Solar Panels at 26 cents per watt

[Meredith Poor + 883]

One of the things I'm seeing right now are Lithium Ion batteries by major deep discharge vendors: Trojan, Battle Borne, etc. These are seriously expensive: roughly 80 cents per watt-hour. One example is a 1.2Kwh battery that costs $949.

Their dimensions tend to be similar to deep discharge lead-acid, however they weigh half as much - 30 pounds instead of 60 pounds. They also charge very quickly, which is helpful when powered by solar panels.

Some lead-acid batteries are as cheap as 8 cents per watt-hour.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

One of the things I'm seeing right now are Lithium Ion batteries by major deep discharge vendors: Trojan, Battle Borne, etc. These are seriously expensive: roughly 80 cents per watt-hour. One example is a 1.2Kwh battery that costs $949.

Their dimensions tend to be similar to deep discharge lead-acid, however they weigh half as much - 30 pounds instead of 60 pounds. They also charge very quickly, which is helpful when powered by solar panels.

Some lead-acid batteries are as cheap as 8 cents per watt-hour.

Multiple different types of Lithium and lead acid.  The question is USEABLE KWh, total number of cycles relative to Depth of Discharge, Charge rate, discharge rate, State of charge. 

Any battery you take down 100% of charge will damage it with only a few very rare exceptions.  Same goes for overcharging it.  Lead acid cannot be taken down without damaging them but are effectively immune to overcharging.  Lithium get damaged both high voltage and low voltage. 

If you read battery literature, the numbers are NOT equal as it requires MULTIPLE different parameters and if a Battery management system is BUILT into the cells themselves or not. 

For instance the best AGM Carbon Foam Firefly battery can be discharged at 1C but charged at 2C.  Your LiFePo batteries can discharge at 1C but charge at 0.5C.  Dumb ol' lead acid can discharge at 0.2C and charge at ~ upwards of 2C(sufficient cooling) Both LiFePo and carbon foam AGM can have a low state of charge without damaging them along with Li-ion or Li-polymer but they blow up and catch fire due to dendrite growth so using them for solar on your house is really stupid as they will eventually explode just a matte of when which means every single cell MUST be fused and tied to a very good BMS(expensive still as it requires lots of wiring = man hours).  The Best lithium(Lithium Titanate) can be discharged/charged at ~20C or even 40C, but are NOT efficient while doing so cooling is a massive issue, but while horrifically expensive, have ~20,000 cycles with a DoD(Depth of Discharge) of ~70%.   Carbon Foam Firefly has a ~50% DoD and ~3500 cycles.  Your LiFePo has a ~70% DoD and a life of ~5000 cycles.  If you go with ~30% DoD then Lead acid, AGM is good for ~2000 cycles(why your car batteries generally last about 7 years), AGM Carbon Foam(12,000 cycles), and LiFePo roughly ~15,000 cycles. 

As for cost, Lead acid/AGM is DUMB for solar/wind etc because you CANNOT leave them at a low state of charge.  They must be charged IMMEDIATELY after discharge otherwise you quickly lose capacity.  Not true with Carbon Foam/LiFepo/Li-ion/Li-Ti.

PS: Careful what you buy in Lithium.  There are many lithium battery chemistries which are no better than Lead acid regarding cycle life.  For instance many forms of Lithium Manganese.  Yes, they are cheap.  There is a reason.

PPS: All forms of Lithium(I think, but I am sure there is an exception somewhere) cannot be charged if the battery temperature is below Freezing.  This forces the battery storage to be IN your house or you MUST live near the equator.  This is why many TESLA cars have DEAD batteries up north even though they are plugged in overnight.  All that power was used heating the batteries so they could be charged to begin with. What this also means if you have SOLAR on your roof of your home, is that your batteries, if lithium, and not Carbon Foam Firefly, Must be in your garage at minimum where it does not freeze.  Many many many many homes have burned down due to the use of Lithium-Ion batteries used for storage instead of Lithium Iron Phosphate.   Yes, the energy density of LiFePo is less than Li-ion, but when they fail, they make a big stink/mess, but do not blow up creating a fireworks display.   Lithium Titanate is the penultimate(you can drill the suckers, drive nails through them etc), but who the Hell has enough money for that?  No one. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

"Both LiFePo and carbon foam AGM can have a low state of charge without damaging them along with Li-ion or Li-polymer but they blow up and catch fire due to dendrite growth"... Everything I've read about LiFePO is that these are immune to thermal runaway. Please send me a link that discusses the dendrite growth. They have a significantly lower energy density than some other Li-Ion chemistries, although they are still twice the energy density of lead-acid.

The last news I had read about Firefly was that they were out of business, however evidently they have reorganized, since I'm seeing dealers offering their products. However, the one nearest to me is saying those batteries are on backorder, so there are some issues with supply. These costs are roughly half what the LiFePO batteries cost.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

9 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

"Both LiFePo and carbon foam AGM can have a low state of charge without damaging them along with Li-ion or Li-polymer but they blow up and catch fire due to dendrite growth"... Everything I've read about LiFePO is that these are immune to thermal runaway. Please send me a link that discusses the dendrite growth. They have a significantly lower energy density than some other Li-Ion chemistries, although they are still twice the energy density of lead-acid.

The last news I had read about Firefly was that they were out of business, however evidently they have reorganized, since I'm seeing dealers offering their products. However, the one nearest to me is saying those batteries are on backorder, so there are some issues with supply. These costs are roughly half what the LiFePO batteries cost.

Ah, bad punctuation/run on sentence on my part. 🙄 While Lithium batteries all get dendrite growth(different rates), only Li-ion and Li-poly have run away thermal detonation thresholds.  😧

No one cares about energy density for solar/wind... But they do care if their house catches on fire.  I guess eventually we care about energy density, but that is also why LiFePo is also being phased out and cannot get funding anymore either.  Only market anyone cares about at the moment is the personal vehicle sector even though there theoretically is still another ~40% to expand regarding LiFePo.   What is funny is that people bring up problems regarding Lithium NMC for recycling and material consumption, yet we have  this already existing LiFePo that is recycleable and uses common materials .... yet cannot get any funding for further development and has not for the last 5-->10 years. 

Yes, Firefly AGM ~2/3 to 1/2 cost of LiFePo, and both much cheaper than Li-Ion/NMC/poly, but you also get roughly ~2/3 the useable KWh/cycles, so it is fairly close unless you go the storage route and then it is a slam dunk win as most typical useage will only be roughly ~30% DoD or less.  As for availability of CF AGM, yes a problem.  Servicing mostly marine/RV community as getting funding for a bigger manufacturing base is the problem.  If they got said funding the cost should drop to that of normal AGM or lead acid batteries.  No reason it should not.  This would make them ~4X cheaper than LiFePo and if that happens.... then solar and taking ones house off grid is TRULY available for nearly everyone. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

2 hours ago, Wastral said:

...but that is also why LiFePo is also being phased out and cannot get funding anymore either...

Yes, Firefly AGM ~2/3 to 1/2 cost of LiFePo, and both much cheaper than Li-Ion/NMC/poly, but you also get roughly ~2/3 the useable KWh/cycles

Both of these are, to put it mildly, controversial statements. I see no evidence that LiFePO is being 'phased out'. I'm seeing brand new products in the Kwh range, anywhere from .6 to 1.8 that have been introduced within the last six months. Will you please explain how you've come to this conclusion?

The charts on the Firefly AGM show 13,000 cycles at 30% Depth of Discharge. This drops to about 5,000 with average 50% DOD. I'm not sure what you're comparing this to in terms of "2/3rds". Conventional Lead Acid?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

3 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

Both of these are, to put it mildly, controversial statements. I see no evidence that LiFePO is being 'phased out'. I'm seeing brand new products in the Kwh range, anywhere from .6 to 1.8 that have been introduced within the last six months. Will you please explain how you've come to this conclusion?

