The raw costs, not adjusted for inflation:
Q1 2014: $4.52/W total for $1.03/W modules [0]
Q1 2015: $3.09/Wdc total for $0.70/Wdc modules [1]
Q1 2016: $2.93/Wdc total for $0.63/Wdc modules [2]
Q1 2017: $2.80/Wdc total for $0.35/Wdc modules [3]
Conclusion: Even if the modules cost $0.0000001, the total price could not fall much more unless the rest of the business model gets updated. Probably some solar installer companies will drop out of the market, and the survivors will adapt to lower profits.
[0] Page 12, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60401.pdf
[1] 5.2kW system. See page 7, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf
[2] 5.6kW system. See page 16, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66532.pdf
[3] 5.7kW system. See page 21, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf
Current costs in Australia are about A$ 1.70 /pk-W (~US$1.35), pre-subsidies, split roughly into 35% modules, 10% inverter, 10% mounting system, 10% other hardware (cabling, switchboard etc), 10% installation and 25% "vendor's margin", including marketing, sales and profits.
The household has also to pay for a bi-directional meter to allow for energy sales. IIRC that was around A$350.
It's a mystery why the US costs are so high - maybe not enough competition?
We also had the renewable energy credits scheme which made the price float about a bit since they were a traded commodity and the installer would take them off you for a price reduction proportional to their market value (if you elected to not instead keep them for yourself and pay 'full' price, but then have to sell them yourself too).
Basically what I'm saying is that there were multiple levers causing the price to float around a lot over the last 5-8 years and it's not strictly just because gradually supply/competition grew.
It would be great to see a DIY community around this, making widespread adoption even cheaper.
As is typical in Australia, to do almost any job you need to purchase that right. Even construction labourers (guys carrying out the bins and sweeping floors) and waitresses who serve alcohol, need an accredidation.
I mostly agree. Of the top of my head, installing solar panels mostly competes with leisure and other DIY projects.
Perhaps also with commuting, but for most people the decision on how long to commute can't be altered in the short term.
Also, any electrical work in most sane jurisdictions is going to require signoff from both the local code department and the utility (if grid tie).
The labor of a professional is cheaper than possible poor outcomes.
To be fair I installed a solar+2nd battery+inverter that can also charge or be charged from the primary battery in an RV. I waterproof'd the roof, did the wiring, there's lots of guides on how to do it and it is not rocket science. Should you or my local gov have stopped me from this?
The government isn't stopping you from putting solar panels on the top of your RV, and it's regulation of structures through building codes is usually reasonable.
Again, I don't see an enormous difference b/w putting solar panels on an RV, and a backyard, shed, cabin or house, particularly for off-grid power.
You are absolutely entitled to state your opinion though. I just think if other people want to do something that doesn't bother you in any way, it can be nice to warn of the risks, but why tell them they are wrong?
Because if you're breaking building code, you're breaking the law. That's the entire reason the Tiny Home movement has to build their structures on RV trailers; to be compliant with building code (which doesn't apply to RV trailers).
Bringing the goal posts back to the original aim of my comment: that a DIY community would simply increase adoption, let's look at the Tiny House movement. It grew as a DIY community. People sharing info on all parts of the process, incl. building code, helps many people who would have been told by someone that it can't be done, just as you are doing now, to build their own house. And we are talking about building an entire house, not a minor solar panel install.
As that community grows, you have more people that are able to even shape laws for the better, which is what that community is doing.
And you are incorrect about there being no laws governing auto work and customization.
No one is saying you should do this. To be frank, the "hire a qualified contractor" advice is pervasive at HN, but it's also this groupthink attitude of negativity that can grow around a subject that I don't think is necessary, or helpful.
Eg even if you don't want to get a second job, you could still be lazing about, spend time with family, do another DIY project, or even commute to a job in that time.
(Commuting decisions usually can't be changed in the short term, but in the long term it's up for grabs just as anything else as people contemplate moving or changing jobs.)
It'd be interesting to see the costs split out based on available sun. I would guess they are lower in Phoenix than in Connecticut.
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/countries/europe/EU-Glob_op...
It seems that solar is a very good overall fit for even most of the world, and once the tech is good enough to be used in huge numbers the differences can probably be compensated with other, local power sources (like hydro in Scandinavia, which is huge there).
It sounds like these two effects should cancel each other out. Are you saying that people take winter into account but not summer?
So efficiency has to do with the rated power per surface area and the performance ratio reflects all the system electrical and environmental factors that reduce the amount of usable power below what would be expected based upon module ratings and annual sunlight exposure.
Most of the energy comes from ambient light, direct light is best of course but not strictly needed
In July my panels make 1300 kwh and in December and January they make 300 kwh, mostly because of the angle of the sun and the length of the time above the horizon. I also have significant southern tree cover, so my production is not optimal for my area.
