7 ms·

Inflation-adjusted residential costs according to nrel.gov are shown in the chart on page vi of https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf https://www.nrel.go

by sounds 9y ago

Inflation-adjusted residential costs according to nrel.gov are shown in the chart on page vi of https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf The raw costs, not adjusted for inflation: Q1 2014: $4.52/W total for $1.03/W modules [0] Q1 2015: $3.09/Wdc total for $0.70/Wdc modules [1] Q1 2016: $2.93/Wdc total for $0.63/Wdc modules [2] Q1 2017: $2.80/Wdc total for $0.35/Wdc modules [3] Conclusion: Even if the modules cost $0.0000001, the total price could not fall much more unless the rest of the business model gets updated. Probably some solar installer companies will drop out of the market, and the survivors will adapt to lower profits. [0] Page 12, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60401.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60401.pdf [1] 5.2kW system. See page 7, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf [2] 5.6kW system. See page 16, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66532.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66532.pdf [3] 5.7kW system. See page 21, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bagacrap 9y ago
So from 16 to 17, the total cost aside from modules went up?
- sounds 9y ago
  I haven't collected the hard numbers for what is presented on page vi of https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf, but soft costs appear to have swollen to take up most of the cost savings from reduced module prices. In other words, yep.
  - totalBeginner 9y ago
    Here are the exact numbers that went into the figure you reference, the key costs findings by category for 2010-2017: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/nrel-u-s-solar-photovoltaic-system-cost-benchmark-q1-2017-report https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/nrel-u-s-solar-photovoltaic... Soft costs decreased appreciably from 2016-2017 in both "utility-scale" categories (Fixed-Tilt, and One-Axis Tracker), and have increased slightly at the smaller "commercial" and "residential" scales. Across all scales, soft costs claim a larger portion because other costs are falling more quickly. Only at residential scale has soft cost growth consumed much of the savings in other costs: $-0.18/(watt installed) total cost, $+0.16/(watt installed) soft costs. At commercial scale: $-0.32/(watt installed) total cost, $+0.05/(watt installed) soft costs. While this direction of change is certainly suboptimal, I don't think the magnitude is worrisome yet. EDIT: paragraph/line breaks for clarity of presentation.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Which from an outsider perspective could have been companies recouping on bets made (discounts offered) in 2016 to grow their brand recognition, etc. It's hard to draw too strong a conclusion from data for for so few years, where costs change so much, and the outlier is the most recent year (which is also incomplete). It's also possible that the actual business costs from year-over-year operation are finally becoming well known, and the installation costs are finally reflecting items that weren't correctly priced in earlier (botched installation fixed, warranty repairs, etc).
maxerickson 9y ago
The discussion in your first link is interesting. Smaller installers can end up having lower costs because they spend less on customer acquisition. They pay somewhat higher prices for material, but plummeting panel costs and not holding panels in inventory have worked out well for them.
- snovv_crash 9y ago
  This sounds like inverse economies of scale. Interesting.
  - corpMaverick 9y ago
    Thanks to your comment I looked this up. There is actually a term for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
D_Alex 9y ago
Based on the Australian experience, the next wave of price declines for residential solar will indeed come from balance-of-system cost declines, increased installation efficiency and lower profits. Current costs in Australia are about A$ 1.70 /pk-W (~US$1.35), pre-subsidies, split roughly into 35% modules, 10% inverter, 10% mounting system, 10% other hardware (cabling, switchboard etc), 10% installation and 25% "vendor's margin", including marketing, sales and profits. The household has also to pay for a bi-directional meter to allow for energy sales. IIRC that was around A$350. It's a mystery why the US costs are so high - maybe not enough competition?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Probably not enough interest. It'd be interesting to see the costs split out based on available sun. I would guess they are lower in Phoenix than in Connecticut.
- flgb 9y ago
  Energy costs are significantly lower in the US.
- extrapickles 9y ago
  Most of the northern states don't have much sunlight and have cheap enough power to make it not worth it.
  - fastbeef 9y ago
    A common misconception. Even in northern Sweden, which is above the arctic circle, you can still generate ~80% of the energy that Southern Europe generates.
    - extrapickles 9y ago
      It's a combination of the 80% output and the cheap local hydro power which makes it not attractive.
      - 9y ago
hwillis 9y ago
> Conclusion: Even if the modules cost $0.0000001, the total price could not fall much more unless the rest of the business model gets updated. Which is where solar roofing comes in, taking up the cost of installation almost completely and dropping price almost to grid scale. Of course, the only solar roofing available forces you to get it installed by their technicians, but hey. Baby steps.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
>>Conclusion: Even if the modules cost $0.0000001, the total price could not fall much more unless the rest of the business model gets updated. Sure, when building the roof, it is installed as a solar one, saves on roofing materials and installation, since you only pay for solar and for solar installers. Granted not 100% substitution since not all the roof can be covered but a nice chunk. Or make the panels more DIY...a few cases of beer, a few friends and be done. (plug it in after 24 hour, to make sure that the beer is gone from system)
- HillaryBriss 9y ago
  not to dispute the concept of an easy solar install, in theory, but i note add that, in Los Angeles at least, it's hard to imagine a quick, low-cost, DIY solution. to the LA Department of Water and Power, home solar is basically competition. and the DWP is an important cash cow for city workers and the city budget. they will find ways to add customer fees and reduce the customer's energy bill savings. (e.g. limiting the amount of electricity a home is allowed to feed back into the grid.) the agency and the city simply need that cash.
marvin 9y ago
Tesla's approach of taking the solar installation and "baking it into" changing the roof is very interesting in this regard, long-term. A labor-intensive job is done in parallel with another labor-intensive job, with a good amount of overlap.

by sounds 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bagacrap 9y ago

So from 16 to 17, the total cost aside from modules went up?

sounds 9y ago
I haven't collected the hard numbers for what is presented on page vi of https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf, but soft costs appear to have swollen to take up most of the cost savings from reduced module prices. In other words, yep.
- totalBeginner 9y ago
  Here are the exact numbers that went into the figure you reference, the key costs findings by category for 2010-2017: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/nrel-u-s-solar-photovoltaic-system-cost-benchmark-q1-2017-report https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/nrel-u-s-solar-photovoltaic... Soft costs decreased appreciably from 2016-2017 in both "utility-scale" categories (Fixed-Tilt, and One-Axis Tracker), and have increased slightly at the smaller "commercial" and "residential" scales. Across all scales, soft costs claim a larger portion because other costs are falling more quickly. Only at residential scale has soft cost growth consumed much of the savings in other costs: $-0.18/(watt installed) total cost, $+0.16/(watt installed) soft costs. At commercial scale: $-0.32/(watt installed) total cost, $+0.05/(watt installed) soft costs. While this direction of change is certainly suboptimal, I don't think the magnitude is worrisome yet. EDIT: paragraph/line breaks for clarity of presentation.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Which from an outsider perspective could have been companies recouping on bets made (discounts offered) in 2016 to grow their brand recognition, etc. It's hard to draw too strong a conclusion from data for for so few years, where costs change so much, and the outlier is the most recent year (which is also incomplete). It's also possible that the actual business costs from year-over-year operation are finally becoming well known, and the installation costs are finally reflecting items that weren't correctly priced in earlier (botched installation fixed, warranty repairs, etc).

maxerickson 9y ago

The discussion in your first link is interesting. Smaller installers can end up having lower costs because they spend less on customer acquisition. They pay somewhat higher prices for material, but plummeting panel costs and not holding panels in inventory have worked out well for them.

snovv_crash 9y ago
This sounds like inverse economies of scale. Interesting.
- corpMaverick 9y ago
  Thanks to your comment I looked this up. There is actually a term for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale

D_Alex 9y ago

Based on the Australian experience, the next wave of price declines for residential solar will indeed come from balance-of-system cost declines, increased installation efficiency and lower profits. Current costs in Australia are about A$ 1.70 /pk-W (~US$1.35), pre-subsidies, split roughly into 35% modules, 10% inverter, 10% mounting system, 10% other hardware (cabling, switchboard etc), 10% installation and 25% "vendor's margin", including marketing, sales and profits. The household has also to pay for a bi-directional meter to allow for energy sales. IIRC that was around A$350. It's a mystery why the US costs are so high - maybe not enough competition?

maxerickson 9y ago
Probably not enough interest. It'd be interesting to see the costs split out based on available sun. I would guess they are lower in Phoenix than in Connecticut.
flgb 9y ago
Energy costs are significantly lower in the US.
extrapickles 9y ago
Most of the northern states don't have much sunlight and have cheap enough power to make it not worth it.
- fastbeef 9y ago
  A common misconception. Even in northern Sweden, which is above the arctic circle, you can still generate ~80% of the energy that Southern Europe generates.
  - extrapickles 9y ago
    It's a combination of the 80% output and the cheap local hydro power which makes it not attractive.
    - 9y ago

hwillis 9y ago

> Conclusion: Even if the modules cost $0.0000001, the total price could not fall much more unless the rest of the business model gets updated. Which is where solar roofing comes in, taking up the cost of installation almost completely and dropping price almost to grid scale. Of course, the only solar roofing available forces you to get it installed by their technicians, but hey. Baby steps.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

>>Conclusion: Even if the modules cost $0.0000001, the total price could not fall much more unless the rest of the business model gets updated. Sure, when building the roof, it is installed as a solar one, saves on roofing materials and installation, since you only pay for solar and for solar installers. Granted not 100% substitution since not all the roof can be covered but a nice chunk. Or make the panels more DIY...a few cases of beer, a few friends and be done. (plug it in after 24 hour, to make sure that the beer is gone from system)

HillaryBriss 9y ago
not to dispute the concept of an easy solar install, in theory, but i note add that, in Los Angeles at least, it's hard to imagine a quick, low-cost, DIY solution. to the LA Department of Water and Power, home solar is basically competition. and the DWP is an important cash cow for city workers and the city budget. they will find ways to add customer fees and reduce the customer's energy bill savings. (e.g. limiting the amount of electricity a home is allowed to feed back into the grid.) the agency and the city simply need that cash.

marvin 9y ago

Tesla's approach of taking the solar installation and "baking it into" changing the roof is very interesting in this regard, long-term. A labor-intensive job is done in parallel with another labor-intensive job, with a good amount of overlap.