I posted this article after reading the one you linked. Both are related. It describes some ways the costs other than the cost of the panels themselves can be reduced. And if you don't have to...
I posted this article after reading the one you linked. Both are related. It describes some ways the costs other than the cost of the panels themselves can be reduced. And if you don't have to connect to the grid - it is even cheaper.
This part took me aback a little. I think it's a combination of the naked greed and the admonition to both produce and consume more energy - this is an article strongly promoting renewable energy...
Think about it. If we had stayed on the Adams curve, we would be consuming 2-5x more energy than we do today. For the US, that means that GDP per capita today would not be the current amount of $65k, but $100k-$200k. It is a catastrophe that we don’t have more energy: We should be much richer.
Energy stagnation makes us poor. If we want to be richer, we must produce more energy
This part took me aback a little. I think it's a combination of the naked greed and the admonition to both produce and consume more energy - this is an article strongly promoting renewable energy and clearly trying to reckon with climate change, yet somehow the moral viewpoint is totally opposite my own in this topic. To me the obvious, sustainable solution to climate change is to find ways to produce less and consume less resources and do more with less. At least, it's the viewpoint that seems to always follow with green policy. Here though you have an explicit assertion that not only is more consumption and more money necessary, its deficit is a catastrophe. The author says "we should be much richer", but why? What is the justification? The US is not poor. Why can the US not continue on its current energy consumption with its current world-leading wealth, and work on substituting that energy for sustainable and renewable sources while ensuring that wealth is distributed fairly? Why can't we all?
I don't know, I was just a surprised to read such an maximalist position in an article about green policy, it was very dissonant.
It's such a wild statement too, because one of the major reason's we're not consuming that much more energy is because of the massive efforts that have been made to make things more efficient. In...
It's such a wild statement too, because one of the major reason's we're not consuming that much more energy is because of the massive efforts that have been made to make things more efficient. In the last 50 years, cars, homes, electronics, appliances, lights, etc have all become way more energy efficient. In some extremes like LED lighting, those gains have been close to 10-20x more efficient, though obviously those numbers aren't matched everywhere. Efficiency gains have allowed developed nations to stretch their strained energy grids way further than they would have been able to go previously.
Article cuts off abruptly at the end: It's batteries isnt it? Anyone got access to the rest? Yesterday's link to Ben James also has an excellent primer on batteries...
Article cuts off abruptly at the end:
But there’s a few more facts that change completely the conclusion, and tease up how the world of energy will evolve in the coming decade:
It's batteries isnt it? Anyone got access to the rest? Yesterday's link to Ben James also has an excellent primer on batteries https://climate.benjames.io/batteries/
Solar panels are getting cheaper than ever, but the true cost of solar for most people who aren't up for a big DIY project is the install costs. Qualified installers are ridiculously expensive,...
Solar panels are getting cheaper than ever, but the true cost of solar for most people who aren't up for a big DIY project is the install costs. Qualified installers are ridiculously expensive, and labor costs aren't going down anytime soon. I think if more people get comfortable doing smaller, scalable DIY solar projects it would make residential solar much easier to access for the masses.
This is what I’m experiencing right now. I’ve been wanting solar and the prices are interesting enough to me to do it now. But installers around me are still asking ridiculous prices. They are...
This is what I’m experiencing right now. I’ve been wanting solar and the prices are interesting enough to me to do it now. But installers around me are still asking ridiculous prices. They are marking up materials and refusing to specify cost. I’m now pretty sure I’m DIYing this in a couple of weeks time. That will save me a ton of money.
Comment box Scope: comment response, information Tone: neutral, informational, actually not trying to be intentionally annoying/nitpicky Opinion: kind of Sarcasm/humor: none Technically all...
Comment box
Scope: comment response, information
Tone: neutral, informational, actually not trying to be intentionally annoying/nitpicky
Opinion: kind of
Sarcasm/humor: none
Technically all construction costs are direct or indirect labor costs. The cost of any object is really the amount you're paying to the person creating, acquiring, or manipulating it on your behalf. The cost of the panels is the cost of the labor to extract, refine, and reassemble the resources (according to some methodology) to build the panels. The physical panels have gotten cheaper over time because newer methodologies rely on labor that is less expensive in some way, at some step in the supply/manufacturing chain.
This would normally be a nitpick (and that's not what I care about), but I think it's worth pointing out in this case because the idea that labor costs are an immutable "floor" for the price of solar is probably not quite accurate. Labor costs will stay steady or rise for a given methodology, but if the methodology changes, the necessary labor costs might too.
The article is mostly talking about major, non-residential installations. The author provides some evidence to indicate that the cost of labor and installation materials will go down... by using simpler designs that require less labor:
But if your panels are cheap, you can basically dump them on the ground! No pilings, no racks, no trackers. Barely any SBOS! And since you don’t have heavy materials to transport, your logistics costs drop and you barely need any civil engineering: No need for big trucks to enter the farm, no need for infinite trenches to hide cables underground.
That's a reduction in labor costs, even though the author refers to some physical materials. The materials only cost money because of the labor.
As far as residential installations go, I agree with you in all practical senses. If people can get comfortable with DIY (partial or full), the whole process gets way cheaper.
And I think the idea of the article still applies. If someone invents a technique to set up residential panels extremely inexpensively, or a cheap robot to do it without human labor, the amount of labor being contracted could go down. That could end up being a professional service, or something simple enough for way more people to feel comfortable with DIY.
Installing on a roof will always be a little more complex than installing in a field, but I don't see a fundamental reason that roof designs can't, in some way, be at least partially simplified or automated.
It ultimately might not be that important to the green transition for individuals to have their own panels if enough grid-scale solar and storage is built. But it can't hurt.
Also the cost of roof replacement and maintenance. You have to remove the panels to have work done on your roof, so it only really makes sense to me to get them installed with a new roof.
Also the cost of roof replacement and maintenance. You have to remove the panels to have work done on your roof, so it only really makes sense to me to get them installed with a new roof.
I think this is a roof material dependant issue. When you've got a slate or tile roof that lasts 50+ years with minimal maintenance the lifespan of the solar cells and equipment is the limiting...
I think this is a roof material dependant issue. When you've got a slate or tile roof that lasts 50+ years with minimal maintenance the lifespan of the solar cells and equipment is the limiting factor.
Apparently the cost of solar isn't so relevant. Because of the insane volatility of the electricity price, nobody wants to invest in it unless the state heavily sponsors it (companies don't care...
Apparently the cost of solar isn't so relevant. Because of the insane volatility of the electricity price, nobody wants to invest in it unless the state heavily sponsors it (companies don't care that much about costs, they care about return on investment). So in the end what gets built is mostly a matter of public policies.
Sorry, but may I ask if you have a citation for the claim that energy companies only build out solar power plants when government subsidies are available? For example, Texas has been building out...
Sorry, but may I ask if you have a citation for the claim that energy companies only build out solar power plants when government subsidies are available? For example, Texas has been building out utility-scale solar even when incentives are given to both solar and fossil fuel plants (example).
As a side note, fossil fuel plants also see enormous state subsidies, so the implication that solar power generation is inherently an inferior product (ie “insanely volatile prices”) and requires subsidization whereas other solutions don’t seems inaccurate.
(I’m not an expert in any of this, for context, I just did a few some googling. Kinda curious where your sentiment came from though in case you know of a comprehensive economic analysis of different power generation schemes)
A good French youtuber made a long video about the subject, but it's mostly based on the book "The price is wrong: why capitalism won’t save the planet” by Brett Christopher. He gives a few...
A good French youtuber made a long video about the subject, but it's mostly based on the book "The price is wrong: why capitalism won’t save the planet” by Brett Christopher. He gives a few examples of the impact of subsidies, e.g. this one for Spain (subsidies stopped in 2013 and started again in 2018) :
One factor that disfavor solar vs fossil fuel is that fossil fuel has access to capacity markets (you can sell the fact that you can provide electricity on a reliable basis) while solar can't (because you depend on conditions). But in general the conclusion is that the electricity markets is a huge clusterfuck (caused by neo-liberal ideology) and we should go back to public ownership of electricity production & distribution.
All of those assumptions about renewables eventually go out the window once grid-scale storage is in a better spot. There are thousands of companies working furiously to develop economical...
All of those assumptions about renewables eventually go out the window once grid-scale storage is in a better spot. There are thousands of companies working furiously to develop economical grid-scale storage options and there are a lot of promising trials which are already underway. I'm not just talking about battery storage either; there are plenty of grid-scale storage technologies which require no rare-earth metals at all.
Aah, thanks! I couldn't read the book, since someone borrowed it from the library, but I found this interview and I read through a bunch of reviews on the book. The crux seems to be that the free...
Aah, thanks! I couldn't read the book, since someone borrowed it from the library, but I found this interview and I read through a bunch of reviews on the book. The crux seems to be that the free market can't be relied upon to fix climate change, which seems fair.
Overall, I agree that pro-renewable energy public policies are necessary for digging us out of the hole that pro-oil and gas policies dug us into. That feels self-evident, but it definitely bears underlining (plus Brett wrote a whole book about it, so it clearly needs to be said 😅). But I disagree with the notion that solar panel capital cost reductions are irrelevant for all investors: they're extremely important for community solar initiatives, for example, since the investors are small groups of humans and not the literal oil and gas sector taking a dip in the greenwash.
I haven't had a close look at the article. Bit I find the title contrasting in an interesting way with the one of this one posted earlier this week https://tildes.net/~enviro/1inm/solar_will_get_too_cheap_to_connect_to_the_power_grid
I posted this article after reading the one you linked. Both are related. It describes some ways the costs other than the cost of the panels themselves can be reduced. And if you don't have to connect to the grid - it is even cheaper.
This part took me aback a little. I think it's a combination of the naked greed and the admonition to both produce and consume more energy - this is an article strongly promoting renewable energy and clearly trying to reckon with climate change, yet somehow the moral viewpoint is totally opposite my own in this topic. To me the obvious, sustainable solution to climate change is to find ways to produce less and consume less resources and do more with less. At least, it's the viewpoint that seems to always follow with green policy. Here though you have an explicit assertion that not only is more consumption and more money necessary, its deficit is a catastrophe. The author says "we should be much richer", but why? What is the justification? The US is not poor. Why can the US not continue on its current energy consumption with its current world-leading wealth, and work on substituting that energy for sustainable and renewable sources while ensuring that wealth is distributed fairly? Why can't we all?
I don't know, I was just a surprised to read such an maximalist position in an article about green policy, it was very dissonant.
It's such a wild statement too, because one of the major reason's we're not consuming that much more energy is because of the massive efforts that have been made to make things more efficient. In the last 50 years, cars, homes, electronics, appliances, lights, etc have all become way more energy efficient. In some extremes like LED lighting, those gains have been close to 10-20x more efficient, though obviously those numbers aren't matched everywhere. Efficiency gains have allowed developed nations to stretch their strained energy grids way further than they would have been able to go previously.
Article cuts off abruptly at the end:
It's batteries isnt it? Anyone got access to the rest? Yesterday's link to Ben James also has an excellent primer on batteries https://climate.benjames.io/batteries/
Solar panels are getting cheaper than ever, but the true cost of solar for most people who aren't up for a big DIY project is the install costs. Qualified installers are ridiculously expensive, and labor costs aren't going down anytime soon. I think if more people get comfortable doing smaller, scalable DIY solar projects it would make residential solar much easier to access for the masses.
This is what I’m experiencing right now. I’ve been wanting solar and the prices are interesting enough to me to do it now. But installers around me are still asking ridiculous prices. They are marking up materials and refusing to specify cost. I’m now pretty sure I’m DIYing this in a couple of weeks time. That will save me a ton of money.
Comment box
Technically all construction costs are direct or indirect labor costs. The cost of any object is really the amount you're paying to the person creating, acquiring, or manipulating it on your behalf. The cost of the panels is the cost of the labor to extract, refine, and reassemble the resources (according to some methodology) to build the panels. The physical panels have gotten cheaper over time because newer methodologies rely on labor that is less expensive in some way, at some step in the supply/manufacturing chain.
