Will solar power ever be as cheap as coal? (5 years)

[jpak]

http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2008/12/04/will-solar-power-ever-be-as-cheap-as-coal/

“Solar power is the energy of the future – and always will be.”

That tired joke, which has dogged solar-generated electricity for decades due to its high cost, could be retired far sooner than many think.

While solar contributes less than 1 percent of the energy generated in the United States today, its costs are turning sharply downward.

Whether using mirrors that focus desert sunlight to harvest heat and spin turbines or rooftop photovoltaic panels that turn sunshine directly into current, solar is on track to deliver electricity to residential users at a cost on par with natural gas and perhaps even coal within the next four to seven years, industry experts say.

“We’re confident that we’re not that far away from a tipping point where energy from solar will be competitive with fossil fuels,” said Ray Kurzweil, a National Academy of Engineers panel member after the panel reported on the future of solar power in February. “I personally believe that we’re within five years of that tipping point.”

<more>

[lapfog_1]

1. If the true cost of each technology, measured in terms

of public health and well being, not to mention damage to the environment, was used as a measure of MW/hrs produced, solar would be so far ahead it wouldn't even be funny.

[havocmom]

2. and if the powers that be would just give one tenth of the help they gave older sources of power

for GENERATIONS...

::sigh:: so easy to make things better, but first we have to overthrow the dominate paradigm.

[On the Road]

3. After Looking at Some Cost Studies from Solar Suporters

I am very pessimistic about its future as the techology exists today. Even after seven years and $200B of investment, the cost of solar will still be be twice the retail price of electricity. That an estimate by solar proponents based on significantly higher costs for traditional energy than right now.

It is very possible there will be some breakthroughs, but those breakthroughs are badly needed.

[kristopher]

7. So you see a "business as usual" energy market on the horizon?

I don't. I see a dramatic restructuring that creates massive demand for solar (and other renewables) with consequent massive investment in manufacturing infrastructure and a resulting dramatic reduction in costs.

There is no reason for solar to be expensive other than the fact that it is has been, to date, a niche market with no way to cross the investment barrier created by cheap fossil fuels. All that has changed with climate change and Obama's election. It is unequivocal that his energy policy was endorsed by the citizens of this nation.

I think all future cost curves that have been based on a BAU approach severely underestimate the rate of change that is coming.

[On the Road]

11. Wind is Already Cost-Effective for Generating Electricity

Solar is not and will not be without some kind of cost breakthrough. As I understand it, it is not a matter of the normal volume and experience curve that all manufacturers go through.

[kristopher]

16. The cost breakthrough

Will come when demand is increase. It is the old Catch 22, solar won't be cheap until it is popular and it wont be popular until it is cheap.
The Answer: make it "populaar" through the use of government mandate. For example, create a program that guarantees a quantity 100X todays yearly production will be purchased by the government over 5 years. That is an arbitrary number, and personally I'd recommend the government commit to maximizing solar energy on every building in the country 100%.

That would create demand that would result in solar being very inexpensive in very short order.

[On the Road]

20. The Solar People Don't Seem to Think So

Even the solar-supported studies show a huge cost disadvantage(two to four times) even after hundreds of billions are invested. That's what I'm saying -- solar panels as a primary source are at a fundamental cost disadvantage that cost is not going to correct. If not, you would expect someone to show some projections that demonstrate otherwise.

[kristopher]

21. I'd be very interested in seeing these suposed studies you refer to.

As far as I know they don't yet exist.

[On the Road]

29. They Were Posted Here on DU

I don't remember the author's name. If you hang around the energy forum, you've seen it. I'm not an aficionado on this stuff.

I do know, from examining the numbers, that a study purporting to show how practical and cost-effective solar is (if only someone would invest $200B by 2015) actually showed the opposite. Even after years of heavy investment, the author's projections showed solar well out of reach. If there's a more favorable analysis, these guys either didn't know about it or didn't believe it.

------------------

On Edit: Here's a DU thread discussing the study.

More importantly, here's a pdf announcing the results of the study, although it is less the study itself than an announcement of the authors' conclusions. It is not real transparent and requires some reading between the lines.

Note that the authors are comparing the cost of solar (p. 7) with the retail price of electricity (p.8) According to this Income Statement from an electric utility, fuel cost + depreciation of capital investment account for less than 40% of revenue. That would mean when the study discusses a $2/kwh cost per solar energy in 2015, that is likely to translate into a $5/kwh retail price.

