5 ms·

In general I agree. But every efficiency gained will translate to less land used for solar, or a longer period of energy surplus every day (which means less def

In general I agree. But every efficiency gained will translate to less land used for solar, or a longer period of energy surplus every day (which means less deficit that has to be made up in other ways during the non-peak hours). Either of those things make me happy.

ziggy_star 2y ago
A manufacturing efficency would, this won't. The cheapest panel wins.
- tromp 2y ago
  Not necessarily the cheapest, but the one with the best combination of efficiency, cost, durability, and possibly other properties I'm overlooking.
  - ziggy_star 2y ago
    I meant in the marketplace as bought by actual consumers. So, the cheapest.
    - szvsw 2y ago
      Isn’t GP effectively saying $/W? I assume that’s how most people evaluate price… “I want to install a system that will pay itself back in the smallest amount of time while staying below my max budget.”
      - ziggy_star 2y ago
        That would be the prosumer. A consumer buys the thing with the lowest sticker price. See for example triple pane vs single pane windows.
        szvsw 2y ago
        I guess be careful how you use prosumer in this kind of thread, since it often might refer to a producer-consumer (ie someone who can get paid $$ to export energy back into the grid, as opposed to just saving $$ from avoided grid import). I assume you meant professional consumer. > See for example triple pane vs single pane windows. Bad example but I understand your point. Bad example because it takes significantly more expertise to model the savings from triple paned window with low-e coating and vacuum sealing vs double paned vs single paned (ie it requires a proper building energy model in eg EnergyPlus). Also bad because the triple paned window might be immediately disqualified by the budget constraint above. In any case, I think you are just saying people are likely to pick the thing which has the least friction, whether that friction comes from cost, installation challenges, etc etc. And yes, sometimes upfront cost is the most significant thing which affects people’s willingness to adopt a certain home energy retrofit but payback period does play a big role in people’s decision making, as well as their ability to get funding for it (government rebates), or they may simply be going with an installer who pays them to install it and they certainly care about payback period!
        ziggy_star 2y ago
        > Bad example because it takes significantly more expertise to model the savings from triple paned window with low-e coating and vacuum sealing vs double paned vs single paned (ie it requires a proper building energy model in eg EnergyPlus). Also bad because the triple paned window might be immediately disqualified by the budget constraint above. I'm confused by this as that is exactly the point made. :) I was watching a NASA iTech talk if memory serves about vacuum windows. He opened with an overview of the market and adoption trends and was quite flustered. Small market, little in the way of R&D and many challenges in manufacturing them in the US. One of the things that flustered him is being told by sales reps that those types of windows are "pointless and not worth it" and so on. Digging deeper the reason he was steered away from them is simply because they were up not as lucrative to sell in that moment at time for that provider. I can try and dig that up if you want as I recall this anecdote vividly and my thinking diverged from yours in that moment. Turns out most people have no idea what any of it means you see? So indeed friction, perverse incentives, financing, lack of consumer education and so on. Some terribly sad amount of people still opt for single pane instead of double which shouldn't make any kind of sense. Remember also that people often move houses. Anyway the upfront cost ended up dominating rather than the payback period. Folks aren't that rational or liquid. Out of curiosity try modeling it out and pitching it as a choice if you know anybody looking; Chinese panels <20% efficiency, cost X, payback period Y vs Unobtanium panels 25% efficient, Cost X+, Y++. But don't try to steer them or mention the payback period unless asked. It isn't as straightforward as we would hope.
    - hamandcheese 2y ago
      Who is talking about consumer panels?
kragen 2y ago
no, more efficient solar panels at a given price mean cheaper energy, which means it becomes economical to use more energy, until you run out of ways to use energy usefully. usually the increase in energy demand is more than enough to increase the use of inputs, a fact known as the 'jevons paradox'
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  > a fact Jevons Paradox is conjecture, not immutable law. Consumption based energy usage has been on the trend downwards in western countries for some time. Much of this is explained by efficiency gains (e.g., LED lighting, OLED screens, smaller chips, heat pumps, etc.) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-based-energy-per-capita?tab=chart https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-based-energy-...
  - kragen 2y ago
    it's just an observation that has held true for two centuries. pointing at consumption-based energy usage in a cherry-picked group of countries is special pleading; neither worldwide consumption-based energy usage, nor overall energy usage even in that cherry-picked group of countries, is falling. furthermore, the link doesn't show that even that cherry-picked measure is falling the jevons paradox certainly isn't an immutable law
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      > cherry-picked group of countries is special pleading It's hard to disentangle the rise of wealth in the world from increased consumption caused by cheaper energy. Certainly in the west capacity has become larger and... > the link doesn't show that even that cherry-picked measure is falling If you look again, they absolutely are. Peak vs now in Mwh: US: 105 (2005) vs 97 Norway: 93 (2008) vs 78 Sweden: 69 (2001) vs 57 Australia: 80 (2011) vs 55 Germany: 63 (2006) vs 59 France: 61 (2005) vs 54 I could manually do this for the rest, but I shouldn't need to. You can see it for yourself. Here's the chart as line graphs (this option isn't obvious in the UI) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-based-energy-per-capita?tab=chart&time=earliest..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-based-energy-... The only outlier I see here, in terms of developed countries, is South Korea, but that's perhaps as the country is still unevenly developed. In terms of developing countries, we of course see the uptake of HVAC, refrigeration, vehicles and other automation appliances to match the living standards of the developing world. But crucially, developed countries are showing that at the highest living standards, energy consumption is coming down.

ziggy_star 2y ago

A manufacturing efficency would, this won't. The cheapest panel wins.

tromp 2y ago
Not necessarily the cheapest, but the one with the best combination of efficiency, cost, durability, and possibly other properties I'm overlooking.
- ziggy_star 2y ago
  I meant in the marketplace as bought by actual consumers. So, the cheapest.
  - szvsw 2y ago
    Isn’t GP effectively saying $/W? I assume that’s how most people evaluate price… “I want to install a system that will pay itself back in the smallest amount of time while staying below my max budget.”
    - ziggy_star 2y ago
      That would be the prosumer. A consumer buys the thing with the lowest sticker price. See for example triple pane vs single pane windows.
      - szvsw 2y ago
        I guess be careful how you use prosumer in this kind of thread, since it often might refer to a producer-consumer (ie someone who can get paid $$ to export energy back into the grid, as opposed to just saving $$ from avoided grid import). I assume you meant professional consumer. > See for example triple pane vs single pane windows. Bad example but I understand your point. Bad example because it takes significantly more expertise to model the savings from triple paned window with low-e coating and vacuum sealing vs double paned vs single paned (ie it requires a proper building energy model in eg EnergyPlus). Also bad because the triple paned window might be immediately disqualified by the budget constraint above. In any case, I think you are just saying people are likely to pick the thing which has the least friction, whether that friction comes from cost, installation challenges, etc etc. And yes, sometimes upfront cost is the most significant thing which affects people’s willingness to adopt a certain home energy retrofit but payback period does play a big role in people’s decision making, as well as their ability to get funding for it (government rebates), or they may simply be going with an installer who pays them to install it and they certainly care about payback period!
        ziggy_star 2y ago
        > Bad example because it takes significantly more expertise to model the savings from triple paned window with low-e coating and vacuum sealing vs double paned vs single paned (ie it requires a proper building energy model in eg EnergyPlus). Also bad because the triple paned window might be immediately disqualified by the budget constraint above. I'm confused by this as that is exactly the point made. :) I was watching a NASA iTech talk if memory serves about vacuum windows. He opened with an overview of the market and adoption trends and was quite flustered. Small market, little in the way of R&D and many challenges in manufacturing them in the US. One of the things that flustered him is being told by sales reps that those types of windows are "pointless and not worth it" and so on. Digging deeper the reason he was steered away from them is simply because they were up not as lucrative to sell in that moment at time for that provider. I can try and dig that up if you want as I recall this anecdote vividly and my thinking diverged from yours in that moment. Turns out most people have no idea what any of it means you see? So indeed friction, perverse incentives, financing, lack of consumer education and so on. Some terribly sad amount of people still opt for single pane instead of double which shouldn't make any kind of sense. Remember also that people often move houses. Anyway the upfront cost ended up dominating rather than the payback period. Folks aren't that rational or liquid. Out of curiosity try modeling it out and pitching it as a choice if you know anybody looking; Chinese panels <20% efficiency, cost X, payback period Y vs Unobtanium panels 25% efficient, Cost X+, Y++. But don't try to steer them or mention the payback period unless asked. It isn't as straightforward as we would hope.
  - hamandcheese 2y ago
    Who is talking about consumer panels?

kragen 2y ago

no, more efficient solar panels at a given price mean cheaper energy, which means it becomes economical to use more energy, until you run out of ways to use energy usefully. usually the increase in energy demand is more than enough to increase the use of inputs, a fact known as the 'jevons paradox'

h0l0cube 2y ago
> a fact Jevons Paradox is conjecture, not immutable law. Consumption based energy usage has been on the trend downwards in western countries for some time. Much of this is explained by efficiency gains (e.g., LED lighting, OLED screens, smaller chips, heat pumps, etc.) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-based-energy-per-capita?tab=chart https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-based-energy-...
- kragen 2y ago
  it's just an observation that has held true for two centuries. pointing at consumption-based energy usage in a cherry-picked group of countries is special pleading; neither worldwide consumption-based energy usage, nor overall energy usage even in that cherry-picked group of countries, is falling. furthermore, the link doesn't show that even that cherry-picked measure is falling the jevons paradox certainly isn't an immutable law
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    > cherry-picked group of countries is special pleading It's hard to disentangle the rise of wealth in the world from increased consumption caused by cheaper energy. Certainly in the west capacity has become larger and... > the link doesn't show that even that cherry-picked measure is falling If you look again, they absolutely are. Peak vs now in Mwh: US: 105 (2005) vs 97 Norway: 93 (2008) vs 78 Sweden: 69 (2001) vs 57 Australia: 80 (2011) vs 55 Germany: 63 (2006) vs 59 France: 61 (2005) vs 54 I could manually do this for the rest, but I shouldn't need to. You can see it for yourself. Here's the chart as line graphs (this option isn't obvious in the UI) https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-based-energy-per-capita?tab=chart&time=earliest..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-based-energy-... The only outlier I see here, in terms of developed countries, is South Korea, but that's perhaps as the country is still unevenly developed. In terms of developing countries, we of course see the uptake of HVAC, refrigeration, vehicles and other automation appliances to match the living standards of the developing world. But crucially, developed countries are showing that at the highest living standards, energy consumption is coming down.