I mean they're installed at an angle to start with so how does the snow build up? Could panels not be designed with inbuilt defrosters?
It has sunlight almost all year round, it has a pretty progressive government, and a leading tech sector. With house prices being so high, so the cost of solar panels would be relatively lower too.
as more and more existing trees die off because of higher water costs and a general theme of reduced water usage, there's a little bit less shade, too.
Which is where solar roofing comes in, taking up the cost of installation almost completely and dropping price almost to grid scale. Of course, the only solar roofing available forces you to get it installed by their technicians, but hey. Baby steps.
Sure, when building the roof, it is installed as a solar one, saves on roofing materials and installation, since you only pay for solar and for solar installers. Granted not 100% substitution since not all the roof can be covered but a nice chunk.
Or make the panels more DIY...a few cases of beer, a few friends and be done. (plug it in after 24 hour, to make sure that the beer is gone from system)
to the LA Department of Water and Power, home solar is basically competition. and the DWP is an important cash cow for city workers and the city budget. they will find ways to add customer fees and reduce the customer's energy bill savings. (e.g. limiting the amount of electricity a home is allowed to feed back into the grid.)
the agency and the city simply need that cash.
In other words, yep.
Soft costs decreased appreciably from 2016-2017 in both "utility-scale" categories (Fixed-Tilt, and One-Axis Tracker), and have increased slightly at the smaller "commercial" and "residential" scales. Across all scales, soft costs claim a larger portion because other costs are falling more quickly.
Only at residential scale has soft cost growth consumed much of the savings in other costs: $-0.18/(watt installed) total cost, $+0.16/(watt installed) soft costs.
At commercial scale: $-0.32/(watt installed) total cost, $+0.05/(watt installed) soft costs.
While this direction of change is certainly suboptimal, I don't think the magnitude is worrisome yet.
EDIT: paragraph/line breaks for clarity of presentation.
The major component of residential cost is non-labor soft costs. The NREL pdf is easier to read (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68925.pdf) and lists them: permitting, inspection, and interconnection, land acquisition, sales tax, overhead and profit.
According to their modeling, it's mostly profit, overhead and sales and marketing costs.
Percentage-wise, not counting the module itself, the biggest culprits are profit(14% vs 7%), supply chain adding 17%, and sales adding 14%. Installation is actually lower as a percent of overall cost. Profit and sales are usually higher for direct to consumer, but supply chain is the biggest single cost at 42 cents out of 280 per watt. Scale will bring that down drastically but it will always be cheaper to centralize.
After that cost is reduced, there may be room for innovation in reducing install costs by bundling solar with roof replacement, or something similar.
I'm not so sure that transmission losses themselves are a huge win, since only about 5% of power goes to transmission and distribution.
However, if storage + solar allows the utilities to avoid transmission and distribution capital upgrades, that's a much larger chunk of the cost of electricity, about 36% according to the latest numbers and rising every year.
They visited my house when I was just looking for a quote. The quotes were these large custom contracts with all the information which we would iterate a few times on.
I can imaging these days just going to a website, finding my roof, selection my option and getting a quote in real time. Maybe they would even let different installers all bid for the job, who knows. The website would have detailed information and information if I want it. Only if I did an initial downpayment would someone come out to confirm it could be installed. Someone like this could be able to drive the install cost down.
Or maybe "groupon deals" where if you and 4 other neighbors on your block all buy solar it is 15% cheaper or something. That would be one way to shift the marketing and sales to the consumer and not the installer.
If I had to guess, the door-to-door folks are probably lead gen companies that sell leads to solar installers. The economics work out largely because solar installations are such a big ticket item that good leads can demand a nice sum. As a thought exercise, Amazon will pay in the range of 5% to affiliates. If you buy a $100 pair of shoes on Amazon, that will net the affiliate $5. If a solar lead gen gets the same rate, then a single $30k system will earn them $1500. So that salesman only needs to sell a few systems per month to cover salary. Hence the door-to-door.
Also, it's worth mentioning that the residential solar market is pretty cutthroat. Quite a few companies have recently filed for bankruptcy. Part of the reason lead gen and marketing costs are so high is because these companies are fighting tooth and nail for customers. I am pretty sure most installers would love to cut back on that spending, but without it their business would collapse.
Asking this as a layman.
Page 22 of the report[1] estimates sales and marketing/customer acquisition for residential solar to be 12% of the price, and says Vivint and Sunrun report it as 17% and 22%, so I think your numbers are a bit high. I also doubt that cost will actually fall- if anything it might rise, since advertising pays for itself. As costs drop it becomes more important to advertise the low costs!
[1] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/costs-to-acquir...
The bigger "win" in this is the transmission loss. Consumption close to generation has lower transmission loss so it's innately higher efficiency in that one regard.
PHES and Battery technology probably matter more now than PV as a the cost problem in generation: we need time shifting for solar power to replace other forms of generation, to get to serving demand outside of the sun.