I interpret the mixing of apples and oranges to the authors being energy advocates rather than financial analysts and also a desire to preach to the converted rather than persuade skeptics.

Even these numbers depend on an investment plan where 1/3 to 1/2 of all energy investment is devoted to solar (p. 9). With these numbers, it is unlikely to generate that kind of investment when alternatives like wind are so much lower.

This is just what jumps out to me. The authors also suggest using solar as a supplement to provide peak power. As they suggest, this application may turn out to be much more cost effective, although the comparison is not quantified very well.

I really have nothing against solar. I hope there are huge technological and cost breakthroughs. This particular study simply did not present a very optimistic set of numbers although it tried to frame it that way.

[kristopher]

31. LIke I thought, you're full of it.

[On the Road]

32. Please Read the Edited Note

and tell me where you disagree with the numbers. Remember, these numbers are from solar advocates. Although they try to present it differently, their study is actually a red flag as to why current solar technologies should be avoided.

[kristopher]

33. Ok.

I don't mean to insult you, but you aren't capturing the meaning properly. Perhaps you aren't familiar enough with the system you are trying to understand. The reason I say that is the prices you are quoting: ". That would mean when the study discusses a $2/kwh cost per solar energy in 2015, that is likely to translate into a $5/kwh retail price."

Now compare that to what the excerpt on your linked page says: "Installed solar PV prices are projected to decline from an average $5.50 to $7 peak watt (15-32 cents kWh) today to $3.02 to $3.82 peak watt (8-18 cents kWh) in 2015 and $1.43 to $1.82 peak watt (4-8 cents kWh) by 2025."

Now, aside from that confusion, I see your point about preaching to the converted. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand you might make that conclusion if you aren't able to evaluate the data.


Take a careful look at this website and see what other data you can find on the company. My argument is that it is advances like this that capital investment will bring into play. Indeed, increases in technological efficiency are a predictable part of the process of lowering costs. For example , very recently NanoSolar has developed a machine that produces 1GW worth of panels per year yet costs only $1.65 million. Previously, a plant to produce that capacity cost around $500 million.
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/

[On the Road]

34. Thank You

That is the most substantive reply I have received on these issues on DU. No, you're not being insulting by correcting me, only by being dismissive in a one-liner. I am trying to understand the economics of the energy industry better and very few of the sources are of much help.

I did indeed mislabel $2 cost per watt installed (graph p.7 on the USA study) as $2 per kwh. The point of that comment, however, was to underscore what seemed to me to be an inapt comparison between price and retail cost. On p. 7 the authors state:

We project that the cost for crystalline silicon PV systems will drop...to approximately $3.00 (8-14 cents kWh) a decade from now.

They then use the 8-to-14-cent range on the following page to graphically compare solar costs with current retail prices, when fuel+capital is less than half of an electric utilities cost. When you adjust for that and take out Kauai, you can see how far off they are, even using their own estimates. That's the fundamental point. Am I misreading this?

---------------

On the site you refer to, nanosolar might indeed be the answer. However, they actually seem to warn against the kind of heavy investment in current technology the USA study (which relies only only economies of scale) is promoting:

While already committed capital creates an overhang and presumably will still lead to the completion of a further number of factories based on low-productivity technology, subsequent expansion of such has now become more doubtful.

What I've been arguing here is that technology/cost breakthroughs need to take place before hundreds of billions are invested in implementation. The USA study numbers still seem to me undermine their own argument.

[kristopher]

35. Nano solar is ONE solution.

What a guaranteed demand does is establish a climate where all of the "breakthrough technologies" we routinely read about will have a chance to see if they can actually perform when there is money being spent. As I understand it, Nanosolar has a production cost of about $0.30 per watt. However, the installation costs are still quite high. That is another area of the process that should come down as demand draws more competition and innovation into installation.
Other technologies that use different approaches such as coatings that capture nearly all the light, or innovative lenses that capture light from all angles, concentrates it and cools the much smaller area of PV cell are also good candidates for low cost systems.

Demand spurs innovation, innovation lowers cost. It doesn't matter if the demand is a product of policy or a social fad, the result is the same.

Any analysis that doesn't take that into account is, IMO, flawed.

[kristopher]

28. Still waiting for those studies....

Showing the effect of "hundreds of billions" of investment....


Beuler?

Beuler??

