Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->PV supporter: " My dog can beat your dog in a race." >Anyone else: " Where is your dog?" >PV supporter: " Haven’t got one yet. But I am fix’n to get me one here >shortly." >…Where is your dog? You actually have a $600 million >solar system that cranks out ~7.8 cent/kwh juice… > Batteries not included? Didn’t they retire some New Jersey nuke last > year because it could only produce juice at an uncompetitive price of > 2.1 cents/kWh? > Nick
If you are directing this question to me,,,, I don’t know. Codeman
Response:
> Actually, the vast majority of companies price their product at whatever the > market will bear (that’s why the price of gas goes up in the summer – all those > other costs you mention haven’t changed appreciably for the oil producers.) If > the market won’t bear the cost of all of the expenses involved in making the > product the company normally won’t make that product. Why do people insist on > acting like companies don’t do everything possible to maximize their
profits? I disagree with your thought, companies charge what the market will bear…… So long as there is more than one company providing the services, and they are not located in the same region and related, you will have price competition, and usually for lower pricing… Ya see, one or the other of the companies will generally always try to undercut the others price (to a point) to increase their market share… This sure in the hell happened and is still happening in the Powder River Basin Coal fields as far as the price of coal goes…It ( the price) has gone down, down, down in recent years. Companies sold out because they could no longer get the ROR they needed. Has the tons/yr of produced coal decreased? NO, has gone up. Has the price gone down? Yes,,,, Has the number of companies in that market decreased? Yes. There was one coal mine company that’s philosophy seemed to be that they were willing to produce millions of tons and make a penny per ton… They made their profit via volume selling… They sure in the heck got the business and that force the other coal producers to lower their price to the bare bones to get market. Some couldn’t get down far enough and they went belly up. For example,,,, you and I both own a gas station and we are across the street from each other….. We start off at the same price/gallon, same other services, etc. For whatever reason (you are located on South side of Hwy?), more customers go to your station.. I see this and want more market(net profit) so I lower my price my a cent . I am now making less profit per gallon but my net profit has increased because I am selling more gallons…. You see the customers swing over to my station and after awhile,,, you lower your price to increase your market share. This goes back and forth until one of us hits the bottom line profit margin… That would be, after we pay the bills, utilities, taxes, wages and so forth, there is nothing left. Obviously, there have and will have two or more companies/providers that make an under the table deal and prices will stay higher. Usually when that happens, a third/forth/fifth/whatever company will be formed and they will move in an undercut the pricing of the original two.
Response:
>> Why is it so dang expensive??? >There’s this strange subject called economics that addresses questions >like this… perhaps some of the readers of this newsgroup are familiar >with it ….
For PVs, technology is more important than learning curves in general. Some things are difficult to make cheap, no matter how many we make. Mark Twain used to say that Minneapolis and New Orleans would only be 11 miles apart by 1946 if the Mississippi river continued unkinking at the current rate 
Nick
Response:
>Is there a cheaper place to buy small quanitites of panels? Cost being >delivered to your door?
I have not found a "steady" place to get Siemens panels at $4/watt in small quantities. Solarsolar.com is probably your best bet if you do not want to watch for special-case buys in homepower magazine. Their prices include shipping but are currently running $4.85/watt for Siemens SR100, or $4.50/watt for Kyocera KC120-1 (in groups of four). If you are willing to go with Photowatt (i.e., send you money to France instead of Germany or Japan ), solarsolar has 180 or 190 watt panel-pairs for $4.04/watt. They have different voltage and current characteristics from Siemens or Kyocera panels, though. >OK Chris,,, I follow you on this new home construction by Shea Homes…. Now >what would be your estimate for people who already own their homes and call >in a general contractor to do the same installations?
Retrofit is always more expensive. California will subsidize this heavily, making the total cost run around $7–$10/watt (depending on contractor and location), way more than the ~$6/watt Shea Homes is charging. (In the case of new construction, the roofers and electricians are already on-site and already paying their insurance. ) — In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Response:
>PV supporter: " My dog can beat your dog in a race." >Anyone else: " Where is your dog?" >PV supporter: " Haven’t got one yet. But I am fix’n to get me one here >shortly." >…Where is your dog? You actually have a $600 million >solar system that cranks out ~7.8 cent/kwh juice…
Batteries not included? Didn’t they retire some New Jersey nuke last year because it could only produce juice at an uncompetitive price of 2.1 cents/kWh? Nick
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why is it so dang expensive??? > For people that can afford SUV’s or own multi vehicles or expensive adult > play toy’s and/or live in $150,000 plus homes, RE cost is not that bad. > For the price of a new car, you can purchase a RE system. > If the government wants to promote energy conservation why do one of those > new lightbulbs cost no less than $8.99? > Besides EX-Clinton and EX-Gore, who else in government promotes energy > conservation? :) > If CA is in so much power hungry need (which I do not live in CA), why are > solar arrays so expensive? > Imagine if every house had it’s own power generation how cheap buying a > solar panel would be. The price would drop! > Yes Sir,, the more widgets you made, the cheaper it cost. Mass production > tends to do that. Generally speaking, centralized power generation is > cheaper that having mutiples of smaller generating facillities. > If companies continue to price > items out of reach, then the middle class and lower class income people > will > never be able to afford this technology. > Companies price the item so they recoupe their investment PLUS pay their > stockholders a dividend, PLUS pay ever increasing wages, taxes, utilities, > insurance and lawsuites….. If they don’t the stockholders will take their > money someplace else.
Actually, the vast majority of companies price their product at whatever the market will bear (that’s why the price of gas goes up in the summer – all those other costs you mention haven’t changed appreciably for the oil producers.) If the market won’t bear the cost of all of the expenses involved in making the product the company normally won’t make that product. Why do people insist on acting like companies don’t do everything possible to maximize their profits? <SNIP all the rest>
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > x-no-archive: yes >>"Greenpeace has renewed its challenge to BP to make solar >>power affordable for ordinary consumers following revelations >>that a report co-ordinated by BP Solar proves this would be possible" >This is hilarious. I challenge Greenpeace to commit to the purchase of 100 kW >of inverter for every 125 kW (nameplate) of flat roof commercial PV sold in the >US. > Actually, it’s not so far off these days. I saw a review of > capital costs on nuclear plants in the US, ~$5/watt, or about > the same as solar PV
For your $5/watt, with a nuclear plant you get a plant that can run at 100% power over 90% of the time. For $5/watt of PV, you get a system that can run at 100% for a few hours at midday, less for the rest of the day, and nothing at all at night (and that is when the weather is good!). This is a huge difference in return on investment and makes a comparably huge difference to people who generate electricity for a living (like utility companies). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Of course, the only reason these numbers are comparable is that > nuclear is so expensive, on a captal oultay basis, compared to other > power sources. If capital were your only concern, you’d go coal or gas > –georges
Response:
> Why is it so dang expensive???
There’s this strange subject called economics that addresses questions like this … perhaps some of the readers of this newsgroup are familiar with it …. > If the government wants to promote energy conservation why do one of those > new lightbulbs cost no less than $8.99?
Just a small clue – the government doesn’t generally control prices. When it does attempt to control prices, it tends to work against the laws of supply and demand and make the problems worse rather than better. (See reference to the subject of economics above). The state of California is the latest of a long string of examples whose legislature thought it had jurisdiction over the law of supply and demand, acted, and then found out that it does not in fact have jurisdiction over said laws. > If CA is in so much power hungry need (which I do not live in CA), why are > solar arrays so expensive? > Imagine if every house had it’s own power generation how cheap buying a > solar panel would be. The price would drop! If companies continue to price > items out of reach, then the middle class and lower class income people will > never be able to afford this technology. > Maybe it should be implemented in building codes that all new homes are > required to generate no less than 10kWh per month (or more). That would get > renewable energy out their and moving. Imagine if a Business with a > building 150 feet or higher would be required to have no less than 4×60watt > solar arrays.
By massively increasing demand, the immediate market response would be for the price of solar cells, windmills, and such to go through the roof (when demand rises, price rises until production can catch up with it – see California experience with electricity. California is amplifying the problem by trying to regulate prices and threatening to exercising eminent domain, thereby scaring the energy companies right out of considering as much new investment in California as they otherwise would.) > Sure these building codes wouldn’t work in Alaska or northern Washington as > well, but it could be done. > We need to find a way to drop the price of this equipment by 50% before > people will be able to pay for it. Unless this is a true hobby (which is > the case for most that post to this group), a family of two that makes > $30,000 a year in income, maybe owns or is buying a home will not be able to > afford a $5,000 kit, let alone a $1,000 kit and would be lucky if they could > afford a $250 kit especially if they have kids. And what does a $250 kit > buy you today? It buys one part of an elegant system.
What makes you think people will buy these systems if the price drops 50%? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> — > Have you tried ??? > rpm -Uvh os2rh71
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Good post Chris.. My 10% was way over as I take a second look/thought. I >follow your numbers but are you saying an average home can get by with 135 >watts of panel? Seems way-way to low. Where does the 10KWh/mo come from? >From the above poster, which you pointed out wasn’t enough? Shouldn’t you >have used your 500KWh/mo plus number, or whatever is more realistic? > Depends on what the buyer wants. The OP (original poster) suggested > these tiny little 10 kWh/mo systems as a way to increase solar-PV > market penetration so as to lower the overall system prices. I am > not at all sure this would work, but who knows? > I just took delivery of two-75W Sieman panels. Cost was $320 each plus $25 >each for shipping to my front door… $690/150w = $4.60/watt…. > You paid too much per watt (although that tends to happen when > you only want two panels ). A homebuilder stamping out 600 > identical houses will buy two panels per house => 1200 panels total, > lowering the per-panel price.
Is there a cheaper place to buy small quanitites of panels? Cost being delivered to your door? Agree, when a business buys a boat load of product, they get a good discount on the product. Freight per unit drops to zip when shipping via large quanities. What you suggest would/will work on new construction via big contractor that stamps out huge amounts of homes… Not so with one contractor custom building one home at a time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Then it cost me $30/each for mounting hardware… ($690+60)/150w = >$5.00/w and this doesn’t include controllers, batteries, installation >and so forth. Since no one works for free, except for themselves, >and then there should be a cost associated with that as well, then >would it not be fair to say that you could double the material cost >for someone to come in an do the installation so you could now come >up with a turn key cost? Hmmmm, in my case, that would be $10/watt >(installed,,,, with no batteries,controler, widgets) > 1) Why would you want batteries, in a grid-connected system? (Answer: > because you want your system to be *more* reliable than utility > power. Reliability costs big bucks. If you are willing to be only > *as* reliable, forget the batteries. They are expensive and require > a lot of maintenance — you actually have to look at them once a > month!)
Agree with the battery and reliabilty statement > 2) "Double" is way too high in new construction.
Hmmm, for single contractor custom building one home at a time,,, where he has to go out and buy the necessary panels for that structure, I don’t think so…. For your mass builder that postage stamps out subdivision homes at a wack,,, yes. > 3) Actual installed cost to actual homebuilder is actually about $6/watt. > (Shea Homes, Scripps Highlands, in San Diego.)
Hard to believe, but if you know that for a fact, then I will acept it, for that Shea Homes, Scripps Highland, in San Diego only. Now how about for the rest of the country.. On the average. >Hmmm, shouldn’t you be using whatever it cost to get you to the 500KWh/mo >PLUS figure? > That would make it *lower*. They are installing about 1000 watts > per house by default, costing the buyer about $6000. These homes > also include solar water heating, costing about $2000. As an option, > you can add another 1000 watts of solar PV for $4000. So the > initial PV expense is $6/watt, but incremental expense is only $4/watt > (I imagine they are using ST2500s here, hence no need for additional > inverters).
OK Chris,,, I follow you on this new home construction by Shea Homes…. Now what would be your estimate for people who already own their homes and call in a general contractor to do the same installations? > See <http://www.office.com/global/0,2724,57-23164,FF.html> (and go > to the 2nd page). These are mostly $400,000 homes, so adding $10,000 > for the "full-blown" (~2 kW plus hot-water) solar system bumps the > cost up 2.5%.
OK,,, same $10,000 on a $100,000 home (pure cost of house w/o lot & in selected parts of the country) would be 10% – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->If 800 watts of panels will generate about 100 kWh/mo (Your numbers from >this post),,,, and you mentioned above that an average CA home uses 500+ >kWh/mo,,,, then we would need 800watts panels x 5 = 4,000 + watts of panels >per household,,,, that is if we want to generate 500 plus kWh/mo…. >4,000watts of panels x $12/watt( your overgenerous number) = $48,000… or >4,000watts of panels x $6/watt= $24,000 ……. $24,000 tacked onto a >$100,000 home = 24%. This doesn’t include batteries or the extra structure >to house the batteries and controlers and so forth. Hmmmm, where did I go >wrong? > All over the place. > New construction and bulk-buying push the cost down quite a bit, > and those prices *do* include inverters. Batteries are unnecessary > since the houses are grid-tied. Likewise, the house does not have > to supply 100% of its own usage.
Went over the bulk-buying above and agree. OK, for this discussion, I can go/change-over with parcel generation and rely on the grid. Yesterdays post was with the though of self sufficient generation capacity. >I would think that the higher the price of the house, the more electric >gadgets/widgets/appliances the owner would have and thus, they would >need/want that much more generating capability… . > Well, that actually turns out to be wrong. The price of the house > is determined by location, not square-footage nor number of occupants.
Hmmm, in my part of the world,,,, building cost = ~$100per sq-ft and you furnish the land, power, waterlines and so forth… Just a question of how many sq-ft of floor space you want… Price can be higher and a bit lower. Of course you can spent $400,000++++ on a spread and have enough money to have a teepee placed upon it. >The original poster didn’t mention if the building code should be written so >that each household would generate all or just a portion of their energy >needs… I am kinda going on the household being able to generate all their >energy needs. Anything less and then we are on a slippery slide. :) > Considering that current houses generate 0%, anything *more* than 0% > is a slippery slide upward!
Yep,, one could install a Radio Shack micro miniwatt PV cell for $X’s or whatever bigger and qualify for this discussion. They could then truefully state that their home is partially powered by solar, and never mind that four inch electic cable running out back to the transformer on the pole across the way or that fossil fueled genset in the garage. :)
Response:
> Well refreshing to see how the mention of the word "Greenpeace" still > gets the trolls out of their caves. Seriously boys, why not find another > way of venting this hatred ?
You are not venting? > As a member of the medical fraternity, I can state that it is long since > proven that incorrect body posture can lead, over time, to resident > stress in the body which can impact on the ability of the sufferer to > function in normal society. This of course relates to people slouching, > not swinging their arms while walking etc. Imagine then, the damage > caused by people, such as some of the posters to this message, walking > around with their heads up their arses.
I am not impressed with your statement. Your medical expertise has no relevant merit with this NG. Really, you of all people stating people are walking around with their heads up…. Can’t be done. Oh I get it, it is a joke. The few medical people I have been around are severely mechanically challenged. Are you different? > For a bit of fact have a look at what the pinko-liberals of KPMG had to > say > ( ooh, those accountants, such extremists )
A fact? Just one persons opinion…. This is entertaining…. PV supports keep stating that the PV generated price is competitive with everything else but PV only contributes something less than 1%(?) of the worlds power, and I don’t see any major change in that percentage for the foreseeable future. Someday? Yes, the percentage will increase. Joke: PV supporter: " My dog can beat your dog in a race." Anyone else: " Where is your dog?" PV supporter: " Haven’t got one yet. But I am fix’n to get me one here shortly." > Briefly, for $600 million invested, solar power comes down to ~7.8 > cents/kwh which they see as competitive compared to the average price of > 6.8 cents/kwh ( at the time of the report ).
See my joke above… Where is your dog? You actually have a $600 million solar system that cranks out ~7.8 cent/kwh juice. Or are ya fix’n to get ya one here real soon? But in the mean time you have nothing? > And no, I don’t think Greenpeace should be ponying up the money, let the > government create the conditions where the market will demand, and then > the producers will supply. Problem is, big business has a bit too much > control of government. Same story in most of the European countries, > just that in the US, well you’ve got more of the big business,
Of course not, Greenpeace shouldn’t put their money(PV installation) where their mouth is. They sure can pony up money for advertisement/lawyers/protest/scientist that supports their views/terrorist activities? and so forth. > and of course, you’ve got George, > My most heartfelt sympathies, > Colm O’Gairbhith, Ireland
Get back to your drinking ,civil unrest, and fighting amoung yourselves. We will take care of George.
Response:
No Georges, not you, I meant George W. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > x-no-archive: yes >and of course, you’ve got George, >My most heartfelt sympathies, > Hi Colm, > It sounds sympatico, so thanks:) > But, I don’t get it, Who’s got me? > –georges
Response:
$5/watt capital for something that averages less than 6 hours year round in northern states versus 24 hours.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> x-no-archive: yes >>"Greenpeace has renewed its challenge to BP to make solar >>power affordable for ordinary consumers following revelations >>that a report co-ordinated by BP Solar proves this would be possible" >This is hilarious. I challenge Greenpeace to commit to the purchase of 100 kW >of inverter for every 125 kW (nameplate) of flat roof commercial PV sold in the >US. > Actually, it’s not so far off these days. I saw a review of > capital costs on nuclear plants in the US, ~$5/watt, or about > the same as solar PV > Of course, the only reason these numbers are comparable is that > nuclear is so expensive, on a captal oultay basis, compared to other > power sources. If capital were your only concern, you’d go coal or gas > –georges
Response:
>$5/watt capital for something that averages less than 6 hours year round in >northern states versus 24 hours.
And has no maintenance cost, no operational costs, no fuel costs, and no fuel containment costs. As for the poor quack who had his feelings hurt by me busting on his Greenpeace virgins, I’ll put the 1MW of PV power systems I’ve designed and installed up against his resume of breast implants, abortions and hemmorhoid procedures anyday, and let the newsgroup decide who’s the troll.
Response:
Well refreshing to see how the mention of the word "Greenpeace" still gets the trolls out of their caves. Seriously boys, why not find another way of venting this hatred ? As a member of the medical fraternity, I can state that it is long since proven that incorrect body posture can lead, over time, to resident stress in the body which can impact on the ability of the sufferer to function in normal society. This of course relates to people slouching, not swinging their arms while walking etc. Imagine then, the damage caused by people, such as some of the posters to this message, walking around with their heads up their arses. For a bit of fact have a look at what the pinko-liberals of KPMG had to say ( ooh, those accountants, such extremists ) http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/publications/impasse.htm Briefly, for $600 million invested, solar power comes down to ~7.8 cents/kwh which they see as competitive compared to the average price of 6.8 cents/kwh ( at the time of the report ). And no, I don’t think Greenpeace should be ponying up the money, let the government create the conditions where the market will demand, and then the producers will supply. Problem is, big business has a bit too much control of government. Same story in most of the European countries, just that in the US, well you’ve got more of the big business, and of course, you’ve got George, My most heartfelt sympathies, Colm O’Gairbhith, Ireland – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >"Greenpeace has renewed its challenge to BP to make solar > >power affordable for ordinary consumers following revelations > >that a report co-ordinated by BP Solar proves this would be possible" > This is hilarious. I challenge Greenpeace to commit to the purchase of 100 > kW > of inverter for every 125 kW (nameplate) of flat roof commercial PV sold > in the > US. Let ‘em put their rich members’ money and their cute skanks’ workin’ > thangs where there mouths are. Probably 100 to 200 MW of opportunity in > CA > alone. They can get their Sierra Club, FOE and Concerned Scientists > buddies to > help. > Good post,,, I agree.
Response:
>Good post Chris.. My 10% was way over as I take a second look/thought. I >follow your numbers but are you saying an average home can get by with 135 >watts of panel? Seems way-way to low. Where does the 10KWh/mo come from? >From the above poster, which you pointed out wasn’t enough? Shouldn’t you >have used your 500KWh/mo plus number, or whatever is more realistic?
Depends on what the buyer wants. The OP (original poster) suggested these tiny little 10 kWh/mo systems as a way to increase solar-PV market penetration so as to lower the overall system prices. I am not at all sure this would work, but who knows? > I just took delivery of two-75W Sieman panels. Cost was $320 each plus $25 >each for shipping to my front door… $690/150w = $4.60/watt….
You paid too much per watt (although that tends to happen when you only want two panels ). A homebuilder stamping out 600 identical houses will buy two panels per house => 1200 panels total, lowering the per-panel price. >Then it cost me $30/each for mounting hardware… ($690+60)/150w = >$5.00/w and this doesn’t include controllers, batteries, installation >and so forth. Since no one works for free, except for themselves, >and then there should be a cost associated with that as well, then >would it not be fair to say that you could double the material cost >for someone to come in an do the installation so you could now come >up with a turn key cost? Hmmmm, in my case, that would be $10/watt >(installed,,,, with no batteries,controler, widgets)
1) Why would you want batteries, in a grid-connected system? (Answer: because you want your system to be *more* reliable than utility power. Reliability costs big bucks. If you are willing to be only *as* reliable, forget the batteries. They are expensive and require a lot of maintenance — you actually have to look at them once a month!) 2) "Double" is way too high in new construction. 3) Actual installed cost to actual homebuilder is actually about $6/watt. (Shea Homes, Scripps Highlands, in San Diego.) >Hmmm, shouldn’t you be using whatever it cost to get you to the 500KWh/mo >PLUS figure?
That would make it *lower*. They are installing about 1000 watts per house by default, costing the buyer about $6000. These homes also include solar water heating, costing about $2000. As an option, you can add another 1000 watts of solar PV for $4000. So the initial PV expense is $6/watt, but incremental expense is only $4/watt (I imagine they are using ST2500s here, hence no need for additional inverters). See <http://www.office.com/global/0,2724,57-23164,FF.html> (and go to the 2nd page). These are mostly $400,000 homes, so adding $10,000 for the "full-blown" (~2 kW plus hot-water) solar system bumps the cost up 2.5%. >If 800 watts of panels will generate about 100 kWh/mo (Your numbers from >this post),,,, and you mentioned above that an average CA home uses 500+ >kWh/mo,,,, then we would need 800watts panels x 5 = 4,000 + watts of panels >per household,,,, that is if we want to generate 500 plus kWh/mo…. >4,000watts of panels x $12/watt( your overgenerous number) = $48,000… or >4,000watts of panels x $6/watt= $24,000 ……. $24,000 tacked onto a >$100,000 home = 24%. This doesn’t include batteries or the extra structure >to house the batteries and controlers and so forth. Hmmmm, where did I go >wrong?
All over the place. New construction and bulk-buying push the cost down quite a bit, and those prices *do* include inverters. Batteries are unnecessary since the houses are grid-tied. Likewise, the house does not have to supply 100% of its own usage. >I would think that the higher the price of the house, the more electric >gadgets/widgets/appliances the owner would have and thus, they would >need/want that much more generating capability… .
Well, that actually turns out to be wrong. The price of the house is determined by location, not square-footage nor number of occupants. >The original poster didn’t mention if the building code should be written so >that each household would generate all or just a portion of their energy >needs… I am kinda going on the household being able to generate all their >energy needs. Anything less and then we are on a slippery slide. :)
Considering that current houses generate 0%, anything *more* than 0% is a slippery slide upward! One more URL: http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtcpages/20010312_solar.htm — In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Response:
Hi Phillip, There are two primary costs related to electric lamps. You mentioned the obvious one, which is the cost of the lamp itself. The second, more hidden, cost is the cost of the electricity to run the lamp. The second cost dominates the equation in many applications. Here is an example of how my mother-in-law saved $118.70 by buying a compact flourescent lamp for $10.97 to replace an incandescent lamp (sorry to repeat this next paragraph for those who read it recently): In 1996, my mother-in-law had a 100 W light which see burned 24-7 so that her cat would use the litter box in the basement. I encouraged her to use a compact flourescent light instead, since she would save a *lot* of money by doing so. I installed a Sylvania Dulux EL 20W which cost about US$10.97 at Lowe’s on November 17, 1996. This light burned out on May 30, 1999 after 22,176 hours of continuous operation (with the base up). Assuming she was paying US$0.50 per 2000-hour-life incandescent lamp, and US$0.07/kWh of electricity, she saved a total of$118.70 during that two and a half year period, just from ONE lamp! She also eliminated many instances of piss-on-the-rug due to the incandescent lights burning out while she was away. Clearly this is the *ideal* application for compact flourescent lamps due to the fact that it was never switched off. The point is that for many applications, you will save money by shelling out the extra money to buy the expensive lamps. In some cases, you will save a *lot* of money, as shown above. In other cases, such as a bathroom or a refrigerator where the light gets cycled often, you will likely spend more money if you buy the compact flourescent. But don’t forget, you will still be saving quite a bit of energy. If you replace all of the lamps in your house with compact flourescents, you will save some money overall and a *lot* of electricity. You will also save some of your time that would have been wasted replacing incandescent lamps. Please, let’s not get the government involved in yet another area of our lives. I abhor having them take my money and make spending decisions for me. That’s one of the reasons PV and other renewables *appear* to be more expensive than centralized power plants. Regards, George Estep
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> If the government wants to promote energy conservation why do one of those > new lightbulbs cost no less than $8.99?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Maybe it should be implemented in building codes that all new homes are >> required to generate no less than 10kWh per month (or more). … >> Imagine if a Business with a building 150 feet or higher would be >> required to have no less than 4×60watt solar arrays. > 4×60 is only 240 watts (peak). Assuming you live in an area with > about 4 peak-sun-hours per day and that your conversion rate is > about 82%: > 240 Wh/peaksunhour x 4 PSH/day x 30 day/mo x .82 efficiency > => 28800 * .82 = 23616 watt-hours/mo (~24 kWh/mo). > This is not very much. 10 kWh/mo is even less, of course; a typical > home in California uses over 500 kWh/mo. >Sure can do that… the building code thing…. Would it be fair to >say that it would increase the price of new home construction by 10% >over todays prices? > Well, that depends on today’s prices, no? Work it out: $4/watt > for the panels plus about $2–3/watt for everything else (assuming > no battery storage, just grid-connected inverter). The requirement > is 10 kWh/mo or 10000 Wh/mo or about 333 Wh/day (using 30 days per > month, again). At measly 3 PSH/day (these are the kinds of numbers > you get in cloudy east-coast-USA areas — you get 5 or more in dry > sunny desert areas), and assuming the same 82% system efficiency, > you need 111/.82 peak watts, or about 135 watts of solar panels.
Good post Chris.. My 10% was way over as I take a second look/thought. I follow your numbers but are you saying an average home can get by with 135 watts of panel? Seems way-way to low. Where does the 10KWh/mo come from? From the above poster, which you pointed out wasn’t enough? Shouldn’t you have used your 500KWh/mo plus number, or whatever is more realistic? I just took delivery of two-75W Sieman panels. Cost was $320 each plus $25 each for shipping to my front door… $690/150w = $4.60/watt…. Then it cost me $30/each for mounting hardware… ($690+60)/150w = $5.00/w and this doesn’t include controllers, batteries , installation and so forth. Since no one works for free, except for themselves, and then there should be a cost associated with that as well, then would it not be fair to say that you could double the material cost for someone to come in an do the installation so you could now come up with a turn key cost? Hmmmm, in my case, that would be $10/watt (installed,,,, with no batteries,controler, widgets) > Let us be crazily overgenerous and use a $12/watt figure. (Actual > solar-panel installations on new houses built by Shea Homes in San > Diego are running about half that, as I understand it.) 135 watts > will then cost $1620. If the average new home costs, say, $50000, > then the new cost would be $51620, which is an increase of 3.25%.
Hmmm, shouldn’t you be using whatever it cost to get you to the 500KWh/mo PLUS figure? Gig is about the only person that can live on 10kWh/mo… <grin> Even Gig has more that 135 watts of panels, I believe he took delivery of two more panels.. <grin again> > More realistically, if that 135 watts costs $6/watt (which it does) > and the average new home costs at least $100000 (which it does), > then the average price increase would be under 1%. > In areas with 5 PSH/day, you only need about 80 watts of panels to > generate 10 kWh/mo. More reasonably, 800 watts of panels will > generate about 100 kWh/mo and will add less than 5% to the price > of a $100k home. Since new homes in that area (Scripps Highlands) > actually run around $300–600k, this actually adds less than 2%.
If 800 watts of panels will generate about 100 kWh/mo (Your numbers from this post),,,, and you mentioned above that an average CA home uses 500+ kWh/mo,,,, then we would need 800watts panels x 5 = 4,000 + watts of panels per household,,,, that is if we want to generate 500 plus kWh/mo…. 4,000watts of panels x $12/watt( your overgenerous number) = $48,000… or 4,000watts of panels x $6/watt= $24,000 ……. $24,000 tacked onto a $100,000 home = 24%. This doesn’t include batteries or the extra structure to house the batteries and controlers and so forth. Hmmmm, where did I go wrong? I would think that the higher the price of the house, the more electric gadgets/widgets/appliances the owner would have and thus, they would need/want that much more generating capability… . The original poster didn’t mention if the building code should be written so that each household would generate all or just a portion of their energy needs… I am kinda going on the household being able to generate all their energy needs. Anything less and then we are on a slippery slide. :)
Response:
>"Greenpeace has renewed its challenge to BP to make solar >power affordable for ordinary consumers following revelations >that a report co-ordinated by BP Solar proves this would be possible" > This is hilarious. I challenge Greenpeace to commit to the purchase of 100 kW > of inverter for every 125 kW (nameplate) of flat roof commercial PV sold in the > US. Let ‘em put their rich members’ money and their cute skanks’ workin’ > thangs where there mouths are. Probably 100 to 200 MW of opportunity in CA > alone. They can get their Sierra Club, FOE and Concerned Scientists buddies to > help.
Good post,,, I agree.
Response:
>"Greenpeace has renewed its challenge to BP to make solar >power affordable for ordinary consumers following revelations >that a report co-ordinated by BP Solar proves this would be possible"
This is hilarious. I challenge Greenpeace to commit to the purchase of 100 kW of inverter for every 125 kW (nameplate) of flat roof commercial PV sold in the US. Let ‘em put their rich members’ money and their cute skanks’ workin’ thangs where there mouths are. Probably 100 to 200 MW of opportunity in CA alone. They can get their Sierra Club, FOE and Concerned Scientists buddies to help.
Response:
>> Maybe it should be implemented in building codes that all new homes are > required to generate no less than 10kWh per month (or more). … > Imagine if a Business with a building 150 feet or higher would be > required to have no less than 4×60watt solar arrays.
4×60 is only 240 watts (peak). Assuming you live in an area with about 4 peak-sun-hours per day and that your conversion rate is about 82%: 240 Wh/peaksunhour x 4 PSH/day x 30 day/mo x .82 efficiency => 28800 * .82 = 23616 watt-hours/mo (~24 kWh/mo). This is not very much. 10 kWh/mo is even less, of course; a typical home in California uses over 500 kWh/mo. >Sure can do that… the building code thing…. Would it be fair to >say that it would increase the price of new home construction by 10% >over todays prices?
Well, that depends on today’s prices, no? Work it out: $4/watt for the panels plus about $2–3/watt for everything else (assuming no battery storage, just grid-connected inverter). The requirement is 10 kWh/mo or 10000 Wh/mo or about 333 Wh/day (using 30 days per month, again). At measly 3 PSH/day (these are the kinds of numbers you get in cloudy east-coast-USA areas — you get 5 or more in dry sunny desert areas), and assuming the same 82% system efficiency, you need 111/.82 peak watts, or about 135 watts of solar panels. Let us be crazily overgenerous and use a $12/watt figure. (Actual solar-panel installations on new houses built by Shea Homes in San Diego are running about half that, as I understand it.) 135 watts will then cost $1620. If the average new home costs, say, $50000, then the new cost would be $51620, which is an increase of 3.25%. More realistically, if that 135 watts costs $6/watt (which it does) and the average new home costs at least $100000 (which it does), then the average price increase would be under 1%. In areas with 5 PSH/day, you only need about 80 watts of panels to generate 10 kWh/mo. More reasonably, 800 watts of panels will generate about 100 kWh/mo and will add less than 5% to the price of a $100k home. Since new homes in that area (Scripps Highlands) actually run around $300–600k, this actually adds less than 2%. — In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Response:
> Why is it so dang expensive???
For people that can afford SUV’s or own multi vehicles or expensive adult play toy’s and/or live in $150,000 plus homes, RE cost is not that bad. For the price of a new car, you can purchase a RE system. > If the government wants to promote energy conservation why do one of those > new lightbulbs cost no less than $8.99?
Besides EX-Clinton and EX-Gore, who else in government promotes energy conservation? :) > If CA is in so much power hungry need (which I do not live in CA), why are > solar arrays so expensive? > Imagine if every house had it’s own power generation how cheap buying a > solar panel would be. The price would drop!
Yes Sir,, the more widgets you made, the cheaper it cost. Mass production tends to do that. Generally speaking, centralized power generation is cheaper that having mutiples of smaller generating facillities. If companies continue to price > items out of reach, then the middle class and lower class income people will > never be able to afford this technology.
Companies price the item so they recoupe their investment PLUS pay their stockholders a dividend, PLUS pay ever increasing wages, taxes, utilities, insurance and lawsuites….. If they don’t the stockholders will take their money someplace else. > Maybe it should be implemented in building codes that all new homes are > required to generate no less than 10kWh per month (or more). That would get > renewable energy out their and moving. Imagine if a Business with a > building 150 feet or higher would be required to have no less than 4×60watt > solar arrays.
Sure can do that… the building code thing…. Would it be fair to say that it would increase the price of new home construction by 10% over todays prices? > Sure these building codes wouldn’t work in Alaska or northern Washington as > well, but it could be done. > We need to find a way to drop the price of this equipment by 50% before > people will be able to pay for it. Unless this is a true hobby (which is > the case for most that post to this group), a family of two that makes > $30,000 a year in income, maybe owns or is buying a home will not be able to > afford a $5,000 kit, let alone a $1,000 kit and would be lucky if they could > afford a $250 kit especially if they have kids. And what does a $250 kit > buy you today? It buys one part of an elegant system.
If you are driving/purchasing/leasing/ whatever a SUV, then theorically, you could afford a RE system (drive a cheap piece of crap and put the money into a RE system) … If you do not, and are making $30k or so and have a family, then you are hurting. Greenpeace people don’t give a rip about you and the system will roll you over, I am afraid to say 
Then the deprived people will get pissed and then the shit will hit the fan when they riot and protest. Look on down the energy road and tell me how are all those little and marginal business going to survive when they are force to pay higher ( RE?) energy bills? They will go under and when they do, there will be a domino effect with unemployment… But what the hay,, we will have a cleaner environment.
Response:
>"Greenpeace has renewed its challenge to BP to make solar >power affordable for ordinary consumers following revelations >that a report co-ordinated by BP Solar proves this would be possible"
I seem to recall that report said we could manufacture PVs for $1/PW after spending billions and billions on R&D and an expensive factory. But that didn’t include the interest on the billions and billions… Nick
Response:
> Why is it so dang expensive??? > If the government wants to promote energy conservation why > do one of those new lightbulbs cost no less than $8.99?
May I interject a thought here… I buy Compact Florescent lights at no more than $5.95 each, in fact their price ranges from $3.95 to $5.95 each, at the IKEA Home Furnishings Superstore… I might say that the new Halogen (very hot) bulb are $3.95 each and are not near as efficient as the CF bulbs… IKEA has a web page, so look it up yourself… the IKEA store are located in most all European, American, and some of the Oriental countries… We have one here in Houston… and the CF bulbs are good quality, and have excellent brightness… I have them all over the house… Gig
Response:
>Imagine if every house had it’s own power generation how cheap buying a >solar panel would be. The price would drop!…
Do you have any evidence for this article of faith? Nick
Response:
Why is it so dang expensive??? If the government wants to promote energy conservation why do one of those new lightbulbs cost no less than $8.99? If CA is in so much power hungry need (which I do not live in CA), why are solar arrays so expensive? Imagine if every house had it’s own power generation how cheap buying a solar panel would be. The price would drop! If companies continue to price items out of reach, then the middle class and lower class income people will never be able to afford this technology. Maybe it should be implemented in building codes that all new homes are required to generate no less than 10kWh per month (or more). That would get renewable energy out their and moving. Imagine if a Business with a building 150 feet or higher would be required to have no less than 4×60watt solar arrays. Sure these building codes wouldn’t work in Alaska or northern Washington as well, but it could be done. We need to find a way to drop the price of this equipment by 50% before people will be able to pay for it. Unless this is a true hobby (which is the case for most that post to this group), a family of two that makes $30,000 a year in income, maybe owns or is buying a home will not be able to afford a $5,000 kit, let alone a $1,000 kit and would be lucky if they could afford a $250 kit especially if they have kids. And what does a $250 kit buy you today? It buys one part of an elegant system. — Have you tried ??? rpm -Uvh os2rh71
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.