The charts on the Firefly AGM show 13,000 cycles at 30% Depth of Discharge. This drops to about 5,000 with average 50% DOD. I'm not sure what you're comparing this to in terms of "2/3rds". Conventional Lead Acid?

Read again.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

8 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Read again.

https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2018/10/trojan-battery-company-releasing-trillium-battery-line/

This is an announcement for LiFePO4 batteries circa October 2018. This looks to me like 'new investment'.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.904.440&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The above link is a methodical test of LiFePO4 cells in over-discharge. They do not catch fire. Dendrite formation is a problem with LiFePO4 batteries if they are charged at least than 0 degrees C. BMS systems prevent charging from occurring below 0 degrees C.

In general, battery systems for houses are situated outside the residential walls. This might be hung on the side of the house, situated in the garage, or placed in a separate battery box that may or may not be adjacent to the house. If someone (or their insurance company) is afraid of the batteries catching fire, then they situate them at an appropriate distance from any residential structure.

[Michael Sanches + 187]

Why would people pay these outrageously high prices? If you have to pay 10 to 24 cents for every watt produced over the lifetime of the panel, that results in $1.00 to $2.40 per kilowatt of energy produced over the life of the panel. I only pay $0.12 per kilowatt from my local provider. No, thank you.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

On 6/23/2019 at 7:08 PM, Meredith Poor said:

https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2018/10/trojan-battery-company-releasing-trillium-battery-line/

This is an announcement for LiFePO4 batteries circa October 2018. This looks to me like 'new investment'.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.904.440&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The above link is a methodical test of LiFePO4 cells in over-discharge. They do not catch fire. Dendrite formation is a problem with LiFePO4 batteries if they are charged at least than 0 degrees C. BMS systems prevent charging from occurring below 0 degrees C.

FACEPALM: 🙄😂🤣 Trojan do not make batteries.  They assemble...   $$$ to developing new LiFePo cells with higher energy density...  Oi!!!!   F'n A.... Stay to subjects you know something about?  Hrmm? 🙄

Duh, LiFePo do not catch fire.... Dendrite formation forms in EVERY single structure ever built.  The question is rate.  Differential charges in different materials create dendrite growth.  Obviously, differential charge is highest in batteries generally. 

And no, BMS do not prevent charging below 0C.  What they do is follow a temperature profile for charge rate for ALL temperatures.  Charging is not linear with temperature.  A VERY good BMS will be matched to the cells in question. You can just as easily overcharge at high temperatures(far more likely due to internal resistance) than low temperatures where all it has to do is turn on a heater.  Why you need thermally activated cooling fans on your batteries and likewise on your inverter, but for different reason on the inverter. 

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Wastral

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

On 6/23/2019 at 10:35 PM, Michael Sanches said:

Why would people pay these outrageously high prices? If you have to pay 10 to 24 cents for every watt produced over the lifetime of the panel, that results in $1.00 to $2.40 per kilowatt of energy produced over the life of the panel. I only pay $0.12 per kilowatt from my local provider. No, thank you.

Because dear sir, there are 365 days a year with approx ~6.5-->9 hours a da(winter/summer) you get 100% = ~2000 hours to collect power when the sun shines and that $150 buys you a ~100Watt panel which means break even in collection hours(assumes perfect sun angle etc) of 100Wx10hours = 1 KWh = $0.12(assume no inefficiencies... as if... HAHAH) ~10,000 hours to "payback" 10k/2k = 5 years...  Now add inefficiencies, cost of installation, have to clean it, clouds, shade, loss in performance over time, Net Present Value of your money, and we are talking at least 10 years.  Reality is closer to 15 years at best!  

Of course the power KWh rates keep going up.  So, today you pay  $0.12/KWh tomorrow it will be $0.20 if not higher and now add SERVICE charge EVERY MONTH..... which turns that $0.20 into $0.30/KWh. 

Of course I did not do rooftop solar... I put up numbers for solar tracking solar power.  Rooftop solar.... frankly makes NO SENSE to anyone if it does not track.   Very very few homes have a southern exposure with right angle or lack trees......  Now, if you live rural, on a boat, RV, then solar is a slam dunk no contest.  Still need to track the sun otherwise you better be VERY miserly with the power. 

Solar tracker and a pivot or LOTS Of extra $$$ for redundancy(not a bad option due to cloudy, humid days)

[Otis11 + 551]

On 6/25/2019 at 12:59 AM, Wastral said:

Because dear sir, there are 365 days a year with approx ~6.5-->9 hours a da(winter/summer) you get 100% = ~2000 hours to collect power when the sun shines and that $150 buys you a ~100Watt panel which means break even in collection hours(assumes perfect sun angle etc) of 100Wx10hours = 1 KWh = $0.12(assume no inefficiencies... as if... HAHAH) ~10,000 hours to "payback" 10k/2k = 5 years...  Now add inefficiencies, cost of installation, have to clean it, clouds, shade, loss in performance over time, Net Present Value of your money, and we are talking at least 10 years.  Reality is closer to 15 years at best!  

Of course the power KWh rates keep going up.  So, today you pay  $0.12/KWh tomorrow it will be $0.20 if not higher and now add SERVICE charge EVERY MONTH..... which turns that $0.20 into $0.30/KWh. 

Of course I did not do rooftop solar... I put up numbers for solar tracking solar power.  Rooftop solar.... frankly makes NO SENSE to anyone if it does not track.   Very very few homes have a southern exposure with right angle or lack trees......  Now, if you live rural, on a boat, RV, then solar is a slam dunk no contest.  Still need to track the sun otherwise you better be VERY miserly with the power. 

Solar tracker and a pivot or LOTS Of extra $$$ for redundancy(not a bad option due to cloudy, humid days)

Hello Wastral,

Tracking actually typically does not make sense - even if your house doesn't face ideal directions. The cost of tracking is often more than the cost of extra panels to make up for the efficiency hit. Also, a properly size array in many cases will have much more panels than the inverters and other equipment can theoretically handle - on the premise that they are facing slightly different ways and will never actually all produce full power at any one time. 

Doing this, we've seen LCOE numbers from rooftop solar at 6-7c/kWh in many places. (And yes, this does take into account the cost of capital by rolling it into a loan. The loan interest rates are so low currently, however, that these really low energy costs can be achieved).

If you add batteries to this it drives the cost up, but depending on your area and power service provider, batteries usually are not necessary or economical. (Though even with batteries we're still looking at 15-20c/kWh, or less)

These numbers are the all included prices - dividing total 20 year cost by amount of production, including replacing every component on the system the day it's warranty expires (Which is an extreme worst case) and paying a professional company to design, procure, install, and maintain the system. (Again, room to lower costs here if motivated, but a reasonable scenario)

Solar doesn't make sense in all areas - I don't have it - I pay <9c/kWh, use very little power, and my provider isn't terribly pro-solar, so saving <$10/month simply isn't worth the trouble for me currently - but there are MANY places where it's economical. (Technically my house is economical, just not worth the effort)

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

7 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Hello Wastral,

Tracking actually typically does not make sense - even if your house doesn't face ideal directions. The cost of tracking is often more than the cost of extra panels to make up for the efficiency hit. Also, a properly size array in many cases will have much more panels than the inverters and other equipment can theoretically handle - on the premise that they are facing slightly different ways and will never actually all produce full power at any one time. 

Doing this, we've seen LCOE numbers from rooftop solar at 6-7c/kWh in many places. (And yes, this does take into account the cost of capital by rolling it into a loan. The loan interest rates are so low currently, however, that these really low energy costs can be achieved).

