NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

[lektrode]

Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

They work fine in a mechanical sense, but in an economic sense it is much less clear.

I posted this (see bottom) as part of a 'Climate Change' Spiegel post a while ago, it communicates the differences in cost between various electricity generation technologies.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3729[/ATTACH]

Put another way: while solar may seem cheap - all the costs are in the back end. Unlike other generation technologies, the electric power you receive from a solar panel steadily declines over time.

could be, i suppose - but for the present-day end-user, arent these mostly 'sunk costs' they dont have to pay and arent the present>future out of pocket prices to the end user declining rapidly enuf to overcome that long term issue? and nears i know, the crystaline type of panels are wrrt'd for something like 90% of output rating for periods of 20years or more - and considering the known-historical rates of increases in electric rates, never mind the next cheap-peak-oil krankup thats sure to accompany increase in demand going forward - dont you think that concern is a bit over stated? - esp if the grid faulters/krashes from some disaster, wouldnt you think it better, for the end-user of electricity, to have PV than not - esp if one accepts that inflation will krank up electric rates at least as fast as food, shelter, motor fuel prices?

In this respect solar is similar to nuclear power plants: the nuclear power plants produce the lowest per KWh electricity cost but the variable is the nuclear waste. Over time this becomes more and more a cost factor, as are decommissioning costs.

This is worrisome because in both cases - nuclear and/or solar PV - there is tremendous incentive to play accounting tricks with the long term costs. Otherwise known as "take the money and run"

yeah - kinda like harry reid/nevada has done, with respect to the billions pumped into yucca mountain.

i just dont see how The US has any choice going forward, but to go full throttle into a re-development of nuclear energy - most of the rest of the world seems to have already made the decision, esp china - and think of the jobs, REAL JOBS 'saved or created' that we would've had if the 800billion that was flushed down the stimulous rathole went to something other than merely delaying the state govs day of reckoning - it would seem that it would be well worth the investment of at least what they've blown out the past few years in bailing out the ny banks, to double down and end up with something that actually amortized/ showed ROI: like eliminating the need to import oil to burn in power plants/cars (cuz we would have had an unlimited source of electricity that was "too cheap to meter" spinning electric cars all these years, if it werent for the luddites that shut it down since the 70's and then to offset those "variable costs" couldve saved even more _trillions_ in not having to fight wars in the middle east over oil... but i guess now i'm just delerious from having got up too early this AM ;)

Lastly I'd point out that if electricity prices triple - which would guarantee to occur if even 10% of any particular utility's electricity generation structure was switched over to present/near-present PV solar electricity generation - at that point even diesel at double today's price via a home generator is cheaper than using grid electricity.

Not a beneficial situation for anyone.

it may not be beneficial for a utility, but it sure would be for those in _possesion_ of the PV capability - why i wrote to mr steve that they are most valuable to those that _own_ them, as a dollar saved (on electric) is 10dollars earned (tax free) while giving the added ROI of having a source of power when the grid goes down....

[c1ue]

Re: NYT: Solar Panel Maker Moves Work to China

could be, i suppose - but for the present-day end-user, arent these mostly 'sunk costs' they dont have to pay and arent the present>future out of pocket prices to the end user declining rapidly enuf to overcome that long term issue? and nears i know, the crystaline type of panels are wrrt'd for something like 90% of output rating for periods of 20years or more - and considering the known-historical rates of increases in electric rates, never mind the next cheap-peak-oil krankup thats sure to accompany increase in demand going forward - dont you think that concern is a bit over stated? - esp if the grid faulters/krashes from some disaster, wouldnt you think it better, for the end-user of electricity, to have PV than not - esp if one accepts that inflation will krank up electric rates at least as fast as food, shelter, motor fuel prices?

I guarantee you - after 20 years there is no solar panel in existence which generates 90% of its capability on day 1.

As for the cost - what exactly did you pay for your solar panels, if I may ask?

And how much grid electricity are you saving?

I've looked at dozens of examples - and in every single case, even with massive subsidies (50% or sometimes more), the actual savings is slim to none once the EOL degradation is taken into account.

Note that the money spent isn't a fixed quantity either - in most cases the interest even in a 6 month CD is almost enough to pay for the grid electricity expense.

As for inflation - barring massive utility investments into present day alternative energy (legally mandated or not) - electric bills should be relatively less affected by inflation. After all, the US doesn't import either coal or natural gas - which are the major non-hydroelectric electrical fuels.

A significant part of recent increases is due to utility regulation - or more correctly lack thereof.

An example is what I posted previously - where PG & E spent over $40 million trying to get a law passed.

i just dont see how The US has any choice going forward, but to go full throttle into a re-development of nuclear energy

Again, I support alternative energy - just not throwing gobs of money at it.

However, it is important to distinguish between various energy sources and categories of use.

Coal and natural gas by far are used for household/electricity generation type consumption, as is nuclear energy.

Oil is used primarily for transportation in the US.

No matter what the source, to switch off oil in transportation requires massive overhaul of not just US electricity generation, but also electricity transmission.

Switch from coal to solar/wind requires even greater specific overhaul of transmission lines as well as construction of storage.

Switch to all electric vehicles also requires massive overhaul of the present US car fleet as well as utility pricing schemes.

Doing all or part of this requires careful, coherent planning - otherwise the result is just massive boondoggles.

Even nuclear itself - disregarding the waste issue - isn't a magic wand. A replacement of 50% of US total electricity generation by nuclear involves building at least 1 plant per 3 days for the next decade.

This is a massive up front expense and commitment.

it may not be beneficial for a utility, but it sure would be for those in _possesion_ of the PV capability - why i wrote to mr steve that they are most valuable to those that _own_ them, as a dollar saved (on electric) is 10dollars earned (tax free) while giving the added ROI of having a source of power when the grid goes down....

Perhaps, though if you're paying triple per KWh costs, just doing it up front, it is debatable how much you actually saved.

Note you have risks on your end too: a panel may break or might get stolen.

And unless you invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in both solar panels and storage, you're still going to be on the grid anyway and thus subject to all of the 'extra' costs associated with that.