This would normally be a nitpick (and that's not what I care about), but I think it's worth pointing out in this case because the idea that labor costs are an immutable "floor" for the price of solar is probably not quite accurate. Labor costs will stay steady or rise for a given methodology, but if the methodology changes, the necessary labor costs might too.
The article is mostly talking about major, non-residential installations. The author provides some evidence to indicate that the cost of labor and installation materials will go down... by using simpler designs that require less labor:
That's a reduction in labor costs, even though the author refers to some physical materials. The materials only cost money because of the labor.
As far as residential installations go, I agree with you in all practical senses. If people can get comfortable with DIY (partial or full), the whole process gets way cheaper.
And I think the idea of the article still applies. If someone invents a technique to set up residential panels extremely inexpensively, or a cheap robot to do it without human labor, the amount of labor being contracted could go down. That could end up being a professional service, or something simple enough for way more people to feel comfortable with DIY.
Installing on a roof will always be a little more complex than installing in a field, but I don't see a fundamental reason that roof designs can't, in some way, be at least partially simplified or automated.
It ultimately might not be that important to the green transition for individuals to have their own panels if enough grid-scale solar and storage is built. But it can't hurt.
Also the cost of roof replacement and maintenance. You have to remove the panels to have work done on your roof, so it only really makes sense to me to get them installed with a new roof.
I think this is a roof material dependant issue. When you've got a slate or tile roof that lasts 50+ years with minimal maintenance the lifespan of the solar cells and equipment is the limiting factor.
Apparently the cost of solar isn't so relevant. Because of the insane volatility of the electricity price, nobody wants to invest in it unless the state heavily sponsors it (companies don't care that much about costs, they care about return on investment). So in the end what gets built is mostly a matter of public policies.
Sorry, but may I ask if you have a citation for the claim that energy companies only build out solar power plants when government subsidies are available? For example, Texas has been building out utility-scale solar even when incentives are given to both solar and fossil fuel plants (example).
As a side note, fossil fuel plants also see enormous state subsidies, so the implication that solar power generation is inherently an inferior product (ie “insanely volatile prices”) and requires subsidization whereas other solutions don’t seems inaccurate.
(I’m not an expert in any of this, for context, I just did a few some googling. Kinda curious where your sentiment came from though in case you know of a comprehensive economic analysis of different power generation schemes)
A good French youtuber made a long video about the subject, but it's mostly based on the book "The price is wrong: why capitalism won’t save the planet” by Brett Christopher. He gives a few examples of the impact of subsidies, e.g. this one for Spain (subsidies stopped in 2013 and started again in 2018) :
https://youtu.be/B8fQyuB0ytE?t=3304
That said this probably varies from country do country, depending on the particular policies that are used.
This one is volatility of electricity (yellow) vs oil (also shows bitcoin) :
https://youtu.be/B8fQyuB0ytE?t=2825
One factor that disfavor solar vs fossil fuel is that fossil fuel has access to capacity markets (you can sell the fact that you can provide electricity on a reliable basis) while solar can't (because you depend on conditions). But in general the conclusion is that the electricity markets is a huge clusterfuck (caused by neo-liberal ideology) and we should go back to public ownership of electricity production & distribution.
All of those assumptions about renewables eventually go out the window once grid-scale storage is in a better spot. There are thousands of companies working furiously to develop economical grid-scale storage options and there are a lot of promising trials which are already underway. I'm not just talking about battery storage either; there are plenty of grid-scale storage technologies which require no rare-earth metals at all.
Aah, thanks! I couldn't read the book, since someone borrowed it from the library, but I found this interview and I read through a bunch of reviews on the book. The crux seems to be that the free market can't be relied upon to fix climate change, which seems fair.
Overall, I agree that pro-renewable energy public policies are necessary for digging us out of the hole that pro-oil and gas policies dug us into. That feels self-evident, but it definitely bears underlining (plus Brett wrote a whole book about it, so it clearly needs to be said 😅). But I disagree with the notion that solar panel capital cost reductions are irrelevant for all investors: they're extremely important for community solar initiatives, for example, since the investors are small groups of humans and not the literal oil and gas sector taking a dip in the greenwash.