| Cost of Solar Panels Expected To Plummet |
| Written by Jozef Winter | ||
| Tuesday, 03 June 2008 | ||
|
Solar photovoltaics have their challenges, from shortages of silicon to the sheer cost of purchasing and installing solar panels, but a new report from the Prometheus Institute says that both these problems will be addressed over the next few years, leading to cheaper solar and an abundance of capacity to produce. Based on their research, Travis Bradford, president of the Institute, says that prices for traditional silicon-based panels should fall from $3.66 per watt (2007 figures) to $2.14 per watt in 2010, and more impressively, thin-film PV should go to $1.81 per watt from $2.96. When coal, currently the least expensive source of power, is around $2.10 per watt to generate*, the expected drop in price for solar will make it far more competitive. Any news that solar is becoming more affordable is great as it will encourage more individuals to install them at home, and businesses to do likewise, either to offset their electricity consumption or installing them in a for-profit initiative. The report, however, also highlights an interesting figure - and companies who are currently building silicon-producing facilities that will come online in the next couple of years, should pay attention: The current global production capacity for silicon and thin-film panels is around 3.14 gigawatts, but will hit 12.36 gigawatts in 2010. That's an increase of just under 400%, an enormous amount that is sure to be welcomed by the environmental community.The demand, however, is only expected to be 6.76 gigawatts, up from 2.94 gigawatts in 2007, leaving over 5 gigawatts of unused capacity. Hopefully this will drive prices further down, resulting in greater demand, but this may have already been reflected in the statistics. The reason for the drop in prices is due to the expected hike in silicon production, a shortage of which is currently being felt. It is expected that silicon availability will quadruple to 125,302 tons by 2012, providing a massive oversupply of the material to the industry. Thin-film manufacturers who use no silicon will not be affected by this overabundance, however they will have to compete with the dropping prices of conventional panels, hence the drop in price. It may also, though this is probably wishful thinking, push governments to start offering more incentives to those who install solar in a bid to use up the remaining capacity and financially support their manufacturers who by this point will be a very large industry, employing tens of thousands of people. Via Greentech Media. *edited for correction
Comments
(34)
Costs of coal?
written by Jon , June 04, 2008
Correction
written by Martin Smith , June 04, 2008
Shouldn't "thin-film PV should go to $1.81 per watt from $2.96" be "thin-film PV should go to $2.96 per watt from $1.81"?
All good news. I have just bought a new place and had a plan to put PVs on the roof, but I might hang back, stick with solar thermals for now, then install the PVs in a few years.
...
written by Martin Smith , June 04, 2008
Please disregard anything I post...I obviously can't read. How can I edit messages BTW?
Fantastic
written by Brian , June 04, 2008
I'm going to be purchasing a home soon and will be looking to add solar panels to the roof as an offset to my energy consumption. Any price reduction is welcome, but I'm not going to hold off for cheaper prices. Those cheaper prices will simply allow me to add on to the system I install initially when I have some more money to invest in the system.
Oversupply?
written by Kent Ragen , June 04, 2008
An oversupply of silicon? What a great problem to have!
www.ecounit.com
Cost vs Output
written by Jason Fremont , June 04, 2008
The giant costs vs. little output has always been an issue with solar power. Wind power has always been much cheaper and the output MUCH more forthe cost. Will be nice to see solar prices drop and make it feasible.
http://www.FireMe.To/Udi
...
written by Confused , June 04, 2008
Wait a minute - My house used 121 Kilowatt Hours (121,000 watt Hrs) of power last month So way wasn't my energy bill $254,100 if it costs $2.10 a watt for coal?
Questioning the figures
written by Nicholas Gledhill , June 04, 2008
This may be a stupid question... perhaps I haven't thought about it for long enough...
But, what do you mean when you quote demand figures, specifically for solar power? Surely there is a demand for power, in general, of which some is supplied by solar. Or perhaps you mean enough panels to produce "6.76 gigawatts" of power... in which case, wouldn't supply outstripping demand by that much lead to short-term collapse in production - simply lead producers to stop producing and find another use for their silicon... Booms (and busts) are never as a good as sustainable growth, even in green technology markets. Anyway, whatever it means specifically - no one can disagree that an oversupply of solar panels (and growing demand) is better than an under-supply - a good thing in the long-run, even if it did produce some oddities in the market in the short-term.
...
written by not confused , June 04, 2008
@ confused:
a kilowatt is the amount of energy produced at a given instant, or a power plant's or solar panel capacity to produce power. What you get billed for is an amount of energy delivered over time, hence kilowatt hours.
...
written by not confused more , June 04, 2008
@ confused also:
If I buy a solar panel that can produce up to 200w of power and it costs me $700 to buy that panel, my cost is $3.50 per watt. If you use your computer for an hour and it uses 200w then you used 200w per hour. Where I live it costs me $0.15 per kwh. So 200w for an hour would cost me $0.03. The problem is that if I collect electricity from that panel for an average of 6 hours a day, everyday, I could only sell that power for $0.18 a day. That's $65.70 a year in a perfect scenario. That would take me 10 1/2 years to pay off that panel, in a perfect scenario. A more realistic time frame would be around 25 years. We're getting there.