[wundermaus]

4. Solar power is essentially free...

abundant, and limitless... the only constraints are greed and ignorance.

[TheWraith]

8. Not really.

Maintainence on the panels is nearly zero, but there's a staggering initial cost per watt to be considered. PV panels are expensive and difficult to manufacture.

[wundermaus]

10. I disagree...

http://www.industryweek.com/readarticle.aspx?articleid=14932
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/edn.htm
http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/07/11/new-cost-effective-solar-energy-devices-from-mit/
http://sustainablog.org/2008/02/25/measuring-solars-total-impact/
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/csi/index.html

[Dogmudgeon]

17. Solar energy -- too cheap to meter?

Careful -- ONE nuclear supporter said that 50 years ago, and millions of "environmentalists" are still laughing themselves hoarse over it.

--p!

[TheWraith]

5. Any they've been confident of it being near a tipping point for decades, too. nt

[redstateblues]

6. At the present wind is a more viable alternative renewable

[TheWraith]

9. Agreed completely.

There's only two really viable "renewable" techs right now, hydro and wind. Unfortunately hydro has practical limitations, mostly due to the environmental impacts of dams and the number of good sites.

[NNadir]

12. Solar Soothsaying will always be cheap. It is the only solar technology that works.

Works at being wrong anyway.

We have had nearly a decade of solar soothsaying here at the E&E forum, with the number of dumb anti-nuke "solar will save us" advocates who recognize that solar is not and cannot be equivalent to the coal that they don't give a fuck about.

The capacity utilization of coal plants in this country is 72%.

The capacity utilization of the weeny solar installations in this country is about 20%.

The only thing in the world that has higher capacity utilization than coal is nuclear energy, which operates at 89% of capacity utilization.

The number of solar soothsayers on this website who can understand numbers of course, is ZERO.

[jpak]

13. Have a blessed day

:rofl:

[madokie]

15. I'm curious as to just who might be blessing his day

Mr nnadir needs a knot jerked in his ass. I thought this is a forum to discuss energy and environmental issues not to be talked down to like this jerk is allowed to continue to do. Sure I don't have to clik on this at all I'm well aware of that but that isn't the issue here, is it? Who is going to listen to someone who is calling them an idiot? :mad:

[NNadir]

24. Actually fundie, I don't do "blessing."

I have something called "ethics" and so I don't do cult religious thinking.

While you and your dumb fundie friends giggle, people on this planet <em>die</em>.

This afternoon I had the pleasure of speaking to a fine young woman at the University of PA from Bangladesh.

Giggle all you want, but while you giggle, fuckhead, people in her country are dying from your ignorance.

Have a nice, fucking, yuppie, Chevy Volt, car cult driven day.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/special-report-bangladesh-is-set-to-disappear-under-the-waves-by-the-end-of-the-century-850938.html">Giggle, Giggle, laugh, laugh

Ha. Ha.

[jpak]

27. Have a truly blessed blessed blessed day!

and blessed be the University of PA psychiatric research program!

:rofl:

[bananas]

14. Photovoltaics is the world's fastest-growing energy source

"Production of photovoltaics (PV) jumped to 3,800 megawatts worldwide in 2007, up an estimated 50 percent over 2006. At the end of the year, according to preliminary data, cumulative global production stood at 12,400 megawatts, enough to power 2.4 million U.S. homes. Growing by an impressive average of 48 percent each year since 2002, PV production has been doubling every two years, making it the world’s fastest-growing energy source."

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Solar/2007.htm

[Dead_Parrot]

18. Cheap solar is on the way!

Just a few more years! No, really, it is! Yes, I know I've been saying this every few months since the 1930's, but I really mean it this time!

Why is is everybody laughing?

[kristopher]

22. Poor little feller

Ain't gonna get his glow in the dark toys...

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Clap harder! Clap harder!

[Citizen Number 9]

30. Why does it have to be "cheap" before we buy?

If a particular person is really concerned about the environment and what we're doing to it with carbon emissions, they'd buy a complete solar array to cover your usage right now.

[dysfunctional press]

38. is that what you've done? how much did it cost...?

:shrug:

[Citizen Number 9]

52. Total cost will be

about $80,000 when the system is complete.

10 Kw plus an additional 3 Kw for charging an electric vehicle.

Federal tax credits will take about $25,000 off plus a few more thousand on other rebates, so a total of $55,000.

It's a grid tie system, but we have provided for battery storage banks that aren't going to be installed yet.

It's also wired for a wind generator, but the costs for the generator and tower aren't included.

[dysfunctional press]

54. well- i think you've found the reason that people don't/won't do it...

it's WAY too expensive for most homeowners. there's absolutely no way that we could afford $55K to install something like that.

[Citizen Number 9]

55. Well, that's what I used to think,

But then I watched a couple I know who was looking for a new house. They were hunting in the $300K range, but right at the end, they dropped nearly $380K on one. Pretty big jump, so what changed?

They decided they wanted to make this next one their DREAM home.

If using solar power is important enough to you, then you might do similar.

I will also point out that the system I described is pretty big and many residences can get by with a system much less expensive.

[dysfunctional press]

56. good for them...but how does that equate to anyone else being able to plunk down $50K...?

what kind of fairy princess world do you live in where people have that much cash on hand to put into their current house, or even enough credit available to do so..? short of each of us selling a kidney, there's absolutely no way that my wife and i could swing that. and there are a helluva lot of people worse off than we are.

[Citizen Number 9]

57. We just went through

one of the greatest runups in the price of real estate in history. Millions of homeowners had the ability to refinance for equity or take out a good second on their home. Wake up. How much of that cash got spent on energy efficiency or solar systems?

I think they bought SUVs and luxury goods, instead. In fact, a number of them bought even bigger homes than they had been living in and the increased values made the prices of solar systems pale. A lot of them could have even gotten more house and still put a lot into a solar system.

Now, those systems would be paying additional bonuses in both energy conservation and reduced or eliminated energy bills.

Not only that, but we would have had a significantly more healthy alternative energy sector by now.

I am sorry if you feel you couldn't have done this, but I don't know who you are in particular or what your exact situation is. I do know that huge numbers of consumers could have and didn't.

[dysfunctional press]

59. too late now- many many of those people are now upside-down on their mortgages...

we aren't- we have about 200K in equity right now- but taking 50K out to add a solar system wouldn't be feasible, as it would raise our payments out of range. i had looked into getting a solar system- but the pricing just didn't make it anywhere near worthwhile. especially since between now and the end of my life, i doubt that my electric bills will add up to $50K or more...unless i make it past 90.

[Citizen Number 9]

62. Well, sorta like I posted,

going solar is more than a financial investment, it's a hedge against rising energy prices, it's a reduction of greenhouse gases and an investment in the future of everyone else, including your kids.

Best as I can tell, PV panels don't really wear out and will be producing power for your heirs long into the future.

However, I'm pretty sure that even if people can afford $50,000 more house they're going to be buying a rec room and a big screen instead of PV systems.

What if oil goes to $200 a barrel with electricity and gas following right along? Would that make a PV system more feasible for you?

[dysfunctional press]

65. most of our electricity doesn't come from oil or gas- it comes from coal.

and although the panels have life expectancies of 30+ years- the batteries only last 2-5 years, and the inverters 10-15 years. as for us- we have no kids or heirs. plus- there's no telling how long we might stay in this house- we both feel like we've got one more big move in us. and although it might be a good selling point- a solar pv system probably won't raise the price of the house enough to cover the cost of the system.

the plain truth is that this planet can't support it's current population without use of fossil fuels- so in order to wean ourselves from them, we'll also have to have a die-off of way more than a billion people. the way i see it, based on life observation- is that if man truly is the main cause of global warming, society isn't going to make the needed changes until there's a dramatic & catastrophic event that makes it imperative- and by then it will be too late anyway...if it isn't already.

[Citizen Number 9]

66. Well, that's sorta how I see people, too.

If they really wanted to, they could make the solar systems happen. People routinely spend that much on a new kitchen, and other remodels, but not all of them add an equivalent amount of value to their home. Some add very little value.

So, we are left with the possibility that people would rather face a huge die-off than change their habits and the ways in which they value alternative energies. That's not a surprise to me.

BTW, you do realize that batteries aren't required in a solar system, don't you? A grid-tie system makes your meter run "backwards" when your system is generating more energy than you are using and you can draw on that surplus at times the system doesn't work, like at night.

