Paul RakoTechnical Editor Paul Rako looks at analog technology in power supplies, interface, the signal path, and life in general.



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Analog Design Articles

Blog

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Solar power still won’t pay back

May 28 2008 1:36PM | Permalink |Email this|Comments (60) |


My buddy Frank Fowler just gave me the actual numbers for his solar installation in Grass Valley. The great news is that Frank has so much solar power he is completely electricity independent. All he has to pay PG&E is a 4 dollar-a-month connection fee and that is really priceless since it is what allows him to feed power into the grid during the summer days and take it out over the winter nights. Frank notes:

I think being tied to the grid makes good sense. For a very small service charge every month I have full backup and peak load service. I also don't have to pay for expensive batteries, which have a limited life. The downside is that when PG&E goes down, so do I. I can't operate independently even if I want to. This rarely happens and I have a 10KW generator if I need it.

Franks says that on very good (cloud-free) summer days starting in April he makes about 60 kwh a day. Last year he generated 2400 kwh more than he needed. PG&E does not let you roll that energy to the next year, you lose it at the yearly anniversary date of the installation going on-grid. Frank uses 54 Mitsubishi panels of 170 watts each. Note that means his nominal 9180-watt set of panels average 2500 watts a day. The factor of 3.6 makes sense what with nighttime and angular losses. He has two SMA “sunny boy” inverters, a 6000-watt and a 3800-watt unit.

I mentioned to Frank that solar installations pose a significant safety hazard for PG&E workers. If the grid goes down and they are working on the lines, a solar power installation can back-feed the grid and maybe electrocute a linesman. Frank pointed out that the inverters would drop out when the grid goes down, and there is a lock-out/tag-out switch on the outside wall so a linesman can mechanically disconnect the unit.

Whoopee, energy independence, just like this article promises. But what about the cost? Frank said that he spent 40 grand in the install and he did the work himself. If he had to have it installed the cost would be about 50 grand. He says that includes the rebates and credits and such, but warned me that all those are moving targets and may change from time to time and place to place. Now according to Frank the payback will be about 8 years. That would be OK but I have to question those numbers. Not that Frank is a liar, but he was a VP of marketing before retiring to Grass Valley so factor that in the equation. See, if the payback for $40k is 8 years that means $5 grand a year. That is 417 dollars a month. I have a hard time believing Frank is using that much energy up there. Especially that, just like people who buy small cars, Frank is being extra careful about minimizing his energy use. He writes:

It's ironic that once a system like this is installed, you become hyper energy conscious.  I've replaced every available light with CFLs and just simple conservation efforts have cut consumption way down.

So lets look at it another way—say the install costs 50 grand. If you put that in an 8% stock market account, and the market does average about 8%, you would get 4000 dollars a year. That is 333 dollars a month. So if your electric bill is less than 333 dollars the install does really not pay off, ever. Remember that after 20 years you will still have the 50 grand as opposed to a worn-out and broken solar power installation. And that brings up another consideration. When you put a solar install on your roof you are now the caretaker for a complex industrial installation. There will be maintenance and repair issues. I have two friends that just formed a startup to make inverters since their research shows that inverters blow up every 5 years since the electrolytic caps in them wear out due the necessarily high ripple currents the caps experience. You have to keep the panels clean, you have to fix any damage and you have to fix any leaks in the roof caused by the install. I once thought it would be a good idea to host my own mail server, but an IT buddy convinced me that paying AT&T or some web host to do it is a really good deal. Manufacturing centralization always seem to engender fear in some people but it is what allows economies of scale and that is a good thing. This love of distributed solar and wind power reminds me of Chairman Mao’s 5-year plans that called for little steel mills in everyone’s back yard. Very uplifting and good for character development, but all the steel they made was dangerous junk. Americans have consistently foregone character development for methamphetamines and tractor-pulls, so who has the time to maintain a kilowatt-class power station?

Now we get to that slipperiest of slopes—rebates and tax incentives. I saw Rick Wagoner, the chairman of GM on the Commonwealth Club last week. He was talking about electric vehicles. Any respect for him evaporated as soon as I realized that the central thing he wanted was government money and incentives for GM and the battery companies and everybody else. I wonder if Rick thinks we should offset that handout with handouts to the oil industry to improve their ability to extract oil from shale and other projects? Then again we can just uses taxes for defense, courts and welfare and let the economy determine what things cost. Not doing that is what collapsed the Soviet Union, after all. My buddy Frank also pines for free handouts, but being a really decent guy who really does care about the planet, he does not want them for himself, he wants the handouts so everyone can have a bright shiny $50k solar powered installation on their roof that they got their neighbors to pay for— hey wait a minute, if we tax everybody to pay everybody, that does not make any sense —oh I know we will just tax the peons and lesser people so you and I can have solar power installation on the roof. As I have tried to explain over and over, it is the true cost of something that indicates whether it is good for the planet. Stealing a billion dollars from taxpayers to save a million dollars in electricity is hardly good social policy.

Now once again, do I think it is bad or immoral to pay for a big unwieldy solar installation when you could have a few thousand shares of stock? Not really. It is all about freedom. I sure think that having a solar installation is a far better way to spend your money than crack cocaine and over-priced clothes. But bear in mind that is a choice, not a moral law. Some people prefer the crack and the clothes because that is their value system and their status regime. Other people like to show off with solar power and electric cars. I like Harley Sportsters and electric guitars. But as long as none of these choices make economic sense you have to understand it is not about saving the planet, it is about identifying yourself with a group. I have respect for all these groups. Heaven knows it is more fun to hang around the crack users than constantly be hectored by the greenies on what a bad person I am just because I use oil without shame or guilt. But while the crack cocaine crowd is fun, we all admit that they are also unsustainable and that is the allure of the green crowd. They really are trying to think long-term and do what is best for the planet. That is great and really a noble aspiration. I just hope that these caring, thinking people realize that as long as it costs less to buy power from PG&E, that is the best thing for the planet. It is a big mistake to think that we are doing good by having the government take money from all of us and then pick some winner beforehand, and that just “priming the pump” with a few billion dollars will make solar power or electric cars economically feasible in total cost. I am amused that the same people that ridicule Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down economics suddenly think it makes sense when the trickling is all over their pet projects. I do think that there is a place for solar and electric cars and that they will come into use in the next twenty years, but do not think that it helps the planet by paying more for less right now. And yes there are significant distortions— I think we need much stricter emissions on coal so we stop poisoning ducks with methyl mercury and we should also scrub the sulfur out to prevent acid rain. But that will not double the cost of electricity. When electricity cost is on par with solar costs, before any rebates and incentives, well then it will make sense to use solar, but only until then.