If you add batteries to this it drives the cost up, but depending on your area and power service provider, batteries usually are not necessary or economical. (Though even with batteries we're still looking at 15-20c/kWh, or less)

These numbers are the all included prices - dividing total 20 year cost by amount of production, including replacing every component on the system the day it's warranty expires (Which is an extreme worst case) and paying a professional company to design, procure, install, and maintain the system. (Again, room to lower costs here if motivated, but a reasonable scenario)

Solar doesn't make sense in all areas - I don't have it - I pay <9c/kWh, use very little power, and my provider isn't terribly pro-solar, so saving <$10/month simply isn't worth the trouble for me currently - but there are MANY places where it's economical. (Technically my house is economical, just not worth the effort)

https://twitter.com/PeterZeihan/status/1141468260338040834  

And anywhere else?  Requires YOU to do the work yourself for economic sense. 

PS: Building a solar tracker is easy

[NickW + 2,714]

On 6/24/2019 at 6:35 AM, Michael Sanches said:

Why would people pay these outrageously high prices? If you have to pay 10 to 24 cents for every watt produced over the lifetime of the panel, that results in $1.00 to $2.40 per kilowatt of energy produced over the life of the panel. I only pay $0.12 per kilowatt from my local provider. No, thank you.

Errr no. 

The price is the cost per capacity factor so basically 1000w of capacity will cost you $260. 

In a climate like southern England that 1000w of capacity will produce about 1000 kwh per year for 30 plus years. Assume 25% averaged out  decline in performance over that period and we have 750kwh / pa

Thats 22500 kwh from $260 of panels. 

On top of that you need a grid tie inverter, some wiring and mountings but the costs comparing very favourably against a local equivalent cost of electricity of around 20c / kwh. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

Now down to 24 cents per watt (used). Vendor is claiming in their blog post they have panels as low as 19 cents per watt, however one has to call them for details. Most likely these are 'recycled', meaning that they were pulled from a damaged solar farm and tested to see if they remain in spec. Some of these have restrictions on how they are used.

These are for sale within the US. 'Damaged solar farms' typically means that a power plant has been hit by hail, fire, or a tornado that has damaged some of the panels. Insurance settlements generally require that the entire farm be replaced. Therefore, if half of the panels are undamaged, they are sold as 'used'.

The lowest price I can find in China for new panels is 18 cents per watt.

[Otis11 + 551]

On 6/28/2019 at 7:58 PM, Wastral said:

https://twitter.com/PeterZeihan/status/1141468260338040834  

And anywhere else?  Requires YOU to do the work yourself for economic sense. 

PS: Building a solar tracker is easy

I understand building a solar tracker is easy... it just normally doesn't justify the cost in my experience.

And it does not require you to do the work yourself - I got a quote for my roof that they designed, procured and installed the system for 7.1c/kWh if I did a power purchasing agreement until it was paid off - aka I bought the power produced at 7.1c/kWh for all that I used. Excess was sold to the utility under a net metering clause that essentially meant I was buying that power just using the grid to time-shift it. The 'interest' rate on the solar loan was relatively high given my credit (I don't remember the exact rate), but that was all bundled into my 7.1c/kWh. The whole system was mine at either the end of 20 years or when my 7.1c/kWh rate exceeded the cost of the system plus the accrued interest - but if you follow how this is structured, that means I can never pay more than 7.1c/kWh for that power and there are no upfront or 'base' costs. Any additional power would be purchased from the grid at 9c/kWh (the predominate rate in my area at the time).

This seems to me like it was economic - and required no work from me other than agreeing to it.

(We did not end up going for it as it seemed like a lot of trouble for the potential of saving <$10/month. I am not saying everyone should go solar or singing it's praises in any means - just stating the fact that, in many areas, residential rooftop solar can absolutely make economic sense.)

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

5 hours ago, Otis11 said:

I understand building a solar tracker is easy... it just normally doesn't justify the cost in my experience.

And it does not require you to do the work yourself - I got a quote for my roof that they designed, procured and installed the system for 7.1c/kWh if I did a power purchasing agreement until it was paid off - aka I bought the power produced at 7.1c/kWh for all that I used. Excess was sold to the utility under a net metering clause that essentially meant I was buying that power just using the grid to time-shift it. The 'interest' rate on the solar loan was relatively high given my credit (I don't remember the exact rate), but that was all bundled into my 7.1c/kWh. The whole system was mine at either the end of 20 years or when my 7.1c/kWh rate exceeded the cost of the system plus the accrued interest - but if you follow how this is structured, that means I can never pay more than 7.1c/kWh for that power and there are no upfront or 'base' costs. Any additional power would be purchased from the grid at 9c/kWh (the predominate rate in my area at the time).

This seems to me like it was economic - and required no work from me other than agreeing to it.

(We did not end up going for it as it seemed like a lot of trouble for the potential of saving <$10/month. I am not saying everyone should go solar or singing it's praises in any means - just stating the fact that, in many areas, residential rooftop solar can absolutely make economic sense.)

So, no, your power did not cost you 7.1c/KWh as you are paying the interest and paying for the electricity.  They get the differential between net metering, while you are paying 7.1cKWh and your neighbors are paying for 50% of the system between Fed and state theft out of your neighbors pockets.  On top of this you are still grid tied and paying monthly service fees which are increasing when you are solar tied.  So, your actual "power cost" is around 3X-->4X what you claimed.  But, you did manage to game the system designed to steal from your neighbors.

[Otis11 + 551]

17 hours ago, Wastral said:

So, no, your power did not cost you 7.1c/KWh as you are paying the interest and paying for the electricity.  They get the differential between net metering, while you are paying 7.1cKWh and your neighbors are paying for 50% of the system between Fed and state theft out of your neighbors pockets.  On top of this you are still grid tied and paying monthly service fees which are increasing when you are solar tied.  So, your actual "power cost" is around 3X-->4X what you claimed.  But, you did manage to game the system designed to steal from your neighbors.

Hey Wastral, I don't get you desire to attack me nor to denigrate solar. No, it's not a cure-all, but it's not evil either - it's got times when it has net benefits and times it doesn't, just like any other technology. I'm just showing one real world example of where it had a net benefit. I personally support solar when it makes sense, but don't when it doesn't. No reason to get aggressive.

Anyway, to the response:

Ok, if you want to look at it that way, the power costs much less than 7.1c/kWh... the company installing the panels is getting paid 7.1c/kWh to take out a loan and finance the whole thing. So their cost of capital, plus the cost of their inherently assumed risk over that contract period, plus the cost of electricity generation, plus the cost of insuring that system for 20 years, plus all of the other variability I'm not accounting for come out to 7.1c/kWh.(The only cost to me is 7.1c/kWh and my guarantee that I will purchase it for the contract term, or until the system 'paid off' at which point the system was mine and the produced power was free.)

Yes, they get 9c/kWh for any power I don't use, however then they have to pay 9c/kWh when I use that power up to the point that I use all of their power generated. They do not get any bill credits and I cannot rollover excess from month to month. So they are incentivised to only produce what I need in my lowest month.

In my area, solar is still a net benefit to the grid as it produces power during the peak demand times (unregulated grid and not already saturated by solar). My utility (at that time - I have since moved) actually has incentives (small, but they exist) to install residential solar as it was a net benefit to them (delaying grid upgrades and such). This also benefits my neighbors and upgrades would cost money that would have to be recovered in the retail rate. (I understand this is not the case in California and a few other niche markets where solar has saturated the demand variations - those areas they are increasing the cost of their neighbors electricity. At low penetration levels, however, it improves everyone's costs, even with net metering.)

I have no monthly connection fee. I pay $0/month and 9c/kWh. If I use 100 kWh, I pay $9.00. So yes, my math is what I said it was.

 

Again, I'm not saying solar makes sense everywhere - I live in a very good location for solar, and even so, solar is barely economical. So marginally that I did not install it as it wasn't worth the hassle (as I've stated clearly before). This was a real, contracted quote that I could have used, however, so demonstrates this point accurately. Even in Texas with our very low price of electricity, because of our good sun, cheap labor, and cheap land/rooftop real estate, solar can make sense. (This is also true outside of Texas in certain areas... but not a whole lot)