[dysfunctional press]

68. solar systems that aren't tied to the grid need batteries...

and why would someone truly worried about global warming even consider getting power from the fossil-fuel generated grid?

since i'm in my upper 40's, and have no children whose futures i need to be concerned about- it doesn't really worry me, as the worst of it won't be occurring until after i'm gone anyway. if the VAST majority of the people WITH kids aren't concerned about the state of the planet that they'll be leaving them...why should i be? :shrug:

[jpak]

58. 13 kW is a HUGE PV system - most are 2-3 kW and under $16K before tax credits or rebates

n/t

[dysfunctional press]

60. for most houses(at least around here) 2-3kw wouldn't be enough.

i have a 10kw backup generator, and it doesn't run everything.

[jpak]

61. Not a criticism - just an observation

good for you!

:hi:

[Citizen Number 9]

63. I think most systems are sized

to cover the power needs of the residence for most hours of the day, especially if no one is at home. Since most people are at home outside of peak generating hours (early morning and evening) you can't feasibly get a big enough system to cover all the power needs at that time, so they settle for the basic draw.

We felt that if we were going to do it, we wanted to turn the meter backwards in a major way during generating hours. It will help motivate us to conserve the rest of the time in an effort to become truly power neutral. We also added that extra 3 kW to charge an electric vehicle or crack water for hydrogen for a fuel cell.

[Kablooie]

19. Santa prefers coal. He can't leave solar energy in bad children's socks.

He can leave electric switches instead of traditional ones though.

[Citizen Number 9]

64. Maybe he's never seen a fully charged capacitor.....

Drop one of those in the stocking and it might fill the bill for bad boys and girls... :evilgrin:

[roody]

25. I haven't had an electric bill for 7 years. That is cheap.

The solar array on my roof takes care of it.

[Dead_Parrot]

26. How much did the array and supporting equipment cost? nt

[dysfunctional press]

39. probably quite a bit...

we looked into doing it- but in order to get enough electricity to run our house(we have a woodshop) it was going to cost more than 35K...in other words- it wasn't worth it to us.

[roody]

43. A do-it-yourselfer could install a solar array and save a lot.

I had it done by a contractor.

[roody]

42. It cost 14,000 dollars LESS THAN my VW Golf.

[dysfunctional press]

44. what is the output of your system? how many kilowatts does it produce?

and what is your latitude?

[roody]

45. I use 6 or 7 KW per day average.

I live 110 miles north of San Francisco.

[One_Life_To_Give]

36. Retail or Wholesale Price?

Usually they quote this reference to a Retail Price. However don't factor in additional equipment to provide what the grid does. Inverters must be added and batteries must be maintained and periodically replaced.

Grid Tie systems sound nice until everyone is using it. At which time we will all see what the charges are to accept power only when we wish to provide it, but always supply power any time we demand it.

[kristopher]

37. Those charges are routinely calculated

When new large scale projects are planned and approved they routinely assess the costs of integration as part of the process and it is usually included in the final cost figures. It usually isn't more than a couple tenths of cent /kWh.

[One_Life_To_Give]

40. So Wholesale Prices?

Large scale implies centralized distribution. So it needs to be cost effective against Wholesale Coal Fired Electric prices. Which are much less than $0.14/KW-HR. There is something like $0.10/KW-HR in cost for maintaining the grid, employing staff to handle routine billing, administration, etc.

Maybe Solar Thermal will get there, but PV is unlikely to become that cheap. More likely to get a 300% increasde in the cost of coal generated electricity. Yielding a Wholesale cost of $0.12-$0.15/KW-HR and residential rates correspondingly higher.

[kristopher]

41. I don't know where you are getting your numbers

But they aren't accurate.

Perhaps you want to do a little research into how electricity is marketed. Pricing at the wholesale level is set by contract in several different markets: long term (could be months or years), day ahead, hourly and spot markets all have different pricing structures.

And just for the record, 10 cents a kwh is more than the national average for delivered electricity; that's everything, all in.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make regarding solar, but unless you understand the markets at play, it probably isn't accurate.

[One_Life_To_Give]

46. Fixed Costs

When distributed generation is insignificant, net metering can and is legislated. As percentages of distributed generation increase the current pricing structure will breakdown. A $500million per year ISO will still collect $500million from it's customers, but you may pay for, total power flow generated and consumed, or by connection size.

Simply put if one raminas connected to the grid their future offset for personnally generated electicity will be only a percentage of the residential electricity rate.

[kristopher]

47. What do you mean, "the current pricing structure will break down"?

I'm not disagreeing with the remark, but I'd like to hear more specifically what you mean.

Also what is "a $500 million per year ISO"? I know what an ISO is, but I don't understand your use of money as a meaningful label for size. "Fixed costs" aren't actually that fixed. They are static only in relation to the lifespan and amortization of each component of the system.

Most cryptic of all is the final line. Are you saying that if I remain connected to the grid I will pay for services I get? That seems fair. Or are you saying that no matter how much I electricity I produce in excess of use, I can never produce enough to have a positive cash flow from the grid connection?

I'd like to discuss this, but your meaning isn't clear to me.

[One_Life_To_Give]

48. The costs of your connection to the grid

The costs of your connection to the grid today are rolled into a per KW-HR charge. But the actual expense incurred is also dependent upon the Ampacity of the Connection, length of cables, plus administrative costs to maintain an account, send out monthly bills etc.

Your 200A (guess) residential panel has a fixed monthly maintenance cost for the ISO to maintain the capability to supply your needs, independent of any actual power used. The 1/3rd of a final step down transformer, still has to be replaced every X years, regardless if you average 500KW-HR per month or 10KW-HR/month.

Today the ISO can afford to cover the costs of users who have little or no electric consumption. High usage customers "subsidize" the costs of the low usage customers, and urban customers subsidize rural. However when a significant number of customers drop their electric usage to near zero, the system will need to be changed. Particularly as the least likely to adopt their own distributed power are the urban poor. Who are not in a position to subsidize the electric connections to rich, environmentally conscious suburbanites.

It's similar to State Transportation budgets if everyone were to actually start driving Hybrids, Volt's and Tesla's. Put enough electric cars on the road and states will be forced to find a way to tax them, just to cover the loss in revenue from gas taxes.

[kristopher]

49. Now I understand your point. Thanks for amplifying.

The recent move to un-bundling the utilities has made the costs of the various services related to transmission and distribution very transparent in most areas. For example, my ISO (PJM) charges for ancillary services and transmission less than 7/10ths of a cent per kilowatt hour. The local company that distributes the electricity to my home charges substantially more at 2.6 cents per kWh. On top of that, the local company charges a flat $7.95/month for administrative costs. In contrast, the actual electricity and fuel adjustment charges make up over 70% of the total price I pay.

Your statement that the transmission and distribution charges will still be in effect are obviously true since we will continue to rely on a grid to make renewables work. However, just as clearly, the costs you were projecting in your first posts are rather exaggerated. For sake of argument let's say a typical bill is $100 and 30% of that is T&D for an average cost to each consumer of $30/mo. Your argument as I understand it is that the T&D percentage would rise as the amount of centrally generated electricity consumption declines. I agree with that. However, since the charge is actually a per customer charge, and since there is little reason to believe the total number of centrally served customers would decline significantly, there is consequently no reason to expect the amount spent on these T&D services to rise in actual dollars per month per customer.

The reason I don't expect declining participation in the grid is that Smart Grid technology will make it beneficial for those who can afford to install larger distributed generating capacity to remain on the grid in order to maximize the value of the generating resource they've invested in. I see no reason urban dwellers will pay significantly more for anything.

The real losers will be the people who own fossil fuel natural resources and fossil fuel generating plants.

[One_Life_To_Give]

50. Which number to calculate ROI on renewables

Those who are marketing alternative energy solutions are likely to quote the total effective rate of generation and delivery. Which is true for Netmetering today. In the future you may be charged a fixed cost for a 100A connection, more for a 200A connection. Smart grid may mean that energy is cheaper when it is abundant and more expensive when it is not. Today 2PM in the summer and 6AM in the winter are peaks of demand price. In an area saturated with solar the summer peak cost may be just after sunset with a low price during the morning hours. Urban customers will contimue to subsidize rural as total copper on a per customer basis is higher.

[kristopher]

51. Look up the phrase

"Locational marginal pricing"

At the wholesale level electricity is already priced at local "nodes" by supply/demand. The amount for electricity on a retail bill (the 70% I spoke of in the last post) is an average of the total purchases in the various markets I mentioned. One of the anticipated benefits of the Smart Grid would be, as you say, bringing demand pricing to the consumer level to achieve load balancing.

It is going to be an interesting time...

[kristopher]

53. Hmmmm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x178124

[exman]

67. cost figures skewed..

Every one seems to be costing out solar power as installed over existing roofing. Many thin film photovoltaic systems are being developed AS the roofing material, now subtract the cost of roofing materials. (obviously this applies mostly to new construction, or repair):shrug: