7 ms·

Residential solar has a total installed cost around $8/W in the US right now. Prices are probably slightly higher in Japan, maybe $10/W. With the silicon supply

Residential solar has a total installed cost around $8/W in the US right now. Prices are probably slightly higher in Japan, maybe $10/W. With the silicon supply problems of the last two years easing and a glut of modules in the last 9 months, prices are dropping faster now than at any time since 2005. This is proposing a $21/W solution-- not a good idea. By the time it's built, terrestrial solar will likely be 5-10 times cheaper, i.e. around $2-4/W.

dagw 17y ago
You're assuming that this is only about supplying electricity at as low a price as possible, which is a very narrow way to look at it. Consider instead the larger picture. This sort of project is going to require a lot of R&D which will both create jobs and lead to additional discoveries. The experience gained can used in future related projects and sold to other countries. If the project is a success then Japan will be the world leader in this sort of technology. So don't just look at the $/W look at the net effect of this investment on Japan's GDP over the next 20 years. From that point of view this is probably a lot better investment than simply buying third party solar panels.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  Finally, someone who sees the benefits beyond the almighty dollar. An up-vote for you!
  - mediaman 17y ago
    Dollars are just a means to quantify value. To say one believes in benefits beyond a dollar value is to say one believes in benefits that cannot be quantified - which is usually a dangerous ways to approach government spending.
    - scotty79 17y ago
      ... also often you don't know or even can't estimate how much dollars something can bring in in long term. If you are starting new unique venture you can't really estimate potential gains. But from history of man kind seems that investing in new things and even exotic research is in the long run extraordinarily beneficial. Gains from gathering resources and building ITER (or GPS, or orbital power plant) earlier not later can give humanity much greater benefit than it would gain from instantiating 5 mln startups with 1/5mlnth of the used resources. I'd even say that no value can be created by human activity (by means other than resource exploitation) if it does not involve inventing or applying new technology.
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      I upvoted you, because you're generally correct, so much so that it's worth saying. However, it is an oversimplification. As stated, it doesn't account for externalized costs, that is, costs of the product that are not borne by the seller. For example, the energy industry has historically benefited because part of the cost of their product -- that is, the damage done by pollution -- is not paid for in the sale of the energy, but is borne by the public at large. Thus, the cost of pollution has gone into the coffers of the energy suppliers (and their stockholders). This is the inequity that legislation such as cap-and-trade try to alleviate (not that I'm a fan of this legislation by any means, the gov't is just as bad).
- kingkongrevenge 17y ago
  > require a lot of R&D which will both create jobs and lead to additional discoveries If it's government funded/subsidized it's more likely to divert capital from more productive R&D and uses in the economy.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Providing jobs as such isn't a benefit to society. Otherwise, we'd all be better off if we stopped using computers and formed up an army of slide rule calculators. The benefit from additional discoveries is already factored into the cost of conventional solar. The companies building it have business plans that recognize the development work they're doing, and charge prices accordingly. And that's part of why it's cheap (relative to this proposal) and getting cheaper.
  - dagw 17y ago
    Providing jobs as such isn't a benefit to society Indeed, but the type of jobs generated by these types of projects are hardly pointless ditch digging. The benefit from additional discoveries is already factored into the cost of conventional solar. But only if the companies are Japanese. Otherwise Japan is not only helping grow another countries GDP they're also helping them gain a further technology lead. Doing everything 'in house' is probably more inefficient in the short term, but might offer more long term benefits.
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      You seem to believe that the world economy is a zero-sum game. This is emphatically false. In this case, certainly the whole world would benefit even if a better solar energy technology (conventional or outer space) were invented. The polio vaccine helped the whole world; the reason that most of the revenue from it came to the USA is that the rest of the world thought that having those shots was more important than giving up their money. And in economic terms, if tilting the economies of scale makes Japan a better manufacturer of solar power tech, then the law of comparative advantage allows other countries to benefit from supplying the goods that Japan will shift away from as it moves resources to the solar tech.
- pingswept 17y ago
  Suppose I widen my view as you suggest, which seems reasonable-- I think you're right that the price of electricity isn't the only concern. Then I think that Japan, currently the world's #2 solar market (Germany is #1), should be investing in thin film solar R&D for the reasons you listed. In thin film, Japan (in the form of Sharp's second generation amorphous silicon panels) is getting its ass kicked by First Solar's CdTe panels. I think that investing in, for example, CIGS or CdTe technology would be a better investment.
mrtron 17y ago
Japan also strikes me as the type of place where residential solar couldn't come close to providing enough power. Their population is very dense, especially in urban areas.
andreyf 17y ago
This is proposing a $21/W solution How did you get this number? I'm thinking $21 billion / (30 years * 1GW) is a little less than $80/MWh [1], which between two and three times the market price [2]. The way to look at this is that the electricity produced is expected to refund one third to half of the investment. I'd imagine the IP created will be worth a lot more. 1. http://www06.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2421+billion+%2F+%2830+years+*+1GW+in+MWh%29 http://www06.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2421+billion+%2F+%28... 2. http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energyprices.html http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energyprices.ht...
- pingswept 17y ago
  To make my calculation clear: 21 * 10^9 dollars / 1 * 10^9 W = 21 $/W Those are just watts at peak power, which are probably roughly 10x average power produced by panels, at least on the earth. But perhaps I was too hasty in that the major hit against solar panel production is the earth obscuring the sun at night. On the other hand, I would expect cells in space to heat up substantially, given that they have no air to conduct away the heat. If I could, I'd edit my comment to clarify that my comparison was not fair-- I was comparing two systems with different capacity factors as if they were the same.

