[PeterEV]

The calculation above just says it can be done financially. We already spent the funds once. The build out, recharge times, and other issues then become developmental and infrastructure issues. It is happening slowly but the efforts are there.

For instance, on the develop scene, the Lawrence Burkeley National Lab has developed a Lithium Sulphur battery that has an energy density of 450 to 500 wh/kg. This means that if a Tesla Model S's pack were replaced with this battery, that Tesla could be driven from Raleigh NC to Boston, MA on one charge. A Leaf would have a range of over 220 miles; enough to drive from Raleigh NC to the ocean for a day of swimming and recharging. When around town, recharging could be done at home, place of work, or at a number of shops with recharging stations.

Hopefully, as our crude oil production dwindles, there is an uptake in the use of alternatives whether it be electric vehicles, bicycles, walking, mass transit. The questions we should be asking is: "In the face of adversity, what can we do to succeed?" The Marines would answer: Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome. I think we can do the same on the civilian side. Instead of kvetching about how something can't be done, we should be asking how it can be done. How do you hook up EVs in an apartment complex for recharging?

[kublikhan]

On the other end of the spectrum, the big drop in PV prices has been due to an oversupply of polysilicone (you see, in a real glut prices fall; as opposed to a PR glut, where they do not). Since much polysilicone is made in China, the government will help them weather the losses somewhat so the glut continues with PV selling at a loss (financed by selling cheap fracked-plastic chachkas to round-eyes).

Poly is about half the cost of PV, manufacturing being the other half and it (manuf cost) has already dropped significantly so I don't know how much more improvement to expect there. If there were a large uptick in demand, then of course the glut would disappear and a shortage would follow and so would the price rise in relation to demand.

A rebound in demand has already caused much of the polysilicon glut to disappear and polysilicon prices to rise. Yet despite this, module prices haven't moved much this year:

Solar panel prices have risen slightly for the first time in at least five years. Prices are now rising slowly, several manufacturers reported, as a result of a shakeout in the industry which has eliminated some over-capacity, bringing supply back in line with demand. Canadian Solar also reported “a slightly higher average selling price” in the first quarter of this year.

Despite the recent price increases, module markers seemed confident they could achieve lower prices in the medium and long-term through continuing cost savings and economies of scale. “We expect that the prices of PV products will continue to decline over time due to increased supply of PV products, reduced manufacturing costs from improving technology and economies of scale.”

However, the evidence from two manufacturers which publish regular quarterly cost data is that savings are slowing, suggesting that the industry will struggle to recover the recent pace of cost cutting and price competitiveness.

Why are solar panel prices starting to rise?

However, even polysilicon costs may soon start to fall again. These new higher prices have spurred a new wave a polysilicon production capacity. This new wave of capacity has lower costs than current polysilicon costs. Thus expect to see more polisilicon production coming online in the next few years with lower costs.

Driven mainly by expectations of strong end-market demand growth this year, polysilicon spot prices increased significantly in Q1’14, up 28% Y/Y.

Despite all the turmoil in the PV industry over the past couple of years (including the dramatic drop in polysilicon prices), NPD Solarbuzz is now forecasting that more than 260,000MT of new polysilicon capacity is likely to be added through 2018.

Most of the new polysilicon capacity is targeting very low costs. Leading polysilicon makers have suggested they could achieve cash costs at new plants between US$8-13/kg and production costs between US$9-15/kg. These targets are 15-20% lower than current best-of-class maker costs, and considerably lower than industry averages.

With substantial amounts of polysilicon in the pipeline driving costs below US$15/kg, profitability might be achieved at lower prices than was imagined just a few years ago. This should continue to help push down the costs of solar modules and systems.

Falling polysilicon production costs a double-edged sword

Meanwhile manufacturing costs continue their relentless march lower:

One of the most misunderstood aspects of the solar PV phenomenon over the past 5 years is the idea that it has been that it has been driven entirely by surplus capacity from China, and little else. Defenders of fossil fuel generation will tell you that the cost reductions are a mirage, and will solar module prices will likely rebound as the market comes into balance. They are in for a nasty shock.

Between 2007 and 2012 it is estimated that solar manufacturing costs fell by between 70 and 80 per cent. But the cost fall was not simply a matter of capacity, it was also about efficiency – more powerful modules, less silicon, less metals, improved manufacturing processes and so on. And the fall is continuing.

SunPower president and CEO Tom Werner says the cost falls are not over yet. He told analysts last week that its next line of manufacturing plant will likely reduce the cost per watt by a further 35 per cent over its current manufacturing lines.

Oasis has now been scaled up to a 1.5MW module block, which can be replicated on any site. It improves installation efficiency because it’s partially pre-fabricated, it’s pre-engineered, and the mounting structures are optimized so less steel used.

There are other cost reductions in the pipeline. SunPower recently purchased a small California-based robotics engineering company called Greenbotics. This will enable it to cut water usage for cleaning by around 90 per cent and lift its energy production at the same time. This will be key in hot (and dusty) markets. “We believe that SunPower’s ability to directly attack cost across the entire value chain represents an important source of long-term competitive advantage.”

Cost Of Solar PV Continues To Plummet

[ralfy]

Include the oil and other resources needed to manufacture vehicles, parts, batteries, components for infrastructure, and so forth, as well as any overseas shipping, mining, etc.

[Pops]

I hope that's right Kub, I've long wanted to have PV but just couldn't afford it.

Here is another story talking about increasing efficiency in manufacturing and the return to growth. It talks about the lag time from PS to modules.

In contrast, solar PV-grade polysilicon has less stringent purity requirements, but it has the potential for very high growth rates when solar panel demand is strong; however, the growth trajectory in polysilicon supply and end-market demand is not always directly correlated.

It may take three to six months after polysilicon is produced for it to be converted into wafers and cells, and then shipped as finished modules through distribution channels for installation. This lag time can push polysilicon demand higher than module demand, in a rapidly expanding market.

[Ulenspiegel]

@kublikhan

as long as the price of the PV module is only a relatively small percentage of the price of a complete PV installations, it is more useful to bring down the very high BOS costs in the USA, Si is rally a minor theatre of war.

[ROCKMAN]

Peter - In another lifetime I had that philosophy pounded into me: Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome. Unfortunately the "overcome" step necessitates being able to afford the adaptation to implement the improvising. As has been pointed out many times: nearly all the "solutions" are presented without a serious effort to explain the financial side of the effort. For instance it is often offered that if we take $X we spend on fossil fuels we can instead spend it on the alts. Unfortunately in the short term that isn't practical. Despite the advances in the alts the system is still very dependent on fossil fuels. In the long term a transition could be possible. But a great deal of capital will be required to maintain fossil fuel production as well as to build out the alts. And that's THE BIG HURDLE that needs to be addressed IMHO. Not so much how to design the alts but how to pay for them while the global economy continues to spend almost $3 TRILLION PER YEAR just for the oil it consumes. To that add the cost of NG and coal. Consider China which is making some of the biggest gains in alt energy compared to all other economies. But at the same time they have become THE coal consuming country on the planet. They are aiding the effort to afford expanding the alts by expanding their consumption of the cheapest and dirtiest energy source. And on a smaller scale consider Texas: we have as much wind power as the #2 and #3 states combined. But that alt gain didn't replace any of our coal-fired power plants. We are still THE major coal (actually even efficient lignite) consumer in the US by a huge margin. Our wind supplemented our fossil fuel energy production and replaced none of it.

No alt, regardless of how efficient and cheap, won't be implemented if the capex investors aren't there to fund it.

[kublikhan]

@Ulenspiegel
BOS costs are falling too, just not as fast as the cost of the panels. However with the cost decreases of the panels expected to start slowing, there is more pressure building to lower the BOS costs. BOS costs are expected to fall 15-30% by 2020.

Market research firm, Lux Research expects balance of system (BOS) component costs to fall gradually through the rest of the decade, according to a new report. Lux Research guided BOS costs for distributed generation applications are expected to decline between 15% and 30% by 2020 depending on geography.

“Balance-of-systems costs are in developers’ crosshairs as the pressure to reduce costs extends downstream. Incremental cost reductions from racking and mounting, coupled with innovative system electronics changes, will accelerate system cost reductions and help reduce LCOE” Not surprisingly, residential BOS costs have the greatest opportunity for falling, according to the report, which expects these to be driven by lower labour costs as markets mature and best practices become widespread.

Germany is regarded by many industry observers to have the lowest residential BOS costs, while the US is perceived to have some of the highest.

Lower-cost racking and mounting hardware are also expected to support installation cost reductions for both residential and commercial rooftop markets.

Lux Research also noted that overall electrical innovations provide the best opportunities for further component cost reductions, while in distributed generation, the high-voltage trend of up to 1,500 V, is expected to gain momentum, while utility-scale system developers will pursue automated installation technologies and high-voltage configurations.

However, not covered was the significant ‘soft costs’ associated with PV system installations, which NREL has recently studied that indicate soft costs comprise up to 64% of the total price of residential systems.

Lux Research expects BOS costs to fall 30% by 2020

[Graeme]

How will wind, solar impact on fossil fuel procurement?

Whether business-to-business or business-to-consumer, companies are recognizing the value of green power investment. Enterprises like conducting transactions with counterparts that exercise best practices because it benefits their reputation.

Computer technology firms realize that it takes an enormous amount of energy to power their data centers. Those offering cloud services are subject to enormous utility bills, fueling their hubs with electricity produced by coal- and oil-fired power plants. GreenBiz noted that several software and hardware developers are mitigating this concern by investing in renewable resources:

Microsoft announced that it intends to fuel one of its data centers by procuring the entire productivity of the 55-turbine, 110 megawatt Keechi Wind Project center in Texas.

Facebook will power a new data center that's set to open in Altoona, Iowa, with a nearby wind farm, which possesses an output of 138 MW for the state.

Google is also making gains in Iowa, purchasing a 407 MW wind energy center to fuel its data center in the city of Council Bluffs.

Distribution of energy

Leveraging procurement services to obtain wind and solar technology is becoming a more prevalent practice. However, sourcing specialists are wondering how renewable power will impact the global distribution of power. Some professionals have been bold enough to assert that green implementations will render fossil fuels obsolete over the next couple of years.

Renew Economy spoke with Stanford University professor Tony Seba, who wrote 'Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation." In his book, the expert asserts that Silicon Valley and the tech industry in general will be a catalyst for change.

"Clean energy (solar and wind) is free," wrote Seba, as quoted by the source."The key to the disruption of energy lies in the exponential cost and performance improvement of technologies that convert, manage, store, and share clean energy. The clean disruption is also about software and business model innovation."

Today, energy infrastructure is based on command-and-control models, subscribing to centralized operations. Seba maintained that future deployments will be distributed, intelligent and participatory.

No need for fossil fuel, nuclear

One of the key benefits of using wind and solar energy is that companies recognize that it's free. Setting up a complex, vast procurement process centered on obtaining natural gas, oil, nuclear assets and other similar resources will likely become outdated and unnecessary.

strategicsourceror

[PeterEV]

Pops: If I were on the Titanic, would I sign up for my own life boat building course????

Hello Rockman,

I understand the need for fossil fuels in developing the alts. But I also understand the alts current limitations (e.g., solar in winter, range in a battery pack, life cycles, etc.) I'm also trying to figure out where we are going (Madmax, horse & buggy, bicycles & localization w/limited car usage, solar/renewable utopia, etc.). I think of "straw man" scenarios based on comments here and elsewhere to find the "truths", "half-truths", "lies" and the motives driving them. Maybe this is a fool's errand as John Michael Greer in his latest blog discussed: what Jew in Germany in 1943 could have foreseen the consequences of an anarchist shooting an archduke in the summer of 1914 would have on them? Still we plan for what we think we can foresee.

Natural gas is used to make concrete for roads and solar panels. The "dregs" of a barrel of oil are processed for asphalt for paving. The Romans used slaves to construct the Roman roads and paved them with stone. Pictures of the later say that modern cars on ancient Roman roads would keep the shock absorber people in business for a long time. This leads to the question of "What could be used to build roads without fossil fuels?" There is a gal who asked the question of how clams make shells at room temperature?. This has led her to developing a process for making bricks at room temperature using bacteria. http://www.biomason.com/ Could these bricks eventually become strong and durable enough to be pavers to forego the need for concrete?

With the majors cutting back on CAPEX spending, is this a temporary situation awaiting the go ahead to drill in the Arctic or is it more permanent because there are fewer opportunities even in the Arctic? I do not have a good feel for that. The only thing I know is that we live on a planet with an abundance of elements and compounds that are increasingly more difficult and expensive to obtain.

I put a PV array on my roof along with a solar hot water system. In summer, I am a slight energy exporter. In March and October, I produce about 50% of my usage. In winter, I am at 27%. I could have taken this "CAPEX" money of mine and invested it in the Bakken, one of the majors, or one of the support companies. I might have made some good money in the short run and maybe longer. I also read your piece on Peak Oil Barrel about the Chinese buying into refineries and the effect it may have on us securing supply. Chilling.

I have always been curious and had an itch to see what I could do with solar in a mild but temperate climate. Thus the above effort. My next goal is to try to use solar thermal to raise the winter time solar contribution to where it might get chilly inside our home in January but we could cope. The glass will be produced using natural gas. The steel frame will be produced in part from coke. The wood will be hauled in from somewhere far and the concrete will be produced locally. All based on fossil fuels. In all, the cost of this will eventually be in the $50K-60K region.

Meanwhile, scientists at the Lawrence Burkeley National Labs have been working with Lithuium Sulphur to produce a better battery with 3x as much energy/kg as currently used in EVs. Solar City bought a company with a way of increasing the net efficiency of solar cells from 15% to maybe 24% while making the cells cheaper per watt. I see us working to make progress on the backs of fossil fuels. I guess I keep leaning toward the scenario that the alts will have a growing significance.

I think most of us recognize the danger and the limitations. Some will ask: Are we on the Titanic? If yes, do we need to build more life boats? Some will wait for the Carpathia.
Out west, we may get back to having cattle drives to the rail heads. Life will go on. I think I would rather be part of the solution than part of the problem.

Does this seem like a reason endeavor?