Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Fri 26 Aug 2016, 00:10:54

misterno wrote:Which one is worse?

People with cancer due to fossil fuels exploding in numbers or paying more for electricity?


Its true, misterno. The medical complex is now on the cusp of outspending the iraq and afghanistan wars and the entire military combined.

Its economic suicide.

But think of the clean synfuels from solar, misterno. And with mass automation, extremely small quantities of synfuels will be required. Think of the highly sophisticated computerized transportation system REQUIRING NO PEOPLE, misterno.

Its astounding.

Its destroying the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as we speak.
EV's are fuel-less automobiles and Thorium Reactors are fuel-less reactors. Perfect.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Fri 23 Sep 2016, 12:24:33

Chemists find key to manufacturing more efficient solar cells

In a discovery that could have profound implications for future energy policy, Columbia scientists have demonstrated it is possible to manufacture solar cells that are far more efficient than existing silicon energy cells by using a new kind of material, a development that could help reduce fossil fuel consumption.

The team, led by Xiaoyang Zhu, a professor of Chemistry at Columbia University, focused its efforts on a new class of solar cell ingredients known as Hybrid Organic Inorganic Perovskites (HOIPs). Their results, reported in the prestigious journal Science, also explain why these new materials are so much more efficient than traditional solar cells—solving a mystery that will likely prompt scientists and engineers to begin inventing new solar materials with similar properties in the years ahead.

... Over the last seven years, scientists have managed to increase the efficiency with which HOIPs can convert solar energy into electricity, to 22 percent from 4 percent. By contrast, it took researchers more than six decades to create silicon cells and bring them to their current level, and even now silicon cells can convert no more than about 25 percent of the sun's energy into electrical current.

This discovery, Zhu said, meant that "scientists have only just begun to tap the potential of HOIPs to convert the sun's energy into electricity."

Theorists long ago demonstrated that the maximum efficiency silicon solar cells might ever reach— the percentage of energy in sunlight that might be converted to electricity we can use—is roughly 33 percent.

... But those calculations assume a specific rate of energy loss. The Columbia team discovered that the rate of energy loss is slowed down by over three-orders of magnitude in HOIPs – making it possible for the harvesting of excess electronic energy to increase the efficiency of solar cells.

"We're talking about potentially doubling the efficiency of solar cells," says Prakriti P. Joshi, a Ph.D. student in Zhu's lab who is a coauthor on the paper. "That's really exciting because it opens up a big, big field in engineering." Adds Zhu, "This shows we can push the efficiencies of solar cells much higher than many people thought possible."

H. Zhu et al. Screening in crystalline liquids protects energetic carriers in hybrid perovskites, Science (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf9570


Invention merges solar with liquid battery

In a report now online in Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Song Jin, graduate student Wenjie Li, and colleagues at the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia have demonstrated a single device that converts light energy into chemical energy by directly charging the liquid electrolyte.

Discharging the battery to power the electric grid at night could hardly be simpler, Jin says. "We just connect a load to a different set of electrodes, pass the charged electrolyte through the device, and the electricity flows out."

Solar charging and electrical discharging, he notes, can be repeated for many cycles with little efficiency loss.

Unlike lithium-ion batteries, which store energy in solid electrodes, the RFB stores chemical energy in liquid electrolyte. "The RFB is relatively cheap and you can build a device with as much storage as you need, which is why it is the most promising approach for grid-level electricity storage," says Jin, who also works on several other aspects of solar energy conversion.

In the new device, standard silicon solar cells are mounted on the reaction chamber and energy converted by the cell immediately charges the water-based electrolyte, which is pumped out to a storage tank.

Redox flow batteries already on the market have been attached to solar cells, "but now we have one device that harvests sunlight to liberate electrical charges and directly changes the oxidation-reduction state of the electrolyte on the surface of the cells," says Li, the first author of the new study. "We are using a single device to convert solar energy and charge a battery. It's essentially a solar battery, and we can size the RFB storage tank to store all the energy generated by the solar cells."

The unified design suggests multiple advantages, Jin says. "The solar cells directly charge the electrolyte, and so we're doing two things at once, which makes for simplicity, cost reduction and potentially higher efficiency."

Integrated Photoelectrochemical Solar Energy Conversion and Organic Redox Flow Battery Devices
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby from Kazakhstan » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 01:39:43

Do you know about the Almaty EXPO 2017?.. The International Specialized Exhibition EXPO 2017 with the theme “Future Energy” that will take place next year in Astana is one of the most important projects under the national program for the development of green energy. 103 countries and 17 international organizations have confirmed their participation in the exhibition! The International Specialized Exhibition Astana EXPO 2017 dedicated to Future Energy is an expositional and recreational event that will take place between 10 June and 10 September 2017 in Astana.

Kazakhstan gives a strong impetus to the development of green energy around the world. Kazakhstan will be gradually integrating renewable energy sources into the national energy mix until 2020. From 2020 through 2030, the country will be following a more active approach. To achieve this, we have created a regulatory framework, clear indicators that will help us monitor the development of the state planning system and technical instruments to gauge the potential.

The Republic already has 48 operating renewable energy facilities with a total capacity of 252.37 MW (hydroelectric power plants – 122.99 MW; wind power plants – 71.87 MW; solar power plants – 57.16 MW; biogas units – 0.35 MW) generating 0.94% of the electric energy produced in Kazakhstan. By 2020, the Republic’s authorities intend to commission 23 solar power plants, about 20 wind power plants, over 10 hydroelectric power plants and a number of mini hydroelectric power plants.
from Kazakhstan
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue 27 Sep 2016, 01:26:08

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby misterno » Mon 03 Oct 2016, 14:00:04

It is getting cheaper by the day

So when are we gonna hit zero, that is what i am wondering

JinkoSolar Holding Co. of China and Japan’s Marubeni Corp. made a joint bid to build the cheapest solar power plant on record in Abu Dhabi, reflecting both declining costs for photovoltaic cells and cheaper financing for clean-energy projects.

The project would supply electricity from the solar farm for 2.42 cents a kilowatt-hour, according to an official from the Middle East Solar Energy Industry Association. The official from the regional trade group asked not to be named citing the organization’s policy.

The bid marks another record for solar technology, which has fallen almost 70 percent in the past five years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Competition among Chinese solar manufacturers including Jinko has brought down the cost of delivering panels while more investors have become comfortable with backing the technology, reducing borrowing costs.
User avatar
misterno
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Wed 07 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere super boring

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 09 Oct 2016, 20:51:55

Repop
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 10 Oct 2016, 14:09:09

misterno wrote:It is getting cheaper by the day

So when are we gonna hit zero, that is what i am wondering

There's a big disconnect here that I don't get.

I realize that a solar powerplant isn't a solar roof, and that there are installation costs, but shouldn't such costs be strongly correlated?

I recently read how, for example, Solar City was pulling out of Nevada, because they greatly lowered the net-metering allowance for homeowners with solar roof systems. Apparently, this made solar roofs, basically economically nonviable (on a competitve basis) in Nevada.

So again, I don't get it.

Let's say they didn't even allow net metering at all -- the mean old utility gets the power you don't need for FREE.

But if all this solar stuff is so efficient and cheap and great, then why can't it, on its own, in a sunny state like Nevada, provide a reasonable payback period like, say, 20 years, and be economically viable, on its own?

...

Somehow the story of practically free solar doesn't seem to hold up. Because if it truly was practically free, then there would be tremendous demand to be putting it on a huge proportion of roofs, and get all that dirt cheap and clean energy, wouldn't there?

Please -- someone, feel free to point out (noting I mentioned I know about installation costs) what I'm missing here, even if it makes me look stupid. I'm trying to separate green hyperbole from true price practicality here, for aspiring owners of home solar roofs -- especially in places where they're nearly as rare as hens' teeth, like central KY.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 10 Oct 2016, 17:03:22

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
misterno wrote:It is getting cheaper by the day

So when are we gonna hit zero, that is what i am wondering

There's a big disconnect here that I don't get.

I realize that a solar powerplant isn't a solar roof, and that there are installation costs, but shouldn't such costs be strongly correlated?

I recently read how, for example, Solar City was pulling out of Nevada, because they greatly lowered the net-metering allowance for homeowners with solar roof systems. Apparently, this made solar roofs, basically economically nonviable (on a competitve basis) in Nevada.

So again, I don't get it.

Let's say they didn't even allow net metering at all -- the mean old utility gets the power you don't need for FREE.

But if all this solar stuff is so efficient and cheap and great, then why can't it, on its own, in a sunny state like Nevada, provide a reasonable payback period like, say, 20 years, and be economically viable, on its own?

...

Somehow the story of practically free solar doesn't seem to hold up. Because if it truly was practically free, then there would be tremendous demand to be putting it on a huge proportion of roofs, and get all that dirt cheap and clean energy, wouldn't there?

Please -- someone, feel free to point out (noting I mentioned I know about installation costs) what I'm missing here, even if it makes me look stupid. I'm trying to separate green hyperbole from true price practicality here, for aspiring owners of home solar roofs -- especially in places where they're nearly as rare as hens' teeth, like central KY.


I don't think you missed anything. I have been hearing the wonders of solar electric panels my entire adult life, every year they are cheaper and more efficient and so on and so forth. However when I do the price calculation here in Ohio they turn out to have a 20-25 year payback time on your up front investment and with the same kind of money you can add insulation, get replacement super triple pane low e windows and a new furnace. Around here electricity prices are pretty stable, but heating with natural gas is a hope and pray situation. Back a couple years ago when we had all those arctic air masses moving in the natural gas storage ran low and prices went up to encourage conservation.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3837
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Mon 10 Oct 2016, 17:44:14

O_S asks; "But if all this solar stuff is so efficient and cheap and great, then why can't it, on its own, in a sunny state like Nevada, provide a reasonable payback period like, say, 20 years, and be economically viable, on its own? "

Because, besides being hyperbolic, you're comparing apples and oranges. A deeply-entrenched utility that has been able to dodge the costs of dumping it's wastes into my atmosphere for decades, has the support of an energy infrastructure/economy that goes well beyond its area of service, and has a huge captive customer base, is not the same as the home or business owner who gets few of those subsidies-at-scale and is essentially a stand-alone producer. It's a bit like me standing on the corner holding a campaign sign while super-packs can spend millions on their propaganda being piped into every home.

For once, maybe you could account for ALL of the costs of your gridweenie existence and recalculate.

Me? Being an energy slave of a hyper-complex interconnection of filthy corporate and government hodgepodge bureaucracies is the same as being a debt slave. There's clearly value there you don't grok. Day after day, year after year, you pay to pollute your own air and water. Sorry if I can't understand that when you now have other choices.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 10 Oct 2016, 19:04:05

Outcast_Searcher, you are talking about several different things there. Let me break it down into 4 questions:

1. Why are solar PV system costs high if solar PV panel prices are low? Is this some kind of BS green hype?

2. Can homeowners generate Solar PV electricity more cheaply than the grid?

3. Will homeowners see a return on their investment?

4. What is cheaper, Solar PV or fossil fuel generation?

Let's look at the first one. In the past the lion's share of the cost for solar was the cost for the Solar PV panels. This is no longer the case. Solar PV panels have fallen in price so fast that they now represent only about a quarter of the cost of the entire system. If you did not know this it is no wonder you were confused when reading that solar PV panel prices are dirt cheap but solar PV system costs are much higher. Costs vary by country. The US is behind the curve compared to other countries like in the EU in bringing down "soft costs". I forget the exact figure but I think I read somewhere that "soft costs" like permitting, connection fees, taxes, financing, etc are roughly double in the US compared to the EU. Here's a rough breakdown of US costs:

Other (Operational costs like monitoring, permits, connection fees, etc.): 45 percent
Solar Panels: 25 percent
Inverter: 10 percent
Installation: 10 percent
BOS (Balance of System: mounts, wiring, electrical components): 10 percent

A solar installation on your roof or in your yard costs more than just the solar panels. In addition to the modules themselves, other hardware components, labor and permits have to be considered. Inverters, racking, sales taxes and permitting fees are just a few of the costs that really boost the cost of going solar.
How Much Do Solar Panels Cost?

So you see even if panel costs fell to zero that is only a 25% reduction in price for the total system cost. Not to mention if we went 100% Solar PV we would still need large amounts of dispatchable power for the times the sun is not shinning.

For the second point asking if homeowners can generate electricity more cheaply than the grid, in general I would say no. The utility gets economies of scale advantages that the homeowner does not. This applies to any form of power generation not just solar. It is much cheaper and more efficient for a utility to build one coal plant than for thousands of households to purchase, install, and run their own coal boilers. Of course this does not mean that homeowners who install rooftop solar are making a mistake. There are legitimate reasons why homeowners might want to do this other than electricity generation costs. Greener generation, power security against grid disruptions, financial security in not having to pay an electric bill anymore, etc. I paid off my mortgage earlier against the advice of my financial adviser simply because I wanted the peace of mind of not having a mortgage hanging over my head.

For the third point: will homeowners see a return on their investment? Here we get to part of the problem in the whole Nevada debacle. When the subsidy was in place, homeowners saw a healthy return on their investment. With the subsidy retroactively cut, they did not. Fortunately existing customers eventually got a grandfather exception. However the return on investment suddenly looked alot worse after the subsidy was cut for new installations. The same problems applies to other states. States with generous subsidies will see residents making good returns on their investments. As long as those subsidies are in place. As we have seen in Europe and Nevada however, this is far from guaranteed. I recommend you check the incentives for your state and plug in the numbers into a solar savings calculator to run the numbers for your particular case. There are several calculators like this available on the web.

The other big part of the Nevada debacle was the argument that Solar PV was not paying it's fair share for dispatchable power & distribution costs. The grid must constantly fine tune supply to match demand. But Solar PV does not cooperate in this regard. It just dumps supply on the grid whenever the sun is shinning. Which may or may not align with actual demand. Thus the grid must compensate for this by adding more dispatchable power capacity, which costs money. Not to mention costs to pay for maintaining existing or building new power lines.

Final point: What is cheaper fossil fuel or Solar PV generation? Short answer: fossil fuels. The EIA calculated the levelized costs for new power plants entering service in 2022. Natural gas came in at $56 per MWh. Solar PV came in at $74 per MWh. Further the EIA cautions that you should not even be comparing these two generation types directly because natural gas is dispatchable while solar PV is not. If you added in the cost of a dispatchable power system for solar PV(batteries, pumped hydro, CAES, etc) Solar PV would be even more expensive. Of course you could argue that fossil fuels would be much higher as well if they paid their fair share of environmental damage.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby Tikib » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 08:01:36

Solar cells are cheaper than they have ever been, its getting the other costs of solar down that is the problem, increasing efficiency significantly would do that but cheap and efficient cells are hard to design.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby Tikib » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 09:37:04

Something like this http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/07/di ... cy-of.html would do it though.
Tikib
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon 08 Dec 2014, 02:13:28

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 09:38:20

Tikib wrote:Solar cells are cheaper than they have ever been, its getting the other costs of solar down that is the problem, increasing efficiency significantly would do that but cheap and efficient cells are hard to design.


The major problem with all intermittent sources remains the same, storage! You could give me a full roof coverage of solar cells for free, but unless I could store the peak energy for use on stormy days, at night, in the winter I would still need a power line from a large utility to cover those periods.

On the other side of the coin if you give me a whole house battery with the capacity to power my home independently for say 72 hours without input I would charge it up during low rate night time hours and use it to supplement needs during peak prices at say Noon on June 21st.

We don't actually have an electricity generation problem, we have an electricity storage problem. So far none of the storage methods we have come up with are both cheap and efficient. If you really want solar PV to be a solution you have to tackle storage.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13506
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 10:23:12

Tanada wrote:
Tikib wrote:Solar cells are cheaper than they have ever been, its getting the other costs of solar down that is the problem, increasing efficiency significantly would do that but cheap and efficient cells are hard to design.


The major problem with all intermittent sources remains the same, storage! You could give me a full roof coverage of solar cells for free, but unless I could store the peak energy for use on stormy days, at night, in the winter I would still need a power line from a large utility to cover those periods.

On the other side of the coin if you give me a whole house battery with the capacity to power my home independently for say 72 hours without input I would charge it up during low rate night time hours and use it to supplement needs during peak prices at say Noon on June 21st.

We don't actually have an electricity generation problem, we have an electricity storage problem. So far none of the storage methods we have come up with are both cheap and efficient. If you really want solar PV to be a solution you have to tackle storage.


I've been off-grid over 18 years now and haven't had a storage problem. It's clear that most of you have an unsupported bias against current battery technology. I've posted many times that our necessary investment in batteries has been much less than in other aspects of our lives, especially transportation. My investment in my pickup truck (needed for the farm) has been roughly 5 times what we've invested in our batteries over about the same period. Maintenance costs have been higher on the truck (not including insurance and taxes), and we use the truck much less. Our current batteries have performed flawlessly, 24/7/365, for over 9 years now. Total cost? Under $6000. Total cost for truck over 10 years? Well over $30,000.

Do we have to be careful about managing the batteries during cloudy spells? Yes, we do, but that has easily become habitual, as has our water usage during this drought, and our money usage during times of economic stress. Then, again, not having an ongoing utility overhead was a wonderful thing during the great recession when both of us lost our primary jobs, and when many folks were struggling to keep the lights and heat on.

It's not battery technology that is the problem. It's peoples' expectations.

Image

Still going strong. Space requirements? 40 inches wide, 24 inches deep, 30 inches height. 52 kWh storage. Cabinet is vented with a 3 inch PVC pipe, just as many furnaces or water heaters are. Automatic watering only requires the addition of 3 gallons of distilled water every 3-4 months.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby Surf » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 02:15:16

misterno wrote:
It is getting cheaper by the day

So when are we gonna hit zero, that is what i am wondering

There's a big disconnect here that I don't get.

I realize that a solar powerplant isn't a solar roof, and that there are installation costs, but shouldn't such costs be strongly correlated?

I recently read how, for example, Solar City was pulling out of Nevada, because they greatly lowered the net-metering allowance for homeowners with solar roof systems. Apparently, this made solar roofs, basically economically nonviable (on a competitve basis) in Nevada.

So again, I don't get it.


The disconnect is that you only heard half the story. The law change did two things
1. It eliminated the money the utilities were pay homeowners for the excess power they were generating.

2. They add a substantial connection fee that only applies to homes with solar installed.

Before the law change the home owner would buy a lot less power from the utility and they would get money for the excess electricity. With the law change they now get no money from the utility and now pay more money for the little bit of electricity they use. The end result is that solar owner now pay on average slightly more for electricity then they did before they installed solar on there roof. And the utility still wants even more money than the PUC gave them.

The utilities claims solar increases their costs due to grid changes needed and changes they have to make on the power plant side of there business. However numerous studies have shown that the cost increase is very small and in other areas of utility operations (which the utilizes don't talk about) actually reduces the utilities cost. Overall it slightly reduces operating costs for the utility.
Surf
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat 13 Jul 2013, 13:13:49

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 25 Oct 2016, 22:50:18

"The utilities claims solar increases their costs due to grid changes needed...". Not sure if that was a point brought up when Texas wind energy projects were proposed. But it would not have mattered because the state spent $7 BILLION to update our grid to accommodate wind power expansion. And now it looks like Texas may be on the verge of a solar boom. Which would be a nice synergistic angle between our very hot and sunny summers and the huge AC demand during those months. From:

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/25/texas-o ... orn-state/


"Could Texas, a state synonymous with Big Oil, wind up leading a renewable-energy revolution? If the Texans interviewed by Voice of America in an article published Tuesday are to be believed, the answer could be yes, particularly when it comes to wind and solar power.
“A lot of wind companies have evolved to include solar and wind because solar has become so cheap. This point of view was echoed by Jennifer Ronk, a renewable energy expert at the Houston Advanced Research Center. “There is a lot of research being done, a lot of development being done,” she argued. “I think it is going to be interesting to see what happens in the next three to five years.

Believe it or not, the notion that Texas might become a hub for renewable energy innovation isn’t that new. Texas...has more than 10,000 wind turbines, allowing it to produce more power from wind than the combined power produced by 25 other states from all energy sources. Similarly...Texas expects more than 10,000 megawatts of solar-generating capacity to be installed across the state by 2029, which is almost the size of all the operational solar farms in the United States today.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 21:04:56

Well, for some time folks asked why Texas didn('t go solar like it did wind. I haven't beern paying attention but we are in the process of going serious solar. Apparently it was just economics: as solar keeps getting less expensive the process is starting. From

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/25/texas-o ... orn-state/

"Could Texas, a state synonymous with Big Oil, wind up leading a renewable-energy revolution? If the Texans interviewed by Voice of America in an article published Tuesday are to be believed, the answer could be yes, particularly when it comes to wind and solar power.

“A lot of wind companies have evolved to include solar and wind because solar has become so cheap. It is quite competitive with not only wind, but with fossil [fuel] generation,” said Andy Bowman, chairman of Pioneer Green Energy. This point of view was echoed by Jennifer Ronk, a renewable energy expert at the Houston Advanced Research Center. “There is a lot of research being done, a lot of development being done,” she argued. “I think it is going to be interesting to see what happens in the next three to five years."

Believe it or not, the notion that Texas might become a hub for renewable energy innovation isn’t that new. As Forbes noted earlier this month, Texas — which produces 37 percent of America’s crude oil and 28 percent of its natural gas — has more than 10,000 wind turbines, allowing it to produce more power from wind than the combined power produced by 25 other states from all energy sources. Similarly, The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Texas expects more than 10,000 megawatts of solar-generating capacity to be installed across the state by 2029, which is almost the size of all the operational solar farms in the United States today."

And not just commercial scale solar expansion:

"For years, Texas consumers have been buying electricity through renewable energy plans. Now TXU Energy, the state’s largest electricity retailer, has added a twist: 100 percent solar power. For those who want to support solar, it’s an alternative to investing in a rooftop system, the company said in a recent release. But if you want solar panels, TXU has a program for that, too, which it launched in November with partner SunPower.

As a marketing campaign, this isn’t groundbreaking, given that consumers have so many choices already. But the push says much about the coming boom in Texas energy. “Solar is poised to take off in Texas,” said Peter Sopher, a policy analyst for the Environmental Defense Fund in Austin."

{Besides a lot of sun and cheaper panels Texas residential solar has a big advantage consumers in some states don't: we can put excess electricity back into the grid and get a full 1:1 credit. IOW if you put in enough capacity you won't need an expensive battery storage system. Essentially you "store" it in the grid for use when the sun don't shine.}

And no more fed tax breaks? The TXU Energy instant rebate provides between $2,000 and $5,000 off the purchase price of a new TXU Solar from SunPower rooftop system. “Our combined excess electricity purchase plan and instant rebate is a unique offer that provides tremendous value while still delivering the peace of mind of grid-power at competitive rates when that is needed,” TXU said.

So again, Texas the home of the US oil patch, who would have thought?
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby misterno » Fri 30 Dec 2016, 23:27:20

ROCKMAN wrote:
{Besides a lot of sun and cheaper panels Texas residential solar has a big advantage consumers in some states don't: we can put excess electricity back into the grid and get a full 1:1 credit.


okay I am not understanding

I live in TX and we do not have net metering in TX.

So what is this full 1:1 credit?

Can someone explain?
User avatar
misterno
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Wed 07 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere super boring

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 31 Dec 2016, 07:08:48

misterno wrote:
ROCKMAN wrote:
{Besides a lot of sun and cheaper panels Texas residential solar has a big advantage consumers in some states don't: we can put excess electricity back into the grid and get a full 1:1 credit.


okay I am not understanding

I live in TX and we do not have net metering in TX.

So what is this full 1:1 credit?

Can someone explain?

A 1:1 credit is where you get full retail price for KWHs you put into the grid and get paid for any extra you put in over what you take back out at full price. Say 0.20 per KWH. This is a bad deal for the electric company and has to be forced onto them by statute. The most they would want to do is credit you with the wholesale price for the electricity you give them Say 0.07/KWH and then charge you 0.20 for every KWH you take out so if you used 100KWH of their power in a month you would have to put in 286KWH to break even and then you would just get 0.07/KWH for any you put in above that. The compromise position is to have in and out at your meter be a wash at 1:1 with excess you sell them at 0.07 or maybe 0.10 and any shortage you buy from them at the usual 0.20/KWH.
Actual prices from your utility will vary with region and specific provider.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7177
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 31 Dec 2016, 08:58:30

vt - And another problem: my engineer was serious about putting solar on his new big and super insulated home. But he was on an electric coop which didn't have the credit program. He's extremely anal when it comes to economic analysis and w/o the credit opportunity it did meet his minimum requirement for a $35k investment.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9681
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Solar Cell Thread Pt. 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 31 Dec 2016, 09:19:10

ROCKMAN wrote:vt - And another problem: my engineer was serious about putting solar on his new big and super insulated home. But he was on an electric coop which didn't have the credit program. He's extremely anal when it comes to economic analysis and w/o the credit opportunity it did meet his minimum requirement for a $35k investment.

Ayup! My Co-op being already 100% renewable doesn't want or need anymore renewable energy unless it is cheaper then imported hydro. The math just doesn't add up. People are doing five acre sized installations in the area and selling it to the other bigger utilities that still have goals to meet but even those would be non starters without tax incentives and forced buys .
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7177
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests