9 ms·

Monocrystalline Si solar panels have so many advantages that it's hard to get interested in anything else for home or business construction. Lifetime is measur

Monocrystalline Si solar panels have so many advantages that it's hard to get interested in anything else for home or business construction. Lifetime is measured in decades, not years; efficiency is approaching 25% while prices are dropping (only expensive multi-junction III-V types are better, currently limited to satellite power systems); and for variable surfaces, they can be manufactured as small shingles as well as the standard size panel. Unfortunately the USA, due to decades of minimal R&D funding, is well behind the technology curve in this area: > "Some Chinese companies are defying the “more efficient = more expensive” rule in 2022. High efficiency solar panels are entering the market from companies like LonGi, Canadian Solar, and Trina Solar that surpass the 20 percent efficiency rating, but cost less per watt as opposed to SunPower, LG and Panasonic panels. Solar is cheaper than ever without sacrificing efficiency ratings, which begs the question if U.S manufacturers will be able to maintain their pricing premiums." https://news.energysage.com/what-are-the-most-efficient-solar-panels-on-the-market/ https://news.energysage.com/what-are-the-most-efficient-sola... Of course a boom in solar PV installation in the USA would pull the rug out from under natural gas prices, which more-or-less explains government policy in this area.

rconti 4y ago
Is USA government policy actively antagonistic towards this specific technology? Or just doesn't have specific support/incentives for this specific kind of technology? Is there any reason the market doesn't/can't support buying these panels here? Or are there weird tariffs against it? IS there not already a boom in solar PV installation in the USA? It looks like we're far from a watts-per-capita leader (15th in the world?), although we are ahead of China, for now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country
- Scubabear68 4y ago
  The oil and gas lobby in the US is staggeringly powerful. Many US regulatory bodies (like FERC) have been captured by industry for years. It has been very difficult to do anything that might negatively impact the oil and gas industry. So not so much anti-solar as anti-anything-threatening-fossil-fuels. See also: “clean coal”.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    I remember seeing oil wells all over the area when I lived for a while in Oklahoma. Heck, there was even one in the middle of a mall parking lot. Very oil friendly area. But still, Oklahoma is the third in the nation for wind energy production. Texas is number 1. I think the oil and gas lobby must not be quite as powerful as you think.
    - namuol 4y ago
      Considering the possibility that fossil fuels can be exported to resource/land-poor states for a higher premium may explain the “Number 1” status that Texas has here. The more fuel you can free up for export, the richer the state becomes.
- barney54 4y ago
  The United States is not actively antagonistic toward specific technology and is instead very pro-solar. There are a lot of support/incentives for solar, but not necessarily for this specific kind of technology.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  The Republican party in the united states is so anti-green energy, they removed solar panels from the white house in the 80s, shortly after they were installed, just because they didn't like them. They also blamed wind turbines for the extreme grid failure in Texas last year, and it is a current talking point that "wind and solar can't ever work" and that wind turbines kill so many birds that we can't possibly ever use them large scale. They have pitched a fit any time the government attempts to hand a small subsidy out for green energy. Meanwhile the Democrats have wonderful Manchin, who stops you from doing ANYTHING to help the country unless you include some stupid kickback to like five coal barons in west virginia, despite the entire coal industry employing fewer people than plenty of industries we don't give handouts to. Coal is dying a perfectly reasonable death because it's just not cost competitive with anything, even though we ignore the most expensive part of it, the pollution. Despite that, west virginia keeps a stranglehold on the nations energy policy because 60k absurdly entitled adults are convinced that what their daddy did for a job that killed him in his 60s should be a career forever with no changes and they shouldn't have to adapt in any way to the modern world that DOESN'T want to poison them. When hilary clinton said the country would pay for them to learn new skills and get new careers, they responded by pretty heavily voting for the guy that said they could just go back to digging dirty rocks out of the ground. The entire state is somehow (it's propaganda, literally, from local coal companies) convinced that the modern world is impossible without coal, as if it is still the 1800s, ignoring that most of the world hates coal, always hated using coal, and has always switched to less grimy fuel sources as soon as it became cost competitive, which it is. And don't give me any of this "wah wah don't bring partisan politics into this" because green energy policy is 100% partisan, with no reason, in the united states, and ignoring that, or trying to "both sides same" this issue is simply delusional. IMO, the US federal government should drop a trillion dollars on a federal run solar power company, who's only mandate is to buy as much damn solar generation as possible, and sell it to local consumers as cheaply as possible, and "but it might be cloudy some days" problems should be solved by buying 10x as much solar as "needed".
  - jcampbell1 4y ago
    Texas is one of the reddest states yet produces significantly more wind+solar power than liberal California. Government policy is far less important than economic realities. People are self-absorbed and think their political opinions are important. The real world works more like a cowboy hat wearing power company executive saying, "Holy shucks, this solar/wind installation is going to save us more on NatGas than it costs to install. Get 'er done."
nonethewiser 4y ago
> Of course a boom in solar PV installation in the USA would pull the rug out from under natural gas prices, which more-or-less explains government policy in this area. I'm not convinced. Virtually everything is much cheaper to manufacture in China.
gilbetron 4y ago
A lot of areas in the US are great for solar, but for many of the urban areas, it sucks. Solar in and around LA or Denver? Great! Solar in and around Detroit or Chicago? Awful. I brought out an installer and he literally LOLed when he saw my house. Great trees, wonderful yard, compact house, but hardly any location for solar given the amount of sun we get where I live. Not to mention the carbon costs of producing solar isn't great.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  It’s ok if solar doesn't work everywhere, even in the places where it’s optimal it’s barely being used right now. There’s a lot of work to be done. Even if we just covered the country’s parking lots with solar awnings we’d be producing huge amounts of power.
  - barney54 4y ago
    The problem with solar awnings is the cost. It's much more cost-effective to install solar on a field or an open area than a parking lot. Parking lot installations much more expensive because of the additional infrastructure needed.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      As we phase out gasoline powered vehicles over the next... like forever, we will have less use for ethanol produced from corn syrup, nevermind we should be reducing corn syrup in food production as well. We should be paying midwestern corn farmers to replace their corn fields with solar panels. People complain about so much when it comes to green energy. "Oh transmission losses will eat into it so we can't transmit it too far", well why can't we fill nevada with stupidly more solar than we need so we don't care about losses.
      - mwint 4y ago
        Because if you try to build anything in Nevada, someone will scream about rare desert tortoises or something and you’ll be stuck in court forever.
perlgeek 4y ago
> Monocrystalline Si solar panels have so many advantages that it's hard to get interested in anything else for home or business construction. I agree. "Classical" is already cost effective in many areas of the world, and would be in even more if the electricity price accurately reflected the societal cost of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. These paper-thin solar elements would fill a different niche though. If it's cheap enough (and doesn't come with other downsides), you could plaster any surfaces with it that aren't suitable for panel installations (think car hoods, boats, whatever).
barney54 4y ago
The United States is not behind in terms of R&D funding. I'm pretty sure the United States has spent more on solar R&D than any other nation and the United States has consistently led the world in solar technology. The United States is behind in solar manufacturing not solar R&D. And no one who has paid attention to the Biden administration would say the Biden administration cares about natural gas prices being low as they consistently take actions that increase natural gas prices.
jldugger 4y ago
Bear in mind that China has like, no oil[0] or gas[1] at all. Their investments into renewables is kind of a life of death situation, not just for the world, but the PLA specifically, who would likely monopolize domestic oil production in any military engagement. Also worth mentioning that Beijing sits on one side of a mountain range, and the other side is arid desert. It's kind of a no brainer to drop solar panels there and tramsmit power to the nearby megatropolis. > Of course a boom in solar PV installation in the USA would pull the rug out from under natural gas prices Fracking already did this[2]. And solar doesn't make sense in many places in the US. You want somewhere dry and bright, which cuts off the pacific northwest, and most of the north*. You also want to supplement solar with something that will cool off your home in the evening, run your oven, and keep you warm at night. Which natural gas can actually do[3], so even proponents of solar should consider them at least temporary allies. In contrast, wind seems to already be making 10 percent of the US demand[4], versus solars 2 percent. This is where the subsidies are going, and given how much reliable wind there is in tornado alley, will likely continue growing once subsidies expire. In the mean time, we can continue to import subsidized solar from china and focus on higher margin silicon applications. ^_^ [0]: https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/crude-petroleum/reporter/chn [1]: https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/natural-gas-liquefied/reporter/chn [2]: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States *except for the southern half of Minnesota, apparently
- davedx 4y ago
  "solar doesn't make sense in many places in the US. You want somewhere dry and bright, which cuts off the pacific northwest, and most of the north*" Can you explain with numbers how you arrive at this conclusion? (Solar is extremely popular and viable in Northern Europe, so it surprises me to read it)
  - Armisael16 4y ago
    Most of the US is in fact better for solar than most of Europe (Iberia is fairly good). However, energy prices in the US are considerably lower, so the bar for profitability is much higher. The EU also has colossal subsidies for renewables, which obviously skew the market. In a purely market-driven world Europe would not be investing in solar.

rconti 4y ago

Is USA government policy actively antagonistic towards this specific technology? Or just doesn't have specific support/incentives for this specific kind of technology? Is there any reason the market doesn't/can't support buying these panels here? Or are there weird tariffs against it? IS there not already a boom in solar PV installation in the USA? It looks like we're far from a watts-per-capita leader (15th in the world?), although we are ahead of China, for now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country

Scubabear68 4y ago
The oil and gas lobby in the US is staggeringly powerful. Many US regulatory bodies (like FERC) have been captured by industry for years. It has been very difficult to do anything that might negatively impact the oil and gas industry. So not so much anti-solar as anti-anything-threatening-fossil-fuels. See also: “clean coal”.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I remember seeing oil wells all over the area when I lived for a while in Oklahoma. Heck, there was even one in the middle of a mall parking lot. Very oil friendly area. But still, Oklahoma is the third in the nation for wind energy production. Texas is number 1. I think the oil and gas lobby must not be quite as powerful as you think.
  - namuol 4y ago
    Considering the possibility that fossil fuels can be exported to resource/land-poor states for a higher premium may explain the “Number 1” status that Texas has here. The more fuel you can free up for export, the richer the state becomes.
barney54 4y ago
The United States is not actively antagonistic toward specific technology and is instead very pro-solar. There are a lot of support/incentives for solar, but not necessarily for this specific kind of technology.
mrguyorama 4y ago
The Republican party in the united states is so anti-green energy, they removed solar panels from the white house in the 80s, shortly after they were installed, just because they didn't like them. They also blamed wind turbines for the extreme grid failure in Texas last year, and it is a current talking point that "wind and solar can't ever work" and that wind turbines kill so many birds that we can't possibly ever use them large scale. They have pitched a fit any time the government attempts to hand a small subsidy out for green energy. Meanwhile the Democrats have wonderful Manchin, who stops you from doing ANYTHING to help the country unless you include some stupid kickback to like five coal barons in west virginia, despite the entire coal industry employing fewer people than plenty of industries we don't give handouts to. Coal is dying a perfectly reasonable death because it's just not cost competitive with anything, even though we ignore the most expensive part of it, the pollution. Despite that, west virginia keeps a stranglehold on the nations energy policy because 60k absurdly entitled adults are convinced that what their daddy did for a job that killed him in his 60s should be a career forever with no changes and they shouldn't have to adapt in any way to the modern world that DOESN'T want to poison them. When hilary clinton said the country would pay for them to learn new skills and get new careers, they responded by pretty heavily voting for the guy that said they could just go back to digging dirty rocks out of the ground. The entire state is somehow (it's propaganda, literally, from local coal companies) convinced that the modern world is impossible without coal, as if it is still the 1800s, ignoring that most of the world hates coal, always hated using coal, and has always switched to less grimy fuel sources as soon as it became cost competitive, which it is. And don't give me any of this "wah wah don't bring partisan politics into this" because green energy policy is 100% partisan, with no reason, in the united states, and ignoring that, or trying to "both sides same" this issue is simply delusional. IMO, the US federal government should drop a trillion dollars on a federal run solar power company, who's only mandate is to buy as much damn solar generation as possible, and sell it to local consumers as cheaply as possible, and "but it might be cloudy some days" problems should be solved by buying 10x as much solar as "needed".
- jcampbell1 4y ago
  Texas is one of the reddest states yet produces significantly more wind+solar power than liberal California. Government policy is far less important than economic realities. People are self-absorbed and think their political opinions are important. The real world works more like a cowboy hat wearing power company executive saying, "Holy shucks, this solar/wind installation is going to save us more on NatGas than it costs to install. Get 'er done."

nonethewiser 4y ago

> Of course a boom in solar PV installation in the USA would pull the rug out from under natural gas prices, which more-or-less explains government policy in this area. I'm not convinced. Virtually everything is much cheaper to manufacture in China.

gilbetron 4y ago

A lot of areas in the US are great for solar, but for many of the urban areas, it sucks. Solar in and around LA or Denver? Great! Solar in and around Detroit or Chicago? Awful. I brought out an installer and he literally LOLed when he saw my house. Great trees, wonderful yard, compact house, but hardly any location for solar given the amount of sun we get where I live. Not to mention the carbon costs of producing solar isn't great.

micromacrofoot 4y ago
It’s ok if solar doesn't work everywhere, even in the places where it’s optimal it’s barely being used right now. There’s a lot of work to be done. Even if we just covered the country’s parking lots with solar awnings we’d be producing huge amounts of power.
- barney54 4y ago
  The problem with solar awnings is the cost. It's much more cost-effective to install solar on a field or an open area than a parking lot. Parking lot installations much more expensive because of the additional infrastructure needed.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    As we phase out gasoline powered vehicles over the next... like forever, we will have less use for ethanol produced from corn syrup, nevermind we should be reducing corn syrup in food production as well. We should be paying midwestern corn farmers to replace their corn fields with solar panels. People complain about so much when it comes to green energy. "Oh transmission losses will eat into it so we can't transmit it too far", well why can't we fill nevada with stupidly more solar than we need so we don't care about losses.
    - mwint 4y ago
      Because if you try to build anything in Nevada, someone will scream about rare desert tortoises or something and you’ll be stuck in court forever.

perlgeek 4y ago

> Monocrystalline Si solar panels have so many advantages that it's hard to get interested in anything else for home or business construction. I agree. "Classical" is already cost effective in many areas of the world, and would be in even more if the electricity price accurately reflected the societal cost of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. These paper-thin solar elements would fill a different niche though. If it's cheap enough (and doesn't come with other downsides), you could plaster any surfaces with it that aren't suitable for panel installations (think car hoods, boats, whatever).

barney54 4y ago

The United States is not behind in terms of R&D funding. I'm pretty sure the United States has spent more on solar R&D than any other nation and the United States has consistently led the world in solar technology. The United States is behind in solar manufacturing not solar R&D. And no one who has paid attention to the Biden administration would say the Biden administration cares about natural gas prices being low as they consistently take actions that increase natural gas prices.

jldugger 4y ago

Bear in mind that China has like, no oil[0] or gas[1] at all. Their investments into renewables is kind of a life of death situation, not just for the world, but the PLA specifically, who would likely monopolize domestic oil production in any military engagement. Also worth mentioning that Beijing sits on one side of a mountain range, and the other side is arid desert. It's kind of a no brainer to drop solar panels there and tramsmit power to the nearby megatropolis. > Of course a boom in solar PV installation in the USA would pull the rug out from under natural gas prices Fracking already did this[2]. And solar doesn't make sense in many places in the US. You want somewhere dry and bright, which cuts off the pacific northwest, and most of the north*. You also want to supplement solar with something that will cool off your home in the evening, run your oven, and keep you warm at night. Which natural gas can actually do[3], so even proponents of solar should consider them at least temporary allies. In contrast, wind seems to already be making 10 percent of the US demand[4], versus solars 2 percent. This is where the subsidies are going, and given how much reliable wind there is in tornado alley, will likely continue growing once subsidies expire. In the mean time, we can continue to import subsidized solar from china and focus on higher margin silicon applications. ^_^ [0]: https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/crude-petroleum/reporter/chn [1]: https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/natural-gas-liquefied/reporter/chn [2]: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States *except for the southern half of Minnesota, apparently

davedx 4y ago
"solar doesn't make sense in many places in the US. You want somewhere dry and bright, which cuts off the pacific northwest, and most of the north*" Can you explain with numbers how you arrive at this conclusion? (Solar is extremely popular and viable in Northern Europe, so it surprises me to read it)
- Armisael16 4y ago
  Most of the US is in fact better for solar than most of Europe (Iberia is fairly good). However, energy prices in the US are considerably lower, so the bar for profitability is much higher. The EU also has colossal subsidies for renewables, which obviously skew the market. In a purely market-driven world Europe would not be investing in solar.