4 ms·

Not a word about subsidies on solar power. Has anyone got any data on raw cost of solar power, without taxpayer's subsidization?

• pmuk 10y ago
  The subsidies tend to come back as payments for the electricity generated so the installed costs will be the same as in the article. I installed a 16 panel, 4 kW system on my roof in 2012 for around £10,000 - and receive a subsidy of around £0.45 per kWh generated.
• _ph_ 10y ago
  The article was talking about the raw, unsubsidized costs of solar. It is now on a level, where it can compete on a price basis with conventional energy production. And that does not count in the hidden costs of coal/gas/nuclear as their environmental impact rarely gets accounted for. Here in Germany, rooftop solar electricity costs about half of what the utility companies charge off the grid.
  • ptaipale 10y ago
    ... because utility companies have to collect a price that covers the subsidies going to solar and wind producers, required by law.
    • _ph_ 10y ago
      Even if you deduct that amount from the utility prices, the grid electricity stays higher. Of course that has also good reasons - the grid has to paid for, and the grid is guaranteed to be available 24/7. Still this shows that solar is price competitive.
      • ptaipale 10y ago
        Depends on market, and depends on time of year, of course. At least over here (Finland) the problem with wind and solar energy is that when you actually need electricity (say, a cold winter morning), both solar and wind power output are locally zero. To alleviate this, you need a grid, and energy storage, and spare capacity.
        • lorenzhs 10y ago
          Right, but Finland shouldn't be the benchmark for solar power viability. The total population of places with a climate similar to Finland's is quite small compared to areas where solar is viable.
          • ptaipale 10y ago
            On the other hand, places where local solar is particularly viable (like Sahara) shouldn't be a benchmark for off-the-grid solar viability either, because not that many people live there. In practise, you really do need to have grid and storage to use solar. (Local off-the grid solar is somewhat usable even here, but it does need battery storage. It is popular in holiday homes that are not located close to power lines. E.g. I have a cabin which is a kilometre away from nearest electric lines; building a power line to the grid would cost in the order of 50 k€ while an off-the-grid solar-powered system runs electronics and a fridge with an investment in 5k€ range.)
            • lorenzhs 10y ago
              Exactly. Maybe Germany would be a reasonable benchmark, if one factors out the subsidies (which used to be very attractive, I'm not sure about the current status). There are lots of rooftop solar installations in my area (southwest).
• the_why_of_y 10y ago
  I agree, subsidies are very important to discuss! For comparison, some IMF researchers claim that fossil fuels are subsidized by $4.8 trillion per annum (that's more than 5% of global GDP): http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0