Cost of Solar Continues to Decrease

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

The learning rate of photovoltaics – the speed at which price declines accelerate with wider deployment of the technology – reached 23.5% in 2019, according to the VDMA.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/04/28/solar-costs-set-to-continue-falling-according-to-itrpv-roadmap/

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

23.5% of what?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

10 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

23.5% of what?

For every doubling of cumulative PV shipments the price is dropping by 23.5%. Welcome to exponential economics. 😊

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

For every doubling of cumulative PV shipments the price is dropping by 23.5%. Welcome to exponential economics. 😊

Okay, but oil at$20/bbl is a much more attractive, and efficient option. We are set up to burn oil, it has the highest energy density, and presently we are swimming in the stuff. Welcome to common sense economics!🤨

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

We are not set up to burn oil for electricity. Last year the US produced 8x the electricity by solar than petroleum. We aren't KSA. Welcome to reality. 🙄

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

What was the prime energy source used to generate the electricity in the US last year?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Natural gas, but you were speaking of oil. Natural gas price has climbed a fair amount since this began. But even at its low price it is still not cheaper than utility solar PV or wind. https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf

Edited April 29, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

And natural gas is a generally a by-product of the production of what what...🤔

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

That is why the price is rising. Decreased oil production will lead to decreased gas production. And your point is?

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

Solar isnt the future IMO

Its been an industry that has been heavily subsidized by governments around the world, most of whom have now lost faith in these projects.

There are some interesting developments such as CSP's like this:-

http://helioscsp.com/concentrated-solar-power-with-steam-turbines-from-siemens/

The problem with your whole costing of solar is you don't factor in the initial cost of investment into building the infrastructure of solar farms in the first place, which is very expensive. Also solar is unreliable so you often need back up energy supplies.

Unless there are some major technology breakthroughs in the near future then it will remain fossil fuel, wind  and nuclear that will be the main contributors to electricity generation.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

30 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Solar isnt the future IMO

Its been an industry that has been heavily subsidized by governments around the world, most of whom have now lost faith in these projects.

There are some interesting developments such as CSP's like this:-

http://helioscsp.com/concentrated-solar-power-with-steam-turbines-from-siemens/

The problem with your whole costing of solar is you don't factor in the initial cost of investment into building the infrastructure of solar farms in the first place, which is very expensive. Also solar is unreliable so you often need back up energy supplies.

Unless there are some major technology breakthroughs in the near future then it will remain fossil fuel, wind  and nuclear that will be the main contributors to electricity generation.

You basically have it all backwards. Worldwide solar growth has been tremendous and countries are investing ever more faith in it. For example:

India cancels plans for huge coal power stations as solar energy prices hit record low

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

"India has cancelled plans to build nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations – about the same as the total amount in the UK – with the price for solar electricity “free falling” to levels once considered impossible.

Analyst Tim Buckley said the shift away from the dirtiest fossil fuel and towards solar in India would have “profound” implications on global energy markets.

According to his article on the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis’s website, 13.7GW of planned coal power projects have been cancelled so far this month – in a stark indication of the pace of change."

-CSP is the technology that is failing.

-Wind also requires storage and yes that is another cost but it too is dropping rapidly.

-My costing absolutely includes the capital costs! The cost of solar panels has been dropping exponentially!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

This topic has been flogged to death long before @Jay McKinsey joined the forum. I am not interested in a rehash, but you guys carry on if you like.

[Irina + 2]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

India cancels plans for huge coal power stations as solar energy prices hit record low

 

It will not be that simple.

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/will-not-stop-coal-based-power-plants-immediately-without-a-plan-rk-singh-at-et-gbs-2020/articleshow/74526090.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

Also in the end of 2019 India and Russia signed MOU for coking coal from Russian Far East, the plam is to ship Russian coking coal to India via the Northern Sea Route.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Irina

[Prometheus1354 + 178]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

This IS all based on the Continued Obscenely subsidized Solar market.  Left to stand on it's own two feet; it crumbles under the weight of it's bloated internal cost structure.  Ditto for Wind power.  Some day this might change, but not in the next 15-25 yrs. min.  By then, my guess is we're far enough along in Fusion reactor development that Solar/Wind up and disappear like a fart in the wind...

[pisstol + 48]

Even if the photovoltaics were free, installed residential solar panels in the U.S. would still be expensive because of soft costs. The Sunshot Initiative's goal was for residential solar to cost 10 cents per kwh hour by 2020. It's already 2020 and I don't think they've reached the goal or else they would be bragging about it. I would buy solar panels if I could count on them to generate electricity for 10 cents per kwh.

I think the people who complain about solar subsidies are unfair. The Dept. of Energy and the Sunshot Initiative use LCOE, levelized cost of electricity, so the cost of solar can be fairly compared to other sources of energy.

I am just sorry that it is taking so long for residential solar to come down to the Sunshot Initiative's goals.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 hours ago, Irina said:

 

It will not be that simple.

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/will-not-stop-coal-based-power-plants-immediately-without-a-plan-rk-singh-at-et-gbs-2020/articleshow/74526090.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

Also in the end of 2019 India and Russia signed MOU for coking coal from Russian Far East, the plam is to ship Russian coking coal to India via the Northern Sea Route.

It is a process. The first step is being achieved by supplanting new fossil fuel power production. Step two is supplanting existing production. As for other industrial uses those are further down the line. Though personally I don't see a need to supplant all fossil fuel use, just most. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Prometheus1354 said:

This IS all based on the Continued Obscenely subsidized Solar market.  Left to stand on it's own two feet; it crumbles under the weight of it's bloated internal cost structure.  Ditto for Wind power.  Some day this might change, but not in the next 15-25 yrs. min.  By then, my guess is we're far enough along in Fusion reactor development that Solar/Wind up and disappear like a fart in the wind...

The cost structure I showed above does not include subsidies. Subsidies definitely helped get the costs down to where they are but now that has been achieved subsidies are ending and renewables will move forward on their own.

Solar Energy Shines Bright for the Marine Corps https://usmc-mccs.org/articles/solar-energy-shines-bright-for-the-marine-corps/ 😎

[notsonice + 1,068]

4 hours ago, Irina said:

 

It will not be that simple.

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/will-not-stop-coal-based-power-plants-immediately-without-a-plan-rk-singh-at-et-gbs-2020/articleshow/74526090.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

 

Also in the end of 2019 India and Russia signed MOU for coking coal from Russian Far East, the plam is to ship Russian coking coal to India via the Northern Sea Route.

Coking coal is never used to generate electricity.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

This topic has been flogged to death long before @Jay McKinsey joined the forum. I am not interested in a rehash, but you guys carry on if you like.

You're too funny! 😂

[0R0 + 6,251]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Silicone wafer production excess capacity is discussed in your reference article as the driver for the reduced prices, as installations are not keeping up with production. That is an all too familiar glut condition. It should be followed by some years of reduced capacity additions till installations catch up. Current prices do not cover costs. So improvement from this point will require a few years till new more efficient product and production facilities get put up. 

IIRC, the Lazard study takes NG at >$3. so overstates costs vs. today's prices. 

This is happening, but the temporary acceleration downwards is not representative of trend, but a temporary condition of increased supply and slowly growing demand. Lower NG and LNG prices did that. So that isn't exactly a sustainable solution. 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

Silicone wafer production excess capacity is discussed in your reference article as the driver for the reduced prices, as installations are not keeping up with production. That is an all too familiar glut condition. It should be followed by some years of reduced capacity additions till installations catch up. Current prices do not cover costs. So improvement from this point will require a few years till new more efficient product and production facilities get put up. 

IIRC, the Lazard study takes NG at >$3. so overstates costs vs. today's prices. 

This is happening, but the temporary acceleration downwards is not representative of trend, but a temporary condition of increased supply and slowly growing demand. Lower NG and LNG prices did that. So that isn't exactly a sustainable solution. 

 

The Sensitivity to Fuel Prices graph that I posted above uses $2.59 for the low price of gas (light blue). The dark blue low price is $3.45. So at $1.85 gas is about the same price as solar and still more expensive than wind.

I re-read the article twice and followed some of the links. I found nothing about excess wafer production being the driver for reduced prices. Can you provide the text you are referring to?

Edited April 30, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Sensitivity to Fuel Prices graph that I posted above uses $2.59 for the low price of gas (light blue). The dark blue low price is $3.45. So at $1.85 gas is about the same price as solar and still more expensive than wind.

I re-read the article twice and followed some of the links. I found nothing about excess wafer production being the driver for reduced prices. Can you provide the text you are referring to?

Not important enough to take the trouble. 

To get to the point of it, the circumstance of low cell prices is a glut due to low NG prices reducing demand for solar installations relative to trend. Higher NG prices would increase demand for cells, and take up the supply till a shortage develops and prices rise or plateau. Ultimately we will continue on trend. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by 0R0

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

6 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Not important enough to take the trouble. 

No doubt because the text doesn't exist. You misread the article or just made it all up and can't admit it. Lame💩

But then I never expect much from an Austrian.🙄

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

It honestly baffles me that people don't analyze real projects and do the simple math. Who wants to make money after 20 years of operation?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/travers-solar-investment-1.5450846

I read elsewhere that $155 M was already present before this cash injection, so let's run some numbers!

We'll be generous and total the plant's cost at $600 M.

The plant is rated at 400 MW. In alberta, the average amount of electricity produced by 1 kw panels yearly is about 1250 kilowatt hours. Using this, we see that 400,000 kW yields 500 million kilowatt hours annually. (the article tells a fat lie and claims 800 million kilowatt hours, which is higher than a desert solar farm output of the same damned size). 

Okay, so 500,000,000 kilowatt hours yearly. Now we just need a rate. The average seems to be 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Fine. 

500,000,000 * 0.07 = $35,000,000

$35,000,000/$600,000,000 = 0.058

5.8% annual return anybody? This will take twenty years to pay back its initial investment, and that does NOT mean it doubles, since the panels will have been paid for and cannot be liquidated. 20 year old panels are nearing the end of their use.

This was a 2019 project, with the so called "$1 per watt" floating around. 

Obviously tax credits are about the only good thing that could come from this. 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior