solar companies that have gone out of business compare to those that are still around. Economic trends can reverse in a heartbeat. Look at the price of gold, silver, oil, etc. Even with good historical data for solar, it does not guarantee the trend will continue at the pace it has for the past 5 years.

I do hope it will continue to grow but since I have been involved with solar since the 70's I just won't lose my head with false expectations.

So IMO (and background experience) JPM is not stating BS but instead, more of a clear vision of the future. If you don't like his or my vision of solar then that is your opinion but lighten up and don't get all waded up because we disagree with you.

[peakbagger]

There is a lot of solar capacity being installed in many areas that only is being installed because of unsustainable short term incentives. Several companies are monetizing these short term incentives into long term contracts. They then are bundling the contracts up and turning them into long term investment instruments that they represent as very safe. Sounds reasonable until you compare it to the housing bubble where wall street used similar tactics. Both Germany and Spain, poster child's of the solar movement have run into unsustainable incentives and have had to ratchet them way back for new installs or arbitrarily cancel long term deals. In both countries the cost of power is double or triple that in the US.

Even though installed solar costs drop, unless net metering or FITs stay in place which is questionable the break even point changes radically.

I have been doing a lot of driving in rural Massachusetts this last year. Mass has very generous (arguably unsustainable) incentives for solar and the developers are lining up to plunk in panels. I haven't seen any north facing arrays but have seen a fair share of east and west facing arrays in hardwood stands and I have seen more than few where shading is going to be a significant issue if it already isn't. I was around for the SHW boom 25 years ago and saw many SHW systems installed the same way and most were abandoned a few years later.

Every time I see the headline "solar hits parity with some other fuel" I always look for the details. Usually its cost per installed nameplate wattage of solar versus nameplate output of some other fuel. The other fuel is inevitably dispatchable with high availability 24 hours per day. If actual solar capacity and the required storage is included to true up with the alternative fuel, solar is a loser. I must admit on a small scale I take advantage of the disparity but I don't lie to myself. I generate a lot of excess power through net metering in the summer and then use it in the winter and get paid for it by selling SRECS plus my installations were subsidized. My neighbors haven't taken advantage of these incentives and subsidize my power. In theory I am grandfathered for my net metering contract but I fully expect at some point that the utility will convince the state to find a way around it.

[veritass]

There is a lot of solar capacity being installed in many areas that only is being installed because of unsustainable short term incentives. Several companies are monetizing these short term incentives into long term contracts. They then are bundling the contracts up and turning them into long term investment instruments that they represent as very safe. Sounds reasonable until you compare it to the housing bubble where wall street used similar tactics. Both Germany and Spain, poster child's of the solar movement have run into unsustainable incentives and have had to ratchet them way back for new installs or arbitrarily cancel long term deals. In both countries the cost of power is double or triple that in the US.

Even though installed solar costs drop, unless net metering or FITs stay in place which is questiona

I have been doing a lot of driving in rural Massachusetts this last year. Mass has very generous (arguably unsustainable) incentives for solar and the developers are lining up to plunk in panels. I haven't seen any north facing arrays but have seen a fair share of east and west facing arrays in hardwood stands and I have seen more than few where shading is going to be a significant issue if it already isn't. I was around for the SHW boom 25 years ago and saw many SHW systems installed the same way and most were abandoned a few years later.

Every time I see the headline "solar hits parity with some other fuel" I always look for the details. Usually its cost per installed nameplate wattage of solar versus nameplate output of some other fuel. The other fuel is inevitably dispatchable with high availability 24 hours per day. If actual solar capacity and the required storage is included to true up with the alternative fuel, solar is a loser. I must admit on a small scale I take advantage of the disparity but I don't lie to myself. I generate a lot of excess power through net metering in the summer and then use it in the winter and get paid for it by selling SRECS plus my installations were subsidized. My neighbors haven't taken advantage of these incentives and subsidize my power. In theory I am grandfathered for my net metering contract but I fully expect at some point that the utility will convince the state to find a way around it.

At what cost per watt do you think solar is competitive without subsides?

[foo1bar]

At what cost per watt do you think solar is competitive without subsides?

A> depends on the location/use
B> depends on what you consider a subsidy (is net metering a subsidy?)

It may be competitive at $10/W when running a power line from the "nearby" grid is >$100k up front (plus the $/kwh once the line is there)
It may not be competitive at $2/W when there isn't net metering and power costs $0.05/kwh.

Both of those are realistic cases in the US.

Really it's necessary to evaluate each situation - there are too many variables. Someone could opine that "At $2/watt solar is competitive without subsidies" - but what use is that opinion? Can't use it to make investments. And doesn't affect any specific installation being considered. So about all I think it's good for is something to argue about on a web forum.

[veritass]

A> depends on the location/use
B> depends on what you consider a subsidy (is net metering a subsidy?)

It may be competitive at $10/W when running a power line from the "nearby" grid is >$100k up front (plus the $/kwh once the line is there)
It may not be competitive at $2/W when there isn't net metering and power costs $0.05/kwh.

Both of those are realistic cases in the US.

Really it's necessary to evaluate each situation - there are too many variables. Someone could opine that "At $2/watt solar is competitive without subsidies" - but what use is that opinion? Can't use it to make investments. And doesn't affect any specific installation being considered. So about all I think it's good for is something to argue about on a web forum.

Well put