6 ms·

So basically rooftop residential solar isn't going to be economically viable any time soon - it's more or less bottomed out and is still much more expensive tha

by makomk 10y ago

So basically rooftop residential solar isn't going to be economically viable any time soon - it's more or less bottomed out and is still much more expensive than conventional generation and utility-scale solar, and the latter has further potential for cost reductions.

nnain 10y ago
It'll take a few years, even the suppliers are not focused on residential rooftops (atleast in India). Although several state govt's regulations that industries of a certain size need to use solar energy is encouraging growth in that segment. Residential rooftop installations will take at least 2-3 years and govt incentives, to pick up. But the market is moving for sure!
nnain 10y ago
It'll take a few years, even the suppliers are not focused on residential rooftops (atleast in India). Although several state govt's regulations that industries of a certain size need to use solar energy is encouraging growth in that segment. Residential rooftop installations will take at least 2-3 years and govt incentives, to pick up. But the market is moving for sure!
pmyjavec 10y ago
How did you come to that conclusion? Actually just curious. It seems like there could be a really big difference between the cost of conventional power between Australia and the US if what you're saying is true.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  US residential rates average $0.13. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cf... Looks like they are ~$0.23 (that's US dollars) in Australia. I guess the sun is better in Australia too.
fpoling 10y ago
Rooftop is viable if one accounts for a possibility of future price hikes or disasters that leaves the house without grid for substantial amount of time. Essentially one treats the extra cost as an insurance premium.
- DougWebb 10y ago
  You can justify the cost of anything if you compare it to a made-up scenario where having the thing is far better than not having it. That's just rationalizing; it's not a valid analysis.
  - Retric 10y ago
    If your looking to buy a generator and tie it into the house grid for X$ and desire not to because your installing solar then that's real savings. For survivalists who want 1+ years of gas X gets rather large. Even if you just have regular power outages, or are a data center, hospital, etc that is required to gave full power off grid for days solar becomes far more attractive. Solar is also rather atractive to the military as logistics get complex and expencive.
    - DougWebb 10y ago
      The examples in your second paragraph are not made-up scenarios; they're real needs caused by faulty power grids or large-scale disaster-management requirements. For those it makes sense to compare the costs of different off-grid power sources. Your first paragraph, and the post I replied to, aren't like that. Is someone looking to buy a generator because they just want one, or "something may happen", or do they actually suffer from power outages? As for survivalists, most of what they do is based entirely on their beliefs and world-view rather than verifiable facts, so they're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. (I'm not saying they shouldn't do what they're doing; so long as they're not hurting anyone I think they should be free to believe what they want and act accordingly. I'd just like them to be honest, with themselves and others, about why they're preparing to be self-sufficient.) BTW, I'm pretty familiar with the faulty power grid scenario. Even in my very densely populated neighborhood all of the houses on my street and one or two others used to loose power during every big storm, because for years the electric company just patched the lines that kept getting knocked down by tree movement instead of fixing the problem. Some of my neighbors had generators, and it became common to have a network of extension cords criss-crossing the street for a few days after a storm. Solar would have been pretty useless, since it's usually not sunny during big storms.
Gibbon1 10y ago
Thing to consider is when you compare costs you need to compare against the alternative sources at the particular point and time where solar power is injected. A lot of times you see solar prices compared with base load power prices, but solar competes actually with natural gas[1] fired peaking plants which sell power at higher prices than a coal fired plant. Similarly residential users are charged a substantially higher price for electricity than the base load price. Partly because a substantial amount of power comes from peaking plants and because the utilities have a grid to maintain[2]. [1] If you wonder why the Koch brothers hate solar remember they are in both the oil industry and the gas industry. Little of the former is used for power generation where peaking plants use lots of natural gas. [2] Utilities hate roof top solar because it messes with their economics because their bond payments and maintenance costs are fixed.
- deftnerd 10y ago
  Why do you place solar with peak-load technologies like gas? The point of peak load plants, and why they charge a premium, is that they can ramp up output when there is sudden demand. Solar does not have that ability, just like coal and wind.
  - jdeibele 10y ago
    Guessing because the peak-load for electricity tends to coincide with very hot days. So lots of demand for air conditioning but the solar panels are also generating maximum capacity.
    - Tharkun 10y ago
      Not entirely true. PV panels perform better on cold sunny days than on hot sunny days. Semiconductors and heat are still no match made in heaven...
  - kuschku 10y ago
    The peak demand for electricity is around the afternoon of the day, and it gets higher the hotter the day is. Which is exactly where solar is available – it can’t deal with 100% of the peak load, but it can take about three quarters of the market for peak load techniques.
pjc50 10y ago
It's viable with the right subsidy regime, as are all the power sources once they're made to deal with their externalities and variances. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377

by makomk 10y ago

nnain 10y ago

It'll take a few years, even the suppliers are not focused on residential rooftops (atleast in India). Although several state govt's regulations that industries of a certain size need to use solar energy is encouraging growth in that segment. Residential rooftop installations will take at least 2-3 years and govt incentives, to pick up. But the market is moving for sure!

nnain 10y ago

pmyjavec 10y ago

How did you come to that conclusion? Actually just curious. It seems like there could be a really big difference between the cost of conventional power between Australia and the US if what you're saying is true.

maxerickson 10y ago
US residential rates average $0.13. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cf... Looks like they are ~$0.23 (that's US dollars) in Australia. I guess the sun is better in Australia too.

fpoling 10y ago

Rooftop is viable if one accounts for a possibility of future price hikes or disasters that leaves the house without grid for substantial amount of time. Essentially one treats the extra cost as an insurance premium.

DougWebb 10y ago
You can justify the cost of anything if you compare it to a made-up scenario where having the thing is far better than not having it. That's just rationalizing; it's not a valid analysis.
- Retric 10y ago
  If your looking to buy a generator and tie it into the house grid for X$ and desire not to because your installing solar then that's real savings. For survivalists who want 1+ years of gas X gets rather large. Even if you just have regular power outages, or are a data center, hospital, etc that is required to gave full power off grid for days solar becomes far more attractive. Solar is also rather atractive to the military as logistics get complex and expencive.
  - DougWebb 10y ago
    The examples in your second paragraph are not made-up scenarios; they're real needs caused by faulty power grids or large-scale disaster-management requirements. For those it makes sense to compare the costs of different off-grid power sources. Your first paragraph, and the post I replied to, aren't like that. Is someone looking to buy a generator because they just want one, or "something may happen", or do they actually suffer from power outages? As for survivalists, most of what they do is based entirely on their beliefs and world-view rather than verifiable facts, so they're a perfect example of what I'm talking about. (I'm not saying they shouldn't do what they're doing; so long as they're not hurting anyone I think they should be free to believe what they want and act accordingly. I'd just like them to be honest, with themselves and others, about why they're preparing to be self-sufficient.) BTW, I'm pretty familiar with the faulty power grid scenario. Even in my very densely populated neighborhood all of the houses on my street and one or two others used to loose power during every big storm, because for years the electric company just patched the lines that kept getting knocked down by tree movement instead of fixing the problem. Some of my neighbors had generators, and it became common to have a network of extension cords criss-crossing the street for a few days after a storm. Solar would have been pretty useless, since it's usually not sunny during big storms.

Gibbon1 10y ago

Thing to consider is when you compare costs you need to compare against the alternative sources at the particular point and time where solar power is injected. A lot of times you see solar prices compared with base load power prices, but solar competes actually with natural gas[1] fired peaking plants which sell power at higher prices than a coal fired plant. Similarly residential users are charged a substantially higher price for electricity than the base load price. Partly because a substantial amount of power comes from peaking plants and because the utilities have a grid to maintain[2]. [1] If you wonder why the Koch brothers hate solar remember they are in both the oil industry and the gas industry. Little of the former is used for power generation where peaking plants use lots of natural gas. [2] Utilities hate roof top solar because it messes with their economics because their bond payments and maintenance costs are fixed.

deftnerd 10y ago
Why do you place solar with peak-load technologies like gas? The point of peak load plants, and why they charge a premium, is that they can ramp up output when there is sudden demand. Solar does not have that ability, just like coal and wind.
- jdeibele 10y ago
  Guessing because the peak-load for electricity tends to coincide with very hot days. So lots of demand for air conditioning but the solar panels are also generating maximum capacity.
  - Tharkun 10y ago
    Not entirely true. PV panels perform better on cold sunny days than on hot sunny days. Semiconductors and heat are still no match made in heaven...
- kuschku 10y ago
  The peak demand for electricity is around the afternoon of the day, and it gets higher the hotter the day is. Which is exactly where solar is available – it can’t deal with 100% of the peak load, but it can take about three quarters of the market for peak load techniques.

pjc50 10y ago

It's viable with the right subsidy regime, as are all the power sources once they're made to deal with their externalities and variances. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377