So do I think Frank is dumb for dropping 50 grand on something that will never pay back? Far from it, Frank was in marketing so he is far from dumb. And it is his marketing savvy that provides him with the justification for the solar installation. Like I said, it identifies him and his family with a group and Frank hopes that group will attract better spouses for his progeny. That is simple evolution. Back in Darwin’s time it was thought evolution was driven by genetic mutation. Turns out that sexual selection, the fact that we can choose our mates, is an even greater evolutionary vector. Why else would all higher species separate into male and female? So while I am right that the dollar payback does not make sense, the social payback for Frank’s installation is gigantic. He is the cool guy, a leader among his peers, his kid’s wives think they are in a cool family and don’t walk out and the grandkids will be able to attract better spouses. This is what justifies all cool things like a person using a Cadillac Escalade to commute to work all by himself. We can all decry status and ridicule other’s choices, but they are driven by social and psychological factors every bit as strong as the desire for self-preservation. That is why Frank is way smarter than I. He is attracting and keeping good blood in his brood while I am just doing the engineer’s dollars-and-cents analysis. I wish people in general (and those willowy blond socialist girls from the 60’s) appreciated my value system more, but Frank is the clear the winner, what with his large family spreading his genetic code over the planet while my sorry, childless ass is sitting is Sunnyvale worried about the economy. Marketing triumphs engineering once again.

So if you want to show status by buying electric cars and solar power that is great, only be aware that you are costing the planet no less than the Escalade driver or the guy wearing gold chains. Just remember both over-gold and over-green are bad for you.


Related entries in: Analog | 


Reader Comments



at 5/28/2008 5:39:52 PM, Prius Driver said:
You say "...as long as it costs less to buy power from PG&E, that is the best thing for the planet." I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed. It is the best thing for the economy, not for the planet, and probably not for the people on the planet. Consider this - it would be good for the economy if GM and IBM could dump their toxic sewage untreated into our air and water. Your cars and computers would be cheaper (or their stock would go up). But it would be bad for the environment. Good for the economy does not imply good for the environment (in fact, it is generally the opposite). You are (sadly) right that Americans will not adopt things that are altruistic in nature, they will wait until it is the profitable thing to do.



at 5/29/2008 11:25:55 AM, Mark Medonis said:
You are correct that solar installations are still expensive, but your argument that this is somehow bad for the economy seems illogical. My company, for example, makes inverters. If more folks install solar, then more sales for my company. That would seem like good economics to me.



at 5/29/2008 5:30:23 PM, Logic said:
This is by far the worst article regarding solar power I've ever read. It is full of heavily biased comments that make no sense at all. Are you really that jaded or just stupid?



at 5/29/2008 9:33:08 PM, doug said:
My solar installation cost about $110,000 for 15,000 Watt peak system... 72 panels and 3 5.2 KW invertors.. Prior to the install my annual PGE bills were about $13,000, so this implies about an eight year payback if you ignore both the cost of your capital and the fact the PGE rates have increased at about 9% compounded over the past 30 years. The solar panels also keep the house a little cooler in the summer and a little warmer in the winter so I can an incremental heating and cooling savings. MIT tehcnology review is forecasting that the price of panels will decline by about 50% in the next four years as the amount of raw silicon worldwide available for production of panels increases from 15,000 tons to over 100,000 per year. This would make solar panels about a four year payback in high price states like California.



at 5/30/2008 12:13:21 PM, tree hugger said:
"As I have tried to explain over and over, it is the true cost of something that indicates whether it is good for the planet." So when whale oil became "the first of any animal or mineral oil to achieve commercial viability." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_oil) it was good for the planet to drive whales to extinction!?!? Would you actually argue that with a straight face? Man, I sure hope you understand analog stuff better then you understand environmentalism



at 5/30/2008 2:05:46 PM, Common Sense said:
Excellent article again, Paul. It''s refreshing to see a writer study the hard economics rather than simply blathering about unquantified ''benefits''. As an aside, your buddy gets credit for the retail price of the electricity he injects into the grid, rather than the wholesale rate for any other producer. Another subsidy. Keep up the good work - 10 years from now your thoughts will seem prophetic.



at 5/30/2008 2:15:48 PM, Iron Hand said:
Tree hugger and the rest: you're missing the author's point about economy of scale. Let's take trash collection as an example. In your personal environment of your back yard, you want to maintain a clean environment, so you pick up your trash. Then you have to take your trash to the dump. Taking trash to the dump takes time and money. If a centralized dump truck takes your trash for you, the cost per load of trash drops dramatically. You use less fuel and it definitely takes less of your own time. This is economy of scale. The same applies to power production. I'll take a wild guess and say that there is pollution associated with making solar panels. I'll bet that the pollution of a power plant (centralized power production, better economy of scale) is less than the pollution resulting from making all the solar panels to replace a power plant. If something costs more, it's for a reason. An example that I do know for a fact is recycling. It takes more water and energy to recycle paper than it takes to make paper from fresh cut trees. That's why nobody pays people to recycle; it usually costs money to recycle paper. It's not good for the environment to recycle paper (other than landfill costs, but that's a different subject).



at 5/30/2008 2:22:03 PM, Logically thinking said:
Paul, I'm with you on this one. But you've got to understand that you have stepped into the environmentalist world where Logic doesn't matter, personal choice is given warily, corporations are bad by nature and government is good (as long as they agree with the environmentalists). By the way "tree hugger" I love the whale oil analogy. That's a classic example of my point!!



at 5/30/2008 2:31:33 PM, PoliticallyIncorrect said:
Excellent, Paul. I'd like to ask all the people who want the solar pannels, electric cars and all the "greenest" stuffs: if something is so good and worthy, why don't you just pay it all by yourself? If you use your own money, I mean 100% of yours, then I think you are doing right thing with your good intention. If everyone thinks it's worth his or her own money, and more people buy the green stuff that way, the economy of scale will kick in. Then the cost will come down.



at 5/30/2008 2:36:32 PM, J. Williams said:
Paul, I think you just like being a pointed copper rod, high on the roof of a structure in the deep south on a hot, humid, summer afternoon. :o) To the Pious Driver, what's wrong with profitable? That is what makes the U.S. so successful. Profits and environmental stewardship can co-exist.



at 5/30/2008 2:43:28 PM, Fellow Engineer said:
Couldn't have put it better myself. All tax rebates and write-offs whether they are for alternative energy or even your home mortgage are at the expense of some other poor guy, not smart enough to beat the system or rich enough to influence his friendly congressman.



at 5/30/2008 3:09:34 PM, David Santa Clara said:
Ah, many opinions here, and sadly not a lot of data. In fact, viirtually none. So try this. Everyone chill out, sit down, and read "Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles" by Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University, and Utrecht University, published January 4, 2008. Synopsis: all life cycle elements considered, cradel to grave, PV reduces greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants for electricity generation by 89 to 98% compared to fossil generation means. Opinions are great - everyone should have one. All you engineers out there should be using the scientific method, however, and steering clear of global economics, sociology, psychology, and name calling - a nonproductive admixture to be sure. There is a reason why all of you are engineers and not economists and doctors - you are better at applied physics than those other groups. I suggest we stick with our core compentency.



at 5/30/2008 3:29:11 PM, NoImPoliticallyIncorrect said:
Since when has an anti-environmental stance made some "politically incorrect"? Reagan was elected almost 30 years ago and the current secretary of the interior has spent his career trying to end government involvement in environmental issues. Politics have changed, pal. I''d also like someone to explain to me how the "invisible hand" solves environmental problems. Do you really think car makers voluntarily put catalytic converters on cars? They only do it because it''s a legal requirement. On the other hand, I''d like to invite you to travel to any big city in china where environmental standards aren''t regulated. Tip: bring your Visine. Finally, I really hope that none of you "common sense" posters actually work for any actual technology company (e.g., defense), because we''d all be in big trouble if the government wasn''t such a big participant in the economy.



at 5/30/2008 3:33:48 PM, An Engineer said:
Paul, all I can say is that I am glad your articles have a limited audience. Your assertion that higher cost somehow equates to environmental impact is idiotic. Economy of scale will bring the cost of solar down and once we get cost parity with Coal, everyone will go solar (including the utility companies). This doesn't mean that coal is "good for us" in the meantime. Please, just stick to what you know, or do some research before you publish.



at 5/30/2008 3:47:46 PM, BH Korea said:
David Santa Clara my read of your point is that since PV installs do "good" then the economics do not matter. In other words, it therefore makes sense for everyone else to pay for my $50k PV install because it does "good."



at 5/30/2008 3:49:36 PM, Jeff Green said:
The economic analysis of payback periods (comparison vs. stock-market returns) ignores an important factor: the high probability of significant increases in energy costs. If we get serious about CO2 reduction, a carbon tax will mean that all electricity get more expensive, and that makes the payback more plausible. At CURRENT prices, Frank''s economic payback may be well more than 8 years when cost of money is included, but ten years hence, that''s not as likely. As you point out, though, the real payback is being a high-status early adopter, and such people help the industry reduce costs as well.



at 5/30/2008 4:27:55 PM, Prius Drive said:
To J Williams. Nothing is wrong with profit. Greed is good. Personally, I love money. I am simply pointing out the flaw in Paul's logic, when he claims that "good for the economy" equates to "good for the environment".



at 5/30/2008 7:54:39 PM, wish_it_was_different said:
The basic problem with environmental concerns is that it's a proxy for something else: a 40+ year-long undeclared Cold Civil War. As a result, trustworthy analysis is very, very hard to come by. Every study is non-credible because of the huge number of folks in this area who have an emotional investment in one position or the other and are now willing to slant or twist the truth to fit that position. That's what happens when folks are at war with each other..truth generally takes a back seat. If we had a way to extract truth from unwilling participants, we might be able to get to a real understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the climate modeling that has been done to date. Perhaps it's right on target, or perhaps it's so important to the true believers that they are willing to ignore data that might point to some other answer(s). As it is, though, with altogether too many people completely unwilling to sift their own positions ruthlessly, we are never going to get to the truth. That being the case, the group that can shout the loudest, bribe the deepest, and manipulate emotions the best will win.



at 5/30/2008 8:18:41 PM, Dave W said:
Volume and competition drive down the costs of PV solar. Volume and competition tend to fund R&D to drive them down faster. . The price of fuel (Oil and natural gas) is rising and will probably continue to rise now that China and India are coming on line as heavy users of same. Demand is liable to increase faster than supply, so relative prices go up. . Comparing current PV solar to PG&E is valid today, but not 5+ years from now. . Solar for large scale plants is also economically competitive. See Ausra.com for large scale solar. They have built a few and are building more. Current projections put the electricity cost less than that of coal plants. . Local PV should be great as a retrofit as the PV economics improve. A case can be made for requiring the installation of a PV solar unit whenever an air conditioner is installed. The PV perfectly compensates for the AC - you use the AC when the sun shines. Installing the PV solar with the AC means little net change to the PG&E power, protecting PG&E and its users from expensive summer brownouts when the temperature rises. .



at 5/31/2008 7:54:18 AM, guest said:
why oh why???? solar power is free and it won''t hurt our enviroment. while taking power from the grid uses coal or oil... it''s not really good for your pocket, but think of the next generations...