...
written by Knota Moreon , June 04, 2008
Learn how to spell, you dope.
Thare's no "a" in c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-v-e.
...
written by Un-confused , June 04, 2008
@Confused:
Its important to remember that you are comparing an electric service to an electric generator. They are not the same thing. Solar panels are not fuel that gets used up, and you do NOT need to actually buy 121 KW of panels!! There are aprox 720 hours in a 30 day month, so at 121 KW/h per month, you average about 168 watts at any point during the month. Thats about $360 worth of solar panel at silicon based prices ($2.14 forecast for 2010). Of couse, its not that simple. What you really need is enough to cover your PEAK usage, which your monthly usage number does not tell us. Its likely at least 1.5 - 2KW however. This is due to the fact that an AC/fridge/computer/TV/etc... all running at the same time on a summer day would be sucking a ton of juice, yet throughout much of the night, those appliances would be using much less power, not to mention lights off, etc. While you are at work too. The first step to making solar power worth it is efficiency. You should be able to get by with 2KW of panels easily if you make your home efficient enough. Most people waste massive amounts of electricity unnecessarily. At 2000 watts of panels, you are looking at $4,280. Add to that installation costs and additional equipment (inverter, etc). Wild guess: $6000 - $8000 or so. Maybe as much as $10k depending on your needs and situation, maybe as little as $5k if you are a super do-it-yourselfer and swing a shrewd deal on the panels. Just some thoughts and numbers to flesh out the conversation a bit.
...
written by Un-confused , June 04, 2008
P.S. My above numbers presume a grid-tied system, i.e. no batteries. This is not possible everywhere (depends mostly on your power company). If you were going off grid and needed storage too, there would be more cost and trade-offs.
Simple spelling, the ABCs of journalism
written by Ricardo , June 05, 2008
You spelled "competative" wrong (people who graduated from grade school spell it "competitive").
May want to work on that for a more professional site.
mreow, ksss!
written by Tired , June 05, 2008
... and you're blind. It's already been stated above.
there will never be an oversupply
written by jeebus , June 05, 2008
Once electric cars are fully established we will need all the power we can get! this is the beginning of a beautiful new era.
Still dreaming
written by Paul , June 05, 2008
This is all hot air. For decades we've been hearing the same "breakthrough" and "in a few years", but nothing ever makes it to market.
Get these products on the shelves now, or stop the BS.
Confused, don't be
written by Anonymous , June 05, 2008
The $2.10/W cost for coal is the cost of building a new coal power plant. It does not include the costs of fuel or emissions. Solar should break even well above $2/W since its 'fuel' (the sun) is free.
...
written by Idrinkyourmilkshake , June 05, 2008
Id like to know how we are prediciting this "oversupply" of silicon, which is where the predictions of falling prices come from.
PV folks are telling me that prices - at least near term are rising. What happens when the Chinese and Indians suddenly want to buy PV cells. That "oversupply" of silicon might still be "not enough" Storage not efficiency is the big drawback of solar PV systems. Once the sun goes down you are dead in the water without a massive battery system. Grid-tied systems are great so long as the rest of the population doesnt catch on. A 2KW system should be adequate for most single family dwellings, but youll need to store at least 10kWhrs of juice to make it through a typical winter evening (without significantly changing your liefstyle). Thats 833 amp hours from a 12v battery, or between 15 and 20 car batterys going from full to empty every day. Its easy to see that you probably wont be using a tumble dryer, the electric oven, a dishwasher, electric hot water heater and still have energy to run the fridge/freezer, lights, TV and parasitics. PV technology is very promising, but in almost every case of new, renewable energy technology - conservation and lifestyle changes will play an equally significant role.
...
written by Will , June 05, 2008
I read a few days ago that silicon is the second most abundant element in the earth's crust.
Wind vs Solar & Peak Use
written by Dave , June 05, 2008
Wind and solar are complementary tools. Wind is higher during cloudy weather and solar obviously during sunny weather, often associated with less wind. The cost of solar is higher and only partially offset by reduced transport costs--those electric lines are not free.
As to installing for peak use, that is great if your goal is go off grid totally. That is impractical for most and primarily for those who hate the current distribution system providers. Supplementing the existing system with offline and renewables in small steps will allow you to add on as the costs go down. You are not helping the world so much if you max out your credit cards to go solar and you also lead to the above noted boom bust cycles that have slowed development so much.
...
written by Jeff , June 05, 2008
They've been saying this for 20 freekin' years!!! Put up or shut up. Until you can post a link where I can buy it cheap, stop the hype!
It's not real until we can buy it!!! Surely I'm not the only one who's tired of these grossly premature stories!
