6 ms·

In Germany, with labor costs and protections at least as high as the US, per-watt installation costs for residential solar are a small fraction of what they are

In Germany, with labor costs and protections at least as high as the US, per-watt installation costs for residential solar are a small fraction of what they are in the US: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509196/why-solar-installations-cost-more-in-the-us-than-in-germany/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509196/why-solar-installa... That report is from 2012, but soft (non-hardware) costs have remained stubbornly high in the US. Even with the recent solar tariffs, all-in costs for a kWh of residential solar in the US would be significantly lower than in Germany, if the US could get soft costs down to German levels. The solar resources of most of the continental US are that much better than Germany. Australia too has much lower installed costs than the US. A former residential solar company CEO blames American red tape: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-to-halve-the-cost-of-residential-solar-in-the-us https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-to-halve-th...

djrogers 9y ago
Your link directly contradicts your claim that labor and protection costs are 'at least as high': > Costs for permitting, connecting the systems to the grid, and having them inspected are also far higher in the United States. and > U.S. installers also spend more on labor during actual installation (in some cases, higher winds force more expensive installations). They pay more in sales tax (German installers are exempt).
- philipkglass 9y ago
  I meant generally, in terms of protections and wages for labor. It wouldn't be fair to compare Chinese or Indian residential solar costs with the US (less safety and much lower wages), but Australia and Germany are both developed countries with high minimum wages.
gok 9y ago
> A former residential solar company CEO blames American red tape I'm sure there's an army who would call that red tape "important safety protection regulation." It's telling that the bureaucrats who put this NREL report together to reduce costs look at market maturation, business model integration, product innovation and economies of scale, but--shockingly!--not reducing regulatory overhead. Inventing new forms of photovoltaics is considered more realistic than addressing rent seeking.
- philipkglass 9y ago
  I think that Germany and Australia are pretty safe too. "The cost of safety" is a legitimate thing to consider vs. developing nations, but not vs. other developed nations that seem to get more bang for the buck.
  - gok 9y ago
    To be clear I meant that to be sarcastic :) Obviously the regulations around US solar deployments are excessive at best and very likely the result of rent seeking.
- djrogers 9y ago
  > not reducing regulatory overhead. Actually, they do address this - it's one of their baked in assumptions about 'integrated roofing' (they refer to those costs as PII): "The roof replacement visionary pathway also benefits from savings in other cost categories. For example, the PII cost is reduced because we assume the PV permit cost declines to a standard $200 per system." Given the huge complexity of various city, county, and state regulations, I think it's highly unlikely that permitting costs would go down for a system that is integrated into the roofing material. And if I'm wrong, I can't see them going down significantly - permitting and inspection fees are an income stream for cities and counties, and they do't just reduce them because of a PDF from the NREL...
  - gok 9y ago
    They could do something similar to the FCC's OTARD rules, which make it generally hard for local governments and HOAs to impose limits or red tape around installing satellite dishes and antennae. This was hugely successful in making satellite TV competitive.
- specialist 9y ago
  "...not reducing regulatory overhead." AKA "incumbency protection."
reaperducer 9y ago
Don't underestimate the lobbying of electric utilities. In some very sunny western states they tried to make private solar illegal. When that failed, they made it so expensive that it's not an attractive option. (High mandatory fees to tie into the grid, and making it illegal not to be tied into the grid, according to a homeowner I know who tried.)
- rogerbinns 9y ago
  The companies are regulated. Roughly speaking what happens is that the regulator guarantees the company a 5% return on investment. Each year the regulator sets the electric rates in order for that return to happen. Consequently it is the company interest to build as much stuff as possible (aka "investments"). People making their own "investments" like panels on their roofs detract from that. The people most wanting to do solar are those who pay the most for electricity. Once they have solar they reduce the amount of revenue available, which means that 5% return has to come out of the remaining customers, which would need to push their rates up. That is why the regulators even entertain the bans. Grid tying is more complicated. There are two components to electrical supply - the wiring and maintenance to the property (infrastructure), and then the electricity that is actually supplied. Electrical bills charge very little for the former and almost all for the latter. Say for example the infrastructure really costs $10 per month and the electricity costs $40. You get a $50 bill but it says $3 is for infrastructure and $47 is for electricity. If you use solar for all electricity your bill will now be for $3, but the infrastructure cost is really $10. That really means other customers are now paying for your infrastructure costs. This is where minimum monthly charge proposals come from. In our example $10 per month would be appropriate. Changing the underlying pricing to be more realistic will hit the poorest the most since their effective infrastructure costs will go up. Some places are banning putting solar back into the grid because there is no use for the electricity at the time it is put back in.
  - reaperducer 9y ago
    In Las Vegas, most of the big casino companies are off or getting off NV Energy's grid. They've built their own solar farms and solar furnaces, or are contracting with other companies that have them. You mention the set percentage of return. Having a massive customer like Caesar's jump ship hurts NV Energy enough that the hotels have to pay huge "exit fees," and if they don't NV Energy threatens to pass the loss on to the customers. In the case of MGM, it had to pay $87 million to go solar[1]. Otherwise, NV Energy would have charged each of its residential customers $200 to make up the difference. [1] https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/mgm-resorts-to-leave-nevada-power-pay-86-9m-exit-fee/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/mgm-resorts-to...

djrogers 9y ago

Your link directly contradicts your claim that labor and protection costs are 'at least as high': > Costs for permitting, connecting the systems to the grid, and having them inspected are also far higher in the United States. and > U.S. installers also spend more on labor during actual installation (in some cases, higher winds force more expensive installations). They pay more in sales tax (German installers are exempt).

philipkglass 9y ago
I meant generally, in terms of protections and wages for labor. It wouldn't be fair to compare Chinese or Indian residential solar costs with the US (less safety and much lower wages), but Australia and Germany are both developed countries with high minimum wages.

gok 9y ago

> A former residential solar company CEO blames American red tape I'm sure there's an army who would call that red tape "important safety protection regulation." It's telling that the bureaucrats who put this NREL report together to reduce costs look at market maturation, business model integration, product innovation and economies of scale, but--shockingly!--not reducing regulatory overhead. Inventing new forms of photovoltaics is considered more realistic than addressing rent seeking.

philipkglass 9y ago
I think that Germany and Australia are pretty safe too. "The cost of safety" is a legitimate thing to consider vs. developing nations, but not vs. other developed nations that seem to get more bang for the buck.
- gok 9y ago
  To be clear I meant that to be sarcastic :) Obviously the regulations around US solar deployments are excessive at best and very likely the result of rent seeking.
djrogers 9y ago
> not reducing regulatory overhead. Actually, they do address this - it's one of their baked in assumptions about 'integrated roofing' (they refer to those costs as PII): "The roof replacement visionary pathway also benefits from savings in other cost categories. For example, the PII cost is reduced because we assume the PV permit cost declines to a standard $200 per system." Given the huge complexity of various city, county, and state regulations, I think it's highly unlikely that permitting costs would go down for a system that is integrated into the roofing material. And if I'm wrong, I can't see them going down significantly - permitting and inspection fees are an income stream for cities and counties, and they do't just reduce them because of a PDF from the NREL...
- gok 9y ago
  They could do something similar to the FCC's OTARD rules, which make it generally hard for local governments and HOAs to impose limits or red tape around installing satellite dishes and antennae. This was hugely successful in making satellite TV competitive.
specialist 9y ago
"...not reducing regulatory overhead." AKA "incumbency protection."

reaperducer 9y ago

Don't underestimate the lobbying of electric utilities. In some very sunny western states they tried to make private solar illegal. When that failed, they made it so expensive that it's not an attractive option. (High mandatory fees to tie into the grid, and making it illegal not to be tied into the grid, according to a homeowner I know who tried.)

rogerbinns 9y ago
The companies are regulated. Roughly speaking what happens is that the regulator guarantees the company a 5% return on investment. Each year the regulator sets the electric rates in order for that return to happen. Consequently it is the company interest to build as much stuff as possible (aka "investments"). People making their own "investments" like panels on their roofs detract from that. The people most wanting to do solar are those who pay the most for electricity. Once they have solar they reduce the amount of revenue available, which means that 5% return has to come out of the remaining customers, which would need to push their rates up. That is why the regulators even entertain the bans. Grid tying is more complicated. There are two components to electrical supply - the wiring and maintenance to the property (infrastructure), and then the electricity that is actually supplied. Electrical bills charge very little for the former and almost all for the latter. Say for example the infrastructure really costs $10 per month and the electricity costs $40. You get a $50 bill but it says $3 is for infrastructure and $47 is for electricity. If you use solar for all electricity your bill will now be for $3, but the infrastructure cost is really $10. That really means other customers are now paying for your infrastructure costs. This is where minimum monthly charge proposals come from. In our example $10 per month would be appropriate. Changing the underlying pricing to be more realistic will hit the poorest the most since their effective infrastructure costs will go up. Some places are banning putting solar back into the grid because there is no use for the electricity at the time it is put back in.
- reaperducer 9y ago
  In Las Vegas, most of the big casino companies are off or getting off NV Energy's grid. They've built their own solar farms and solar furnaces, or are contracting with other companies that have them. You mention the set percentage of return. Having a massive customer like Caesar's jump ship hurts NV Energy enough that the hotels have to pay huge "exit fees," and if they don't NV Energy threatens to pass the loss on to the customers. In the case of MGM, it had to pay $87 million to go solar[1]. Otherwise, NV Energy would have charged each of its residential customers $200 to make up the difference. [1] https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/mgm-resorts-to-leave-nevada-power-pay-86-9m-exit-fee/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/mgm-resorts-to...