at 5/31/2008 9:47:26 AM, Would be Nice said:
When I see the sea of rooftops in Silicon Valley, it seems like solar power is the perfect solution. Just cover those roofs and eliminate brown-outs. HOWEVER, I heard once that the production of a PV cell consumes more power than it will ever produce. Does anyone have facts to support this claim?



at 5/31/2008 12:34:13 PM, bill said:
I agree that subsidizing is a bad idea, either the technology will evolve or it won''t. But to me the bigger picture is the technology very much looks like it will evolve. Today, for $20k, I could get a roughly 4kW system, and living near Dallas,TX, would put out about 400kW month. I''m on electric co-op so my electricity is only 11.85 cents/kWhr. So $40 - $60 a month savings, not justified now. But a pv panel is just a big DRAM, not literally, but it''s just a big array, not of transistors, but of pv passives. So if you want to look into the future of solar, you can look at the DRAM market of the past 20 years and likely pretty much overlay it. The advancements won''t be as dramatic (256kb to 1Gb or beyond), but you will see prices come down and conversion efficiency go up. The net, I''m hoping to see the day that I can get 3,000 kWhr off my roof for somewhere in the $10k - $30k range installed, at which point I cover not only my A/C bill and then some, but for the winter I also put in electric resistance furnaces (no heatpumps, I''m not real big on sitting in a draft of 80F - 85F forced air for heating). Seat of the pants guess, I''m guessing electrical resistance furnaces in the Dallas winter use about same energy in Dallas as A/C in Summer. Come 2010, 2011, there is alot of pv panel fab capacity coming online, expect a glut and drop in prices, and expect further innovation to drive efficiency of pv conversion. Finally, w/ all the engineering effort and VC money & corp R&D budgets going into battery technology. I look forward to the day of plug in hybrids for a normal car, not a tiny box, that will go 40 - 60 miles on 10 - 20 kWhr w/ batteries that last half the life or all the life of the car. The first PHEVs are due out in ''10 & ''11 model years. Including small SUVs. My best guess, by 2015 - 2020, this all might be feasible. And in the world of technology, that''s not that far away, and improvements will happen along the way so value on a smaller scale will happen before then.



at 5/31/2008 7:43:00 PM, Voice of Truth said:
No wonder Algore has such an audience - dupes galore! Personal solar electric installations that tie into the electric grid have been shown over and over again to be worse for the environment from a cradle-to-grave standpoint. The carbon footprint of the resource gathering and system inplementation is huge compared. It's not just processing the silicon and electronic controllers, but the transportation and construction equipment (including the workers' vehicles) that are the polluters. It is that same type of fallacious arguement originally put forth about biofuels. Energy In >> Energy Out. (...and now we learn that we're starving entire populations because of the frenzy) I'm a huge proponent of developing alternative energy forms, but it's criminal the way most participants outright lie about the state of the technology. Let me know how happy you are with your electric vehicle in a few years when it's time to replace the battery bank. The efficiency goes down over time as the capacity of the batteries degrade and the internal combustion engine has to run more often than the electric motor. Will you happliy write the check, or try to pawn the pig off on some unsuspecting doofus? How will you feel about the poor 3rd-world sap wou will end up processing your poisonous batteries and placing them in landfills in their countries with no personal safety laws? Ha! Hipocrytes!



at 6/1/2008 7:29:40 PM, ilboabno said:
Good article Paul Most people are missing the piont. Fact is. It takes more energy to produce a solar cell that it will ever produce in it''s lifetime. Do the energy audit. Think about it....start with the mining of the sand THEN transport THEN that sand has to be MELTED ie heat, and refined...think through the manufacturing process. Then transport and installation. Dont even think to include battries....lead and zinc.. Mined and refined,(more heat/energy) manufactured then transported..etc. All you are doing is moveing the pollution somewhere else and giving yourselves a warm feeling... Good article Paul



at 6/2/2008 2:52:29 AM, amazed said:
Paul, Your analysis and several of the posts are truly amazing. You are an engineer, presumably the posters are as well. When you get supposed "facts" check them with some simple analysis. Several posts cite the "fact" that photovoltaics use more energy in manufacture than they will produce in their lifetime. I''ve not ever seen this backed up. Do a simple economic analysis: The energy required to manufacture the PV cells is covered in the purchase price of the cell. If the cell provides enough energy to pay for itself then it has produced more energy than it took to produce it. No matter which set of numbers are used from the PV installations cited in the article or the posts, PV cells do pay back, including the cost of capital. The payback may not be 8 years, but it is under 15 in every recent analysis I''ve seen. The cost of cells is headed down and the cost of energy is headed up. The economics of personal PV cell installation may not be compelling to everyone today, but it won''t be very many years before it will be. They don''t need tax incentives for it to happen either. Unfortunately, your column and many of the posts are heavily driven by political argument. Politics, like religion, tends to be an area where people stop thinking. They ignore logic and omit simple plausibility testing that they would immediately do in any other area of their lives. Unfortunately the world is rapidly approaching the point where failure to think will have devastating consequences for everyone.



at 6/2/2008 6:43:09 AM, Thomas said:
Typical article that sprinkles in some truth to sell a self-righteous view point based on cost alone. It's time for America to wake up! (I don't say all drive a miniature car and live in huts, but a little bit of sense can go a long way in a land of waste.)



at 6/2/2008 7:44:28 AM, Hank said:
Paul, you implied in passing that there is a lot of popularity for home wind power. However, it looks like those companies pushing home windmills aren''t doing too well. In contrast, multi-megawatt wind turbines are doing very well. Check out the huge Wind Power conference in Houston this week. So this is an example of where economy of scale is driving economic decisions.



at 6/2/2008 8:23:55 AM, Spring is BACK said:
"if we tax everybody to pay everybody, that does not make any sense". Well, of course it does, to those who have (or would have)their hands on the money...



at 6/2/2008 9:15:12 AM, Spring is BACK said:
It seems to me that rather than depending on the gov't, the greenies would be far more effective if they invested heavily in the Solar Power Industry / companies. This would be with the understanding that the SPI would hire all "those willowy blond socialist girls from the 60’s" (beamed into the present by some economical means, of course, because otherwise you have a mass invasion of present day Hillary Clintons. And, to be fair about it, include some good looking tall dark haired guys). The new hirees are then to be sent all over the country, convincing everyone, including, I suspect, Paul Rako, to put in a solar power installation. Everybody wins. (Wink, wink!)



at 6/2/2008 1:46:12 PM, Joe B. said:
The energy to produce the system is irrelevant. People purchase energy to perform a task. If the cost to provide the energy, including service and maintenance, is cheaper and cleaner, nobody will care about "just" the energy related to panel. It''s about the price of the energy to the point of use, nothing more. Take gas for example. The question is not (by itself) whether biodiesel produced at home takes more or less energy. It''s about which portable energy will cost less per mile within my constraints (A.C., radio, whatever). After all, I''m not buying gas or biodiesel for display on my mantle. I''m trying to move my vehicle. Same thing with power to house. I''m trying to perform work via machines that produce a desired outcome that has a value to me that may or may not include "green" origins. The differing solutions have components that impact choice, such as env. impact, ease of use, "hassle cost," and lifestyle impact. That''s why predicting winners is complex.



at 6/2/2008 10:14:27 PM, G said:
Way to build a logical fallacy. This is what's called a hasty generalization. Solar energy comes in all sorts of varieties. Where do you thing hydroelectric power comes from? It comes from solar energy. Where do you think all the energy that is released when you burn your fossil fuels comes from? Again, solar energy. Our entire planet is powered from the sun; the technical challenge is to be more inventive and get better at it. Way to go, making a single study of only one way to collect solar energy and then trying to paint the entire effort with the same brush, like the way you tried to backhandedly apply your solar panel based conclusion to wind power without its own study. Does your buddy Frank write? I think he'd produce material that was more interesting and more technical than your drivel.



at 6/3/2008 1:16:26 AM, ugh said:
For the most part, I understand both sides of this issue, and both sides have valid points. I am by NO means a tree hugger (I drive a 5.9L V8 Durango), but I also know that the pollution cannot continue if we expect our kids, or their kids, to survive... In any event, everyone needs to THINK before they post. For example: Some say that it costs and pollutes more to make solar panels than to use fossil fuels. What about the pollution from drilling for oil, refining it, shipping it, etc.? You have to think about and study BOTH sides of these issues, which I'm willing to bet NOONE that posted here has. I haven't, I'm just thinking it through before posting and letting my emotions rule my brain (unlike the author and many other posters). Those taking issue about the gov't grants for solar being taken from tax dollars: I understand, I think everyone does. However the greenies are happy about it, and personally it doesn't bother me because it's a noble cause... If that's not enough for you, then have you considered moving? Just kidding; But I don't know how that might get resolved, other than for you to realize that it only costs you a little bit in taxes for something that might be a a catalyst for something that could greatly benefit your grandchildren - doesn't that possibility alone make it worthwile? Finally, a minor issue I take with everyone quoting a 20 year life on solar panels: after 20 years, solar panels are not "bad". They do generate less electricity, but you can continue to use the panels, with increasingly reduced capacity, for a number of years. Tangent point: The same applies for Li-Ion batteries in vehicle use (i.e. the Tesla). After the 100k miles they are quoted as being good for, the batteries still work, they just have reduced range. Please people, less drivel, less emotions, more facts, more thinking - particularly with respect to Both sides of any argument.



at 6/3/2008 1:10:53 PM, Tom Pier said:
How much does is cost to patrol the Persian Gulf with several carrier groups? This money we are borrowing from China never gets included in any of these "renewable payback" articles that get published.



at 6/3/2008 1:29:59 PM, Don McQuaig said:
Anyone that believes carbon taxing has any benefit other than a redistribution of wealth has totally lost touch with reality.



at 6/3/2008 1:43:15 PM, Politically Incorrect Engineer said:
Solar PV today is like the days before Ford got in to the automobile business. Back then, automobiles were scarce. Horses were more economical, but everyone could see that we couldn't keep operating with horses forever. The rich technocrats pushed automotive development until one day, along came Henry Ford and he build a car everyone could afford. That's exactly what I'm waiting for. I don't begrudge government subsidies for research and development, but I do think that we're overstepping ourselves by allowing our governments to subsidize this technology. Instead, I think government funds ought to be spent on a grid that can handle power flows going either in or out of the home. The point has been made that personal wind or solar power generation does not function on a level playing field.



at 6/3/2008 3:53:06 PM, Lost Almost said:
I have yet to see an energy-balance budget for solar panels, given the total energy inputs (silicon cells, aluminum frames, mounting, trackers (if used)) and all the rest) compared to the energy output of the same installation. I suspect the reason that PV is so expensive is that it takes a HUGE energy investment before the first KW comes out.



at 6/3/2008 3:56:34 PM, wattsupdoc said:
CFL: $2.50 Hybrid car: $25k PV house system $50k Solar-thermal plant $100M Telling the Middle East, Venezuela, Mexico, Indonesia, etc. that we don''t need their stinking oil: PRICELESS



at 6/3/2008 10:52:22 PM, Meredith Poor said:
I like the idea of using solar panels to attract members of the opposite gender... particularly if this results in reproductive success. There is lots of light in El Dorado, and keeping free of outside influences is, shall we say, of more than incidental economic value to the flock.



at 6/4/2008 3:52:56 AM, reefswaggie said:
My place has been solar powered (stand alone) for over 20 years. we replaced our system a few years ago for 21,000 australian and got seven thousand back from the government so i dont know why its necessary to spend 50 to a hundred grand in the US. what i get back from it is not just money but the knowledge that i am not using energy from coal fired plants and not contributing as much to greenhouse gas production. there is more to life than just money and i am glad i invested the money in solar power rather than in some interest earning venture. by the way, at the time it was going to cost me 28,000 to get connected to the grid! go figure... so i think i am streets ahead.