Let's hope the price really drops
written by Cubicle Dropout , June 06, 2008
I'm in the process of building my home over the next couple years, and I would love the final product to be off-grid. Price is my only limiting factor.
...
written by dariusf , June 06, 2008
Lucky you regarding the building the house and price being the limiting factor. The subdivision we build in two years ago has insane rules as to where one can place solar panels and windmills are not allowed. Just happens that the house orientation would not allow for the panel placement
 From what I understand many areas have stupid strict limits on this. Land of the free....
Solar Panels
written by Gary McLeod , June 08, 2008
Presently we use about 40kW per day. At 6 hours of useful sunlight. That's about a 7kW per hour solar energy rate needed. System Quotes are coming in at $55K, rebates and credits are $21K utility, $4K Government for out of pocket $30K. Ideally this would save $1600 per year, so that payback is 19 years (assuming same rate from Utility Compnay). However, if you consider Utility Rates going up at 8% per year. Payback occurs in about 14.5 years. The bigger reason for us to consider this is we want to do what we can to reduce energy consumption using fossil fuels and we do plan to covert over to an electric car for short haul driving.
...
written by Eddy , June 11, 2008
Local Govts forbid erection of solar panels.
 Boy Oh Boy, you Yanks never cease to amaze me. Of course these are the same Local Govts that also forbid you, from hanging out your washing to dry, thus reducing the demand on fossil fuel consumption ?  AND at the same time, bleat about reducing the carbon emmissions. And who elects these minor local officials in the first place, allowing them to implement such crap ? Excuse me Folks, but have I got something wrong here with my understanding of these issues ? One poster gave us a pretty good run up on the power draw he has with his home, appliances that he's definately going to have to re-assess in the very near future. If all Americans, are so enamoured of their home appliances as he is, Folks your looking serious problems in the face, maybe it's well past the time where you all become a little more sustainable and ditch many of those appliances ? After all, do you really need that auto capacino maker ?
Incremental applications
written by Sterling , June 14, 2008
One of the things people rarely seem to talk about is the potential to use solar to reduce the number of electricity-using additions to existing homes. For example, landscape lighting or outbuilding lights are projects would have involved hookups to an existing meter ten years ago, but now people are able to do this with small solar products. So yes, it's good that large solar panel emplacements on roofs are becoming more practical, but with a lot of smaller, fixed devices around the yard being individually powered, we're also seeing a drop-off in power consumption on a per-household basis.
...
written by Founder , June 26, 2008
Progress has been made
written by Ciceroji , July 04, 2008
I keep on hearing the put up or shut up argument regarding whether this is actually real. However, when you look at solar power it has made ENORMOUS progress. Cost has steadily fallen since the first solar panel came out. So this is just a question of time. You look at the historical trend and you can find break even assuming the current rate of progress.
However in the past there was little interest in solar power, no subsidies and very little venture money. Therefore the speed at which costs are lowered will accelerate it is simple, kinda like Moores law. The people who have been hearing solar panels will become cost effective for a while must have been lied to for a while and were just too lazy to check and find out what that would take. They would have realized from historical trends that is unlikely. However we are getting very close to the point where conservatively based on historical trends it is increasigly likely. An interesting article with that point can be found here: http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2007/05/glittering-future-of-solar-power.html
Texas Solar Power
written by Rex , July 16, 2008
www.txspc.com
We do turn-key installations all across the nation. Texas Solar Power Company, Since 1995. www.txspc.com
Wind Power
written by jim , July 19, 2008
I'm going to add a wind machine in my backyard to power my house. Cost is 34K. But, I can run everything 24/7 and still sell power back to the local utility, making a projected 12K a year. Sounds good to me.
Cost savings
written by Pomaikai , August 01, 2008
I read an article on how a $23k installed system reduced the electric bill from $150 a month to $30 a month so the system should be paid of in 16 years. They foret to add in interest if a loan was taken out(or lost interest/dividends since the money could be invested if it was cash). They also mention that he had to drastically change his lifestyle to use less electricity. This could be done with solar panels and if he knocked 20% from just using less electricity it will increase to 21 years. Now tack on interest and were talking 25 year pay off. vs just cutting back electricity. Sure hope there are no maintenance costs within those 25 years. From a financial view it is just plain dumb.
Info on solar building cost
written by Luis Cruz , October 03, 2008
i'm writing to you to ask what the estimated cost for building a 18 - 20 cell solar panel in order to charge a 9 - 10 volt battery
Do you supply Solar Panel system for Hou
written by Kamran , October 11, 2008
I would like to know do you supply solar panel in Paksitan i want to buy what ll be price for 3 kv panel?
| ||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Science, technology gadgets and...baby seals. We're in a bit of an eco-mess, but we've got the brains to lick any problem. And that's why EcoGeek.org publishes up to ten stories daily about innovations that are saving the planet.
And if that sounds interesting to you, then congratulations, you're an EcoGeek.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Thanks!