
US solar plant costs fall another 30 per cent in one year - doener
http://reneweconomy.com.au/us-solar-plant-costs-fall-another-30-per-cent-just-one-year-49419/
======
ggm
The non-decline in the associated costs for individual installs has to be
thought about. If this is a true reflection of unavoidable costs, home
installs are unlikely to break a cost barrier, and won't make substantive
differences in centralized generation. If on the other hand they are mutable
costs, and can be brought down, then microgrids and local power has more
chance of becoming something of substance.

The bigger "win" in this is the transmission loss. Consumption close to
generation has lower transmission loss so it's innately higher efficiency in
that one regard.

PHES and Battery technology probably matter more now than PV as a the cost
problem in generation: we need time shifting for solar power to replace other
forms of generation, to get to serving demand outside of the sun.

~~~
sounds
Inflation-adjusted residential costs according to nrel.gov are shown in the
chart on page vi of
[https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf)

The raw costs, not adjusted for inflation:

Q1 2014: $4.52/W total for $1.03/W modules [0]

Q1 2015: $3.09/Wdc total for $0.70/Wdc modules [1]

Q1 2016: $2.93/Wdc total for $0.63/Wdc modules [2]

Q1 2017: $2.80/Wdc total for $0.35/Wdc modules [3]

Conclusion: Even if the modules cost $0.0000001, the total price could not
fall much more unless the rest of the business model gets updated. Probably
some solar installer companies will drop out of the market, and the survivors
will adapt to lower profits.

[0] Page 12,
[https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60401.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60401.pdf)

[1] 5.2kW system. See page 7,
[https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf)

[2] 5.6kW system. See page 16,
[https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66532.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66532.pdf)

[3] 5.7kW system. See page 21,
[https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf)

~~~
D_Alex
Based on the Australian experience, the next wave of price declines for
residential solar will indeed come from balance-of-system cost declines,
increased installation efficiency and lower profits.

Current costs in Australia are about A$ 1.70 /pk-W (~US$1.35), pre-subsidies,
split roughly into 35% modules, 10% inverter, 10% mounting system, 10% other
hardware (cabling, switchboard etc), 10% installation and 25% "vendor's
margin", including marketing, sales and profits.

The household has also to pay for a bi-directional meter to allow for energy
sales. IIRC that was around A$350.

It's a mystery why the US costs are so high - maybe not enough competition?

~~~
wallace_f
Based on that, shouldn't it be possible to get close to a 35% price decline,
as long as the government allows you to buy wholesale and self install?

It would be great to see a DIY community around this, making widespread
adoption even cheaper.

~~~
eru
You can definitely get a monetary price decline from DIY. But most people's
time has value, too.

~~~
wallace_f
Not sure what your lifestyle is like, but I think you would be surprised by
how many people are willing to do weekend DIY projects on their homes,
especially if they will save them money.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Your typical DIYer is unable to penetrate an asphalt shingle or metal roof and
properly waterproof those penetrations for the panel frame supports, voiding
your roof warranty and possibly negating any ability to make a claim for water
damage from your homeowner's insurance.

Also, any electrical work in most sane jurisdictions is going to require
signoff from both the local code department and the utility (if grid tie).

The labor of a professional is cheaper than possible poor outcomes.

~~~
wallace_f
Ok, I can appreciate those concerns, but if someone wants to do this, I think
that's their right. What if they have a cabin that they want to wire with
solar? What if they just want to setup some panels on top of an awning, or in
their backyard, and hook them up to a beer cooler?

To be fair I installed a solar+2nd battery+inverter that can also charge or be
charged from the primary battery in an RV. I waterproof'd the roof, did the
wiring, there's lots of guides on how to do it and it is not rocket science.
Should you or my local gov have stopped me from this?

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Should you or my local gov have stopped me from this?

The government isn't stopping you from putting solar panels on the top of your
RV, and it's regulation of structures through building codes is usually
reasonable.

~~~
wallace_f
You might be interested in reading about the Tiny House movement. I think you
would be surprised by how many people Rdisagree with you, and are upset with
draconian housing laws and building codes.

Again, I don't see an enormous difference b/w putting solar panels on an RV,
and a backyard, shed, cabin or house, particularly for off-grid power.

You are absolutely entitled to state your opinion though. I just think if
other people want to do something that doesn't bother you in any way, it can
be nice to warn of the risks, but why tell them they are _wrong_?

~~~
toomuchtodo
> I just think if other people want to do something that doesn't bother you in
> any way, it can be nice to warn of the risks, but why tell them they are
> wrong?

Because if you're breaking building code, you're breaking the law. That's the
entire reason the Tiny Home movement has to build their structures on RV
trailers; to be compliant with building code (which doesn't apply to RV
trailers).

~~~
wallace_f
Ok no one is saying you should break the law, and that also wasn't even your
concern in the previous comment, either, which was about the _reasonableness_
of building code. Before that you were primarily concerned about time and risk
of cost.

Bringing the goal posts back to the original aim of my comment: that a DIY
community would simply increase adoption, let's look at the Tiny House
movement. It grew as a DIY community. People sharing info on all parts of the
process, incl. building code, helps many people who would have been told by
someone that it can't be done, just as you are doing now, to build their own
house. And we are talking about building an entire house, not a minor solar
panel install.

As that community grows, you have more people that are able to even shape laws
for the better, which is what that community is doing.

And you are incorrect about there being no laws governing auto work and
customization.

No one is saying you should do this. To be frank, the "hire a qualified
contractor" advice is pervasive at HN, but it's also this groupthink attitude
of negativity that can grow around a subject that I don't think is necessary,
or helpful.

------
redwood
Flying recently from Phoenix to San Jose I was amazed by the size of the solar
arrays I saw in the desert. I wasn't sure that that was what they were; but I
found some of them on Google maps satellite after and confirmed it (cool time
we live it). Good news is that there's _so much more room_ to build more!!!

Edit here if anyone's curious:
[https://goo.gl/maps/SjzWw9b2dSH2](https://goo.gl/maps/SjzWw9b2dSH2)

Edit 2 - as an aside, when I first saw, I couldn't tell if it was solar or ag
(e.g. here's what ag looks like -
[https://goo.gl/maps/AGvAxJ61BwB2](https://goo.gl/maps/AGvAxJ61BwB2) if you
zoom out they look very similar!)

~~~
s0rce
Sadly, there appears to be many environmentalists and conservation people
against large desert solar arrays claiming it threatens habitat of whatever
lives there. It probably does have an impact but at this point unless
population declines or energy use dramatically decreases I think we need to
focus on minimizing human impact on the environment and not stopping
everything that isn't completely harmless.

~~~
dogruck
Why is that sad? Are you more knowledgeable than said environmentalists, or do
you simply assume that they are wrong?

~~~
cup
I'm guessing theyre sad because they don't value desert habitats highly nor
appreciate them and are probably raised to think deserts are "empty" when
thats far from the truth.

~~~
Robotbeat
I think some reference is useful, here.

Agriculture is and will be much more land-intensive than solar.

I once calculated that the US could switch entirely to solar just on a
fraction of the land that is currently used _for ethanol production alone._

And what is a better place to put solar panels? In the desert or fertile
arable land? Deserts contain life, of course, but the density of life and
biodiversity per unit area is much smaller. Additionally, solar panels provide
shade and, unlike agriculture, don't require intensive tilling, harvesting,
irrigation, spreading of pesticides (natural or otherwise) or fertilizer and
the runoff that causes. They mostly just sit there, maybe getting a cleaning
every once in a while (but unlike concentrating/thermal solar, don't need to
be cleaned super often).

Once the panels are placed, your desert tortoise can nestle in the convenient
shade they provide.

------
mc32
On the one hand it's great to get Solar below cost _at someone else's_ expense
(Chinese over producing manufacturers), on the other hand I'd prefer that some
of our own PV mfgs remain afloat.

Ultimately the goal is to wean off of fossil fuels, but if all our R&D is
unprofitable we may miss some breakthroughs.

~~~
taneq
"Over-producing" isn't really a thing. You're complaining about supply
outstripping demand causing prices to fall - that's always going to happen
with any mass produced goods.

It sounds like the real issue is that doing R&D in the U.S. is uncompetitively
expensive compared to doing the same work in China.

~~~
future1979
Err ... not according to Econ 101. A rational producer in a perfectly
competitive market supplies just enough to clear the market. When people
distort markets with subsidies, etc. the amount produced is more. This can
also be in industries with barriers to entry as a large producer might supply
more on purpose to drive existing competitors out of business.

~~~
economics1241
Always gotta be careful applying 101 knowledge to a real world problem.

Also, this is an unfortunate misinterpretation of even econ 101. Econ 101 says
that there is not a fixed demand for most goods. Demand (and supply) have
elasticity, which is a measure of their responsiveness to price changes. A
rational producer with perfect information does not "clear the market" if that
means "supply enough to meet all demand for the good." (If that's not what it
means, I really don't know what it does mean.) They supply just to the point
where marginal cost of production is equal to the price the next consumer is
willing to pay.

And, subsidies are not definitionally distortionary. Sometimes they can be
used to correct uncaptured positive externalities.

------
curtis
If panels keep getting cheaper and cheaper I wonder if installing them
vertically on south-facing walls will start to make sense. This won't ever be
optimally efficient, but installs will be much cheaper since it won't involve
roof work.

If you want to take the idea to an absurd level, _garage doors_ could be
designed with integral panels and then installed anywhere somebody has a
south-facing garage door. In most cases the garage door will also be unshaded
since there will be a driveway in front of it rather than a tree.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
One serious concept that sounds a bit silly at first is to put solar panels on
the back of solar panels used for grid scale arrays.

Obviously not optimal since these are literally turning to continually face
away from the sun yet apparently get you a 1% improvement and you're spending
the rest of the money for installation, wiring anyway so at a certain price
point it makes sense.

------
Chiba-City
We forget Feds fund American roads and local congressional districts like it
that way. Our people grid is a road grid accessing an energy grid. Every
single story suburban home is a waste of space and HVAC. Rationalizing costs
will penalize cheaply built homes along roads built with federal funding. Our
TFR's have peaked and Sante Fe Institute folks do not predict happy sprawl.
Look at DC or Boston Building town homes and condos more densely on shared
public transport with Uber fill in. Quite successful medium enterprises spread
out by Eisenhower cannot find employees. Various locales like Columbus, OH and
Pittsburgh are slated for gathering that slack into ecosystem. The economic
concerns of remote Americans playing fake prairie homesteader are not
especially relevant to long term planning. Plan for yourself last to see the
big plans in motion. There are business opportunities skating to where large
pluralities of pucks are going. Levis made jeans for rushing gold rushers and
lived to tell the tale.

~~~
Tepix
TFR = total fertility rate?

------
pfarnsworth
When will prices drop below $20k for a full install? I get so frustrated when
I hear that the price keeps dropping, but the price for a consumer install
hasn't dropped below $20k in years.

If I do the installation myself, will that make it cheaper?

~~~
mikekchar
I suspect a lot of it has to do with housing prices where you live. It's a
pretty easy upgrade to a house, and adding $20K to the mortgage for most
houses these days is trivial. If you are selling, then you can probably even
make a pretty decent return on investment because people are willing to tack
on such "small" amounts when they buy the home. So until solar panels become a
standard that everyone expects in a home, or until the next big market crash,
I suspect solar installations will have inflated price tags.

~~~
josefresco
20K turns into roughly 33k in 30 years. I think trivial is a relative term.

~~~
mikekchar
Trust me, I'm with you on that on :-) But I think most people who are plonking
down $1 million on a house will not notice an extra $20K on the price tag, but
_will_ notice solar panels.

------
codecamper
If you have an interest in investing in solar, this Friday the ITC will decide
if US solar manufacturers were harmed by too cheap imports. If they rule yes,
most likely the manufacturers will drop.

~~~
jessaustin
If the ITC finds that manufacturers were harmed and allows some sort of
benefit for them to compensate, surely their share price would increase?

------
bluedino
Our local solar panel plant shut down a few months ago - Suniva. They just
mysteriously closed up shop.

~~~
hellbanner
No warning at all?

~~~
greglindahl
Suniva has been under financial stress for years.

~~~
angled
Suniva was in the news this week, and not necessarily in a good way:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-18/little-
kn...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-18/little-known-lender-
s-stand-threatens-a-29-billion-solar-market)

------
wyattk
Many of the comments seem to be focusing on the initial install costs and
missing a big point here. Solar can save a lot of money and even _make_ a
nontrivial amount of money for the owner.

As you would expect, there a lot of factors that go into how much an array
would save/produce (generation, storage, etc.), but a regulatory factor that
changes everything is rate structures. Rate structures are far from a standard
thing, pretty much wherever you go, there's something different, it varies by
state and even at a smaller, city level for municipally-owned utilities (about
15% of the US is served by these, including parts of Bay Area, LA area,
Phoenix, Seattle, etc.).

For consuming energy, there is usually a flat-rate or a time-of-use rate (many
varieties) but there are more and more capacity fees and fixed charges taking
over. For producing energy, it gets much stranger. Many cities and states use
versions net metering [0], some will pay you the wholesale power rate and
others will pay you the retail rate (retail is ~3x wholesale), some will use a
Feed-In Tariff [1], some will factor in a more time-based rate (like time-of-
use above), and some others too. If you want to know more about rate
structures in general, check this out [2]. [0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering)
[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-
in_tariff](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff) [2]
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/12/f19/fupwg_fall14_utility_rate.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwih6r7M47LWAhVKzoMKHUYUDUQQFggzMAM&usg=AFQjCNFG8TivEE1i1rkbxzXIfgGGTRit0g)

Rate structures are heavily regulated, for good reason. Their design is a very
difficult task and is pretty murky. On one hand are the consumers and their
desire to connect solar and other DERs [3] like storage to lower costs. On the
other hand are utilities, _usually_ not acting malevolent, wanting to maintain
reliability, and, at all costs, avoiding the death spiral [4], which basically
means that more people connecting solar and even leaving the grid will
skyrocket costs and tank reliability. Though sometimes, the generators will
desperately lobby against them. Depending on where you are, the utilities can
be the generators too, another matter. [3] [http://www2.epri.com/Our-
Work/Pages/Distributed-Electricity-...](http://www2.epri.com/Our-
Work/Pages/Distributed-Electricity-Resources.aspx) [4]
[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-is-what-
th...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-is-what-the-utility-
death-spiral-looks-like)

Rate structures are arguably the largest factor in installing solar. Initial
costs are important, but the rate structures will affect them over their 30+
year life. In some places, like North Carolina, it can lead to solar
flourishing. In other places, hostile rate structures and other regulations
can severely harm solar's adoption, like Florida which should be the best
place in the US for photovoltaics.

Even more complicating is the ability of the grid to handle a lot of solar,
let alone other DERs. The energy grid in the near future can be highly
distributed, 100% renewable, and even more reliable than it is today, but
there are some big system levels problems to solve before than (these rarely
get any attention, most attention goes to node-level problems like sheer
generation). I am fully engulfed in this field and am working on these things
now. I thought I would present an important point and give y'all some
information on this field that I find absolutely riveting. :)

~~~
shostack
What's the best way for an interested prospective solar customer to get
informed so as to not get ripped off? This seems to be a situation with
significant information asymmetry between the consumer and the seller.

------
jbverschoor
So mining bitcoin is 30% cheaper!

------
addHocker
Imagine if we could do solar in space.. infinite area- no soil wasted, the
power transmitted as a ray of death... oh, so this is why we do not do solar
in space.

~~~
ccozan
How about building something similar to a space power station that loads huge
batteries, then gravitationally launches them towards ground, while on the
other side an automated system launches rockets with empty batteries that
docks to the power station?

~~~
adrianN
Step 1: Build a space elevator

Step 2: ...

Step 3: Profit!

~~~
addHocker
Launch Loop or Space Fountain are superior. Even the Laser Transmitted Energy
solution is. Why? Because they do not have such tremendous costs to install
and do not rely on hypothetical yet to develop substances.

------
nwah1
Solar panels are a semiconductor technology, and as such follow Moore's Law,
and have been for decades.

[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/smaller-
chea...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/smaller-cheaper-
faster-does-moores-law-apply-to-solar-cells/)

~~~
Iv
No. Moore's law talks about miniaturization that leads to better performance
and about the fact that when it was first pronounced, no significant
roadblocks seemed to exist for 20 years.

The improvements in solar panel tech do not depend on such a straightforward
route. There is no process that you can simply iterate through to reproduce
the last performance gain.

~~~
nwah1
Moore's law is about improvements in cost-benefits that occur at a steady
rate, and CPUs have not simply been shrinking transistors, but adding
instructions, reorganizing the architectures, moving motherboard components
on-die, etc.

PV panels have had certain types of regular process improvements. My
understanding is that they try to add layers that use more of the energy of
the light spectrum.

Conversion efficiency improvements are responsible for more of the cost-
benefit improvements than taylorist improvements via economies of scale. And
those improvements have been occurring at a remarkably steady rate for five
decades.

~~~
Iv
Moore's law simply says that the density of transistors in CPUs doubles ever
two years. It was an observation over the past, and M.Moore (who is still
alive and often criticizes Moore's law) famously said in 1965 that he did not
see a reason for it to stop for another decade.

Later Intel said that performances (not just transistor density) would double
every 18 months, which is different.

Moore's law talks about transistors and we arguably have finally reached a
point where it slowed, after having outlived its initial prediction for
several decades.

Moore's law, though, was more than an extrapolation of the past: it was an
understanding of the causes for the speed of the trend and an examination of
what the future may provide by someone who understood the manufacturing
process behind CPUs.

Moore knew about CPUs, he was talking about CPUs and transistors. His "law"
holds no predictive power whatsoever for PV. You will have to find a
specialist about the processes to know if there are any predictable
roadbloacks ahead.