dagw 17y ago

You're assuming that this is only about supplying electricity at as low a price as possible, which is a very narrow way to look at it. Consider instead the larger picture. This sort of project is going to require a lot of R&D which will both create jobs and lead to additional discoveries. The experience gained can used in future related projects and sold to other countries. If the project is a success then Japan will be the world leader in this sort of technology. So don't just look at the $/W look at the net effect of this investment on Japan's GDP over the next 20 years. From that point of view this is probably a lot better investment than simply buying third party solar panels.

gnaritas 17y ago
Finally, someone who sees the benefits beyond the almighty dollar. An up-vote for you!
- mediaman 17y ago
  Dollars are just a means to quantify value. To say one believes in benefits beyond a dollar value is to say one believes in benefits that cannot be quantified - which is usually a dangerous ways to approach government spending.
  - scotty79 17y ago
    ... also often you don't know or even can't estimate how much dollars something can bring in in long term. If you are starting new unique venture you can't really estimate potential gains. But from history of man kind seems that investing in new things and even exotic research is in the long run extraordinarily beneficial. Gains from gathering resources and building ITER (or GPS, or orbital power plant) earlier not later can give humanity much greater benefit than it would gain from instantiating 5 mln startups with 1/5mlnth of the used resources. I'd even say that no value can be created by human activity (by means other than resource exploitation) if it does not involve inventing or applying new technology.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    I upvoted you, because you're generally correct, so much so that it's worth saying. However, it is an oversimplification. As stated, it doesn't account for externalized costs, that is, costs of the product that are not borne by the seller. For example, the energy industry has historically benefited because part of the cost of their product -- that is, the damage done by pollution -- is not paid for in the sale of the energy, but is borne by the public at large. Thus, the cost of pollution has gone into the coffers of the energy suppliers (and their stockholders). This is the inequity that legislation such as cap-and-trade try to alleviate (not that I'm a fan of this legislation by any means, the gov't is just as bad).
kingkongrevenge 17y ago
> require a lot of R&D which will both create jobs and lead to additional discoveries If it's government funded/subsidized it's more likely to divert capital from more productive R&D and uses in the economy.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
Providing jobs as such isn't a benefit to society. Otherwise, we'd all be better off if we stopped using computers and formed up an army of slide rule calculators. The benefit from additional discoveries is already factored into the cost of conventional solar. The companies building it have business plans that recognize the development work they're doing, and charge prices accordingly. And that's part of why it's cheap (relative to this proposal) and getting cheaper.
- dagw 17y ago
  Providing jobs as such isn't a benefit to society Indeed, but the type of jobs generated by these types of projects are hardly pointless ditch digging. The benefit from additional discoveries is already factored into the cost of conventional solar. But only if the companies are Japanese. Otherwise Japan is not only helping grow another countries GDP they're also helping them gain a further technology lead. Doing everything 'in house' is probably more inefficient in the short term, but might offer more long term benefits.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    You seem to believe that the world economy is a zero-sum game. This is emphatically false. In this case, certainly the whole world would benefit even if a better solar energy technology (conventional or outer space) were invented. The polio vaccine helped the whole world; the reason that most of the revenue from it came to the USA is that the rest of the world thought that having those shots was more important than giving up their money. And in economic terms, if tilting the economies of scale makes Japan a better manufacturer of solar power tech, then the law of comparative advantage allows other countries to benefit from supplying the goods that Japan will shift away from as it moves resources to the solar tech.
pingswept 17y ago
Suppose I widen my view as you suggest, which seems reasonable-- I think you're right that the price of electricity isn't the only concern. Then I think that Japan, currently the world's #2 solar market (Germany is #1), should be investing in thin film solar R&D for the reasons you listed. In thin film, Japan (in the form of Sharp's second generation amorphous silicon panels) is getting its ass kicked by First Solar's CdTe panels. I think that investing in, for example, CIGS or CdTe technology would be a better investment.

mrtron 17y ago

Japan also strikes me as the type of place where residential solar couldn't come close to providing enough power. Their population is very dense, especially in urban areas.

andreyf 17y ago

This is proposing a $21/W solution How did you get this number? I'm thinking $21 billion / (30 years * 1GW) is a little less than $80/MWh [1], which between two and three times the market price [2]. The way to look at this is that the electricity produced is expected to refund one third to half of the investment. I'd imagine the IP created will be worth a lot more. 1. http://www06.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2421+billion+%2F+%2830+years+*+1GW+in+MWh%29 http://www06.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2421+billion+%2F+%28... 2. http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energyprices.html http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energyprices.ht...

pingswept 17y ago
To make my calculation clear: 21 * 10^9 dollars / 1 * 10^9 W = 21 $/W Those are just watts at peak power, which are probably roughly 10x average power produced by panels, at least on the earth. But perhaps I was too hasty in that the major hit against solar panel production is the earth obscuring the sun at night. On the other hand, I would expect cells in space to heat up substantially, given that they have no air to conduct away the heat. If I could, I'd edit my comment to clarify that my comparison was not fair-- I was comparing two systems with different capacity factors as if they were the same.