at 6/4/2008 10:18:27 AM, green said:
Thank you for your opinion. If everybody did think like you then we would have a very polluted planet....hey wait a minuye.....we do have a polluted planet because most people DO thnk like you. Thank god you are not president. If everybody DID like your marketing buddy, and invested in solar and wind power and flow batteries, then we could shut down all of the coal plants and slow down the pollution of the planet so maybe we wouldnt kill ourslves and all of the environment with it.



at 6/4/2008 11:56:47 AM, PaulR said:
In response to ugh (slightly off topic?) I would only say that somehow, a little bit here and a little bit there (taxes, SS, etc.) manages to add up to nearly 50% of one's income (if you include EVERYTHING) for a person of average income. And while some of that is necessary, an awful lot is simply one group of people deciding what's best for others (if not themselves.) (Can you imagine how different election results would be if gov't employees or indeed anyone who receives $$ from the gov't had no power to vote themselves more? Was it Jefferson who said the greatest threat to democracy would come when the populace realized it could (in effect) vote itself wealth from the public treasury?) I'm also not sure what Li-ion batteries you are talking about -- any I've used are essentially useless after a few years. And, ok, you want another side to the argument? Why has the Earth not gone into another period of glaciation? (It's overdue.) Study the temperature records both overall and in detail, over the last 50 million years or so, and you'll start asking some very interesting questions. Now in response to wattsupdoc, I would point out that CANADA is the #1 exporter of oil to the U.S. (At $100+ per barrel, that's likely to go up fast, what with the development of Canada's oil sands reserves (bigger than the ME?) accelerating. To green - uh huh. Where is all the money going to come from??!! I can't even afford to make my home more earthquake resistant, in a major way, and that's a heck of a higher priority to me than putting in a solar installation. (I'm in the New Madrid Seismic Zone.) Though I sure would like to come up with the funds to restore my old Honda CRX1.3!!! (BTW, you should study those graphs too - I'm not saying we should poop in our own nest, but, Mother Nature has consistently been much more powerful at decimating the planet than man can hope to be, short of detonating every nuke we have simultaneously. If you want to preserve the present environment, more or less, for even an eyeblink - say, 20,000 years - how should we go about it? The answers, as best as can be presently determined, may surprise you.)



at 6/4/2008 4:17:59 PM, wattsupdoc said:
OK, let me try again. What is the energy balance for your car? What are the embedded costs? What is its utility beyond getting you from place to place? Please compare and contrast your Mercury Marquis (or Mercedes E300, Lincoln Navigator, or what ever you actually possess) to the basic Kia, including the time cost of money? What exactly are you spending your excess $$ on? Does it ever pay you back? Even if it is a Kia and you owned it for 100 years will it EVER pay you back? Assuming you are not a taxi driver, also known as a hack. (Hmmm, I may have hit something there...) If I were in the position to buy a nice new car, I would certainly consider an investment that may just pay for itself in "only" four to eight years.



at 6/4/2008 6:48:54 PM, paul perry said:
I can't think of any widespread technological or social change that happened before it HAD to. One day, renewable will be all there is - and we'll use it. As for the collapse of the USSR, this was due to 1. unmaintainable military costs (largely to meet the perceived threat from the USA) and 2. nationalist self-government desires in the occupied territories.



at 6/5/2008 8:41:20 AM, azerouith said:
The PV hype is causing solar cell production capacity to rapidly increase, some say actually nearing oversupply soon; result: falling PV module prices. The current silicon shortage will be overcome in about 3 years; result again: falling PV module prices. Grid parity can be reached in some regions in no more than 4 years depending on corresponding local gov't subsidies - and when grid parity is reached demand for PV modules will simply explode; result: unless PV companies aren't prepared for that (undersupply?) prices for PV modules will ultimately fall even further. Anybody will go solar anyway, and with oil prices continuing to rise this may happen quite soon.



at 6/7/2008 7:04:38 PM, IN THE MIDDLE said:
THE COST OF SOLAR IS OURRAGEOUS. I DID PRICE IT OUT FOR MY HOME. INSTEAD OF PURCHASING SOLAR, I TOOK A LOOK AT THE OVERALL ENERGY USAGE OF MY HOME. I TOOK THE MONEY I WOULD HAVE SPENT ON SOLAR AND INVESTED IN NEW ENERGY EFFICIENT WINDOWS, ENERGY EFFICIENT HYBRID HEATING & COOLING SYSTEM, ADDITIONAL INSULATION, ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES AND LIGHTING. MY ELECTRICAL KW USAGE WAS CUT BY MORE THAN HALF. I DO SEE HOME AFTER HOME INVESTING IN SOLAR, WHEN THE HOME IS TERRIBLY INEFFICIENT TO BEGIN WITH. WHY PURCHASE SOLAR TO COMPENSATE FOR AN ENERGY GUSSLING HOME. FIX THE HOME. ALSO ASK YOURSELF



at 6/8/2008 12:25:08 AM, Mukund Parelkar. M.E. said:
dear sir, at least india, the solar heaters are used for homes and hotels are very cheap and the cost is recovered in 3-5 years. India being a sunny country, the heating is very good, many of the factories are using steam heating for processses. secondly, fossil fuels will end some day, so we have to start our reserch right now. and experience is required for making commercial products.



at 6/9/2008 9:43:11 AM, Gizmonic Man said:
Paul, I think it is amazing how you can carry so much misinformation around with you that you feel compelled to share it with us. I can understand your need to stir things up on what might be an otherwise boring blog by coming up with what you might think of as controversial takes on topical news and trends. But, if you want people to take you seriously, get a few basic facts straight before you hit the Send key. To wit: Solar panels do not magically turn to junk at the 20 year mark. The chances that they will still be working at the end of their 20 year warranty period are extremely high. The typical effect of aging on a PV panel is slightly reduced output, due to discoloration of the EVA encapsulant. There are panels made 50 years ago at the dawn of the PV age, with outmoded techniques and materials, and they're still working fine. Your comment about inverters killing electrical workers illustrates how little you really know about inverter design. Grid-tie inverters are required to shut down within milliseconds of loss of grid voltage--this prevents what is called "islanding". They will also shut down because of grid undervoltage, overvoltage, or excessive frequency shift. I can't speak for other inverter makers, but my inverter has a design life of 15 years, with a MTBF of more than 100,000 hours. It uses DC bus caps. If the "research" of your friends overlooked how one of the largest inverter manufacturers on the planet deals with cap issues, I wouldn't go too far out of my way to invest in their company. PV panels achieve EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) at a point between two and three years in service, depending on the type of PV material; future panels made with improved technology will hit this point even faster. As to your opinion about who has time to maintain a kilowatt-class power station, I think even you might be able to do it. Here's how: 1)--Wash the panels when they get fairly dirty--your call as to how dirty. 1A)--Let them cool first. 2)--Repeat as needed. That's pretty much it. And by the way, a kilowatt-class PV grid-tie installation IS NOT a Chinese steel mill, and the power it makes is better than utility-grade. Some things really do decentralize better than others, comrade, and power production is one of them. Finally, what makes you think that utility electricity rates will stay the same? The cost per kilowatt-hour is rising, and try to remember back to what happened during the fun Era of Deregulation here in California. Along with rolling blackouts, a lot of utility customers saw massive rate increases in their power bills. Do you honestly think that the cost of electrical energy production will go down in the near to mid future? While you might be forced to pay for increased electricity rates, your pal Frank is insulated from all future rate increases.



at 6/10/2008 12:48:14 AM, pedro_says said:
Paul is pretty close on this one. The economies of scale do matter. The evolutionary survival-of-the-fittest component does factor in and going green doesn''t always fix things. I am dumbfounded by how ignorant people are when the marketing types hype their hybrid cars. Where do they think the electricity for these little ugly tin cans comes from....doh! PV cells are still woefully inefficient and they use nasty chemicals to make them. Any PV system that could handle peak loads of the average home would cover half a city block and require hefty subsidies. Maintaining a system that will handle even half of near-peak loads is not for the faint-of-heart and the payback times are generally laughable. Many power companies structure their electrical purchasing policies so as to be practically useless or won''t purchase it at all. I spoke to an engineer who told me flat out that the whole industry is comprised of two parts. The engineering sector which covers all of us mechanical-type nuts who enjoy building a system...figuring out loads, voltages, watts, watt-hours, sizing wire, DC motors, linear current boosters, inverters, battery banks....sorry... are my eyes glazing over yet? And then there''s the reality which Paul alludes to and which this engineer concedes is the real motivation behind going green....rebates and redistribution of wealth via the same. Carbon credits and the attendant shell game. The whole thing is based around anything BUT what is good for the planet. Saving the planet IS noble and good and necessary, but keep Madison Avenue and the politicians the hell away from the whole process.



at 6/14/2008 8:38:47 AM, GR said:
This article makes perfect sense, Solar is a hype just like a lot of other things out there. The best way to solve the energy crisis is Conservation and Nuclear Power Plants.



at 8/27/2008 2:02:44 PM, Chuck Robertson said:
"Solar power still won't pay back" by Paul Rako. It had potential to be interesting. But in the end it''s just about good enough for MySpace. (Not FaceBook.) It''s just an unresearched opinion. 1. The article's title clearly establishes a position. 2. When you use a isolated example to try to prove that a position is universally true, instead of the reverse, you've shot your horse in the gate. Basically, my buddy's effort worked out like this, so therefore, all efforts will work out like this. The house is green on this side, so it's green on all sides. Isolated examples are literary devices used to clarify a point. In this case, the point is the point Paul Rako wants to make, and that's all it means. 3. The rambling nicks, chips and cuts about Mao, Rick Wagoner and crack not only don't add credibility, they're dull. Why are they dull? Partly because he's only a so-so writer. But mostly, because again, they''re easily repelled and he doesn't give us any facts or examples to support them. Is this article taking a position or is it supposed to be, like, EDN meets InTouch? He's reminded of Mao, I'm reminded of a gum-smacking teenager. 4. In a hilarious passage (unintentionally), he whines, "As I have tried to explain over and over, it is the true cost of something that indicates whether it is good for the planet." And that true cost you're talking about is ... ? Don''t look for it in this article. Apparently Rako's content to let better writers do the heavy lifting? 5. His denoument is "green energy solutions are a fashion." This a supporting argument, how? The horse is still back at the gate, Paul. You've dragged the readers through 1,049 words and we haven't moved. 6. His conclusion is "be aware that you are costing the planet no less than the Escalade driver or the guy wearing gold chains." He hasn''t begun to prove this. Lastly, he desperately needs a good editor. He's got a lot of unattributed statements, missed identifications, run-on sentences, bloated paragraphs and bad grammar. EDN should be asking: are we paying him? EDN's editors should be asking themselves: should we get a copy of Strunk & White?



at 9/16/2008 3:11:45 PM, Garvin Tinsleydale said:
Carrying coal to Newcastle, is an apt expression to describe this attempt at exploring solar power. The assumption that one could get 8% out of the stock market during a flucuating socio-political climate induced by peak oil energy pricing, causing economies to gyrate like a drunk on a 3 day bender, brings wonder to my soul as I contemplate the power of the status quo to remain trapped by inertia. I'm certain you could argue that a horse is cheaper and easier and requires less maintenance for working on a farm, than a tractor to an 18th century farmer, however with the proper "market incentives" and subsidies such as the oil industries (Exxon largest profit ever recorded in history for selling "rock oil" - still receives depletion allowances and tax subsidies from the U.S. government - ie me & you) it becomes not only convenient but profitable for a farmer to own not one but often many tractors. Despite being trapped within the confines of your own narrow viewpoint, it would seem easy enough to extrapolate the future from the past by substituting certain variables for knowns. How shall we power the electric grid when oil is $1000 a barrel and coal 500$ a ton? Shall we sit on our laurels and not explore alternatives and rest assured that god will make more, or shall we take chances and make efforts? Will everything succeed, every time? Is knowledge gained more from failure than success? This is an interesting topic, I've seen this pony flogged many times in many different colors. The money while large is not that great, shall we compare it to buying a Hummer? What is the estimated years before payback on that investment? How many years before a Hummer pays for itself? PV will outlast an overpriced automobile by by at least a factor of 4, will require less maintenance and provide quite a bit more "independence" and ability to weather "problem situations" which are likely to manifest themselves in the future. The transition to alternative energy sources could be nearly seamless, if managed thru subsidies for research and replacement of existing but archaic systems, however that seems to be unlikely under our current system of government which is long on rewarding its benefactors and assorted associates, witness the disapperance of billions of dollars in Iraq - monies that could easily have subsidized solar energy research, or implementation, flushed away. I'd love to see this topic further explored and contrast the amount or money spent on investment in a PV system versus the other large ticket items like home theater systems, kitchen/bath makeovers or swimming pools, in terms of years of payback.



at 10/13/2008 1:24:32 PM, William said:
Sorry to post late. This is a great article. PV solar cells require more energy to make than what it will produce. Before we get into a heated discussion about what is possible in a laboratory situation, please note that all PV solar producers use electric energy from sources such as coal, nuclear or natural gas. Thus, it takes more energy to produce a solar cell than it produces, this means more green house gases and more pollution.



at 11/11/2008 3:25:48 PM, Greg said:
This editor is a moron! You don'yt belive you freind is using $417.00 in electric before the solar install? You are an idiot! You obviously don't know that in Calif. Electric is expensive! And the more KWH you use the higher the price per KWH. You also are an idiot thinking todays price for electric will be same years from now. William, please look at evergreen solar --they have smallest envir. foot print.



at 2/4/2009 9:17:32 AM, JD said:
I remember doing a homework problem in materials class when I was an undergrad back in the mid 90s to calculate whether or not PV paid off. I vividly remember the outcome and the accompanying class discussion. At that time with the relatively low cost of energy, high solar cell cost, and poor solar cell efficiency: a solar would not output as much energy as it took to manufacture. This was based on the cost of electricity and the cost to purchase a solar cell. I am sure things have changed for solar for the positive since then but the economics cannot be ignored.



at 2/18/2009 3:35:44 AM, Thok said:
Pioneers have to hit CMM2 soon enough; may as well outdo Robinson Carusoe and fab your solar (PV/thermal/processes/architectural) roof over the fab it serves and start stowing rum from the palms you save. One can never get more than halfway to being a Leader in Rum, though..... Inside of 32L PVs and trees are roof-party-limited gold; supposedly trees do not sink net carbon well outside that, yet they seem to have a role in atmospheric cleansing here (34Long...etc.) JD: Looks like time to renew a few -undergraduate- credits while you have a moment.



at 2/19/2009 10:30:37 AM, Nelson said:
hmmmm...your as dumb as you are fat in your picture. Gee, what a coincidence. 1) You talk about 8% of $50,000 giving you $4000 a year. I'm not sure what market you are looking at, but the one I'm looking the Dow is at the same level as it was in 1998, and below what it was in 2001 (where it was cheep to get in even). So that point is wrong. <br><br> 2) You don't even pretend to factor in the fact energy prices rise over time. And you call this a technical cost analysis? Where did you go to school? Where did you practice finance? I'm certainly not buying it. <br><br> 3)For a decent size home, $333 is not a lot for electricity. I live in a two bedroom in Jersey and my bill is $200 a month already. So most people would save money every month, even with your flawed accounting. You mentioned that "you doubt" your friends electricity bill was more. A technical analysis usually finds these things out for sure, not just guess at. <br><br> 4) You point out yourself that after 8 years, the solar would indeed cover the original $50,000 out of your friends pocket - and put electricity back into the grid. How does this translate to "billions of government money for millions of value" that you so dramatically state later? <br><br> 5) The solar panels do last for 20 years, as you point out. So after the 8 years you get your money back - the next twelve your way in the black - as well as the gov't, as well as the environment. I guess those 12 years went against your thesis though - so no need factoring them in to your "technical analysis". What a joke. <br><br> 6) Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I'm not interested in your breading habits, nor that of your friends. Try doing a REAL analysis and maybe you might get that pretty girl after all );



at 4/3/2009 7:23:01 PM, AST said:
What a psychotic rant... where to start? There are folks I know who think nothing of dropping 50 large into a designer kitchen with (greenhouse) gas stove and imported marble countertops. Where's the payback breakeven on that? PV solar is still a lifestyle choice, and will be until the Gorebot socialist Globies shove it down our throats.



at 5/28/2009 8:00:11 PM, Numbers said:
I got quoted $0.15 /KWh over a 25 year lifetime for a 2.6 KW system in San Jose. That included gov tax break and a PG&E rebate. For consumption beyond PG&E's baseline + 30% rate of 23 cents per KWh, then its an immediate savings. Energy hogs, get out your check book! For more modest use, we can expect the cost to increase approximately 6% per annum and thus 15c become break-even price in around 7 to 10 years beyond which we are definitely saving money. However, installing more capacity than one needs is definitely not economically sensible...



at 6/26/2009 7:21:14 AM, Holograman said:
What a great article. I work on developing techniques to make more efficeint solar panels but you are right in that is makes poor economic sense right now. The exception, and this is the part I had not considered, is that I could attract a new and improved spouse if I had solar panels and it would bring my kids into the "cool" crowd. The comments from the "greenies" who disagree with you are hilarious. I find it amazing that it is possible that they actually might really believe what they say without any consideration for the consequences for their illogical chain of thought.



at 6/26/2009 10:22:03 AM, rjs said:
solar will happen. the promise may be ahead of the technology but this article is silly. obviously you have an outrageous take to get printed.

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites