Solar PV Feed In Tariffs - Good or Bad?

grahamc2003

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,

Research into reducing the price of solar PV has been on-going for decades; I remember dozing through a lecture on the subject more years ago than I care to remember.

.

Same here - that prompted me to dig out one of my old text book from 1976 which compared various solar energy technology costs - and PV came out at $300,000/kW. They even had a roof full of cadmiun sulfide cells on a test house, probably produce a couple of hundred watts.

I dare say time is a greater reducer of prices than fits - time lowered the £300k/kW down to $4k/kW (or thereabouts) before fits were even a twinkle in a politician's eye.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Same here - that prompted me to dig out one of my old text book from 1976 which compared various solar energy technology costs - and PV came out at $300,000/kW. They even had a roof full of cadmiun sulfide cells on a test house, probably produce a couple of hundred watts.

I dare say time is a greater reducer of prices than fits - time lowered the £300k/kW down to $4k/kW (or thereabouts) before fits were even a twinkle in a politician's eye.

I assume you specifically mean PV FITs as Jimmy Carter introduced the first form of FITs under the National Energy Act in 1978?

Mart.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I assume you specifically mean PV FITs as Jimmy Carter introduced the first form of FITs under the National Energy Act in 1978?

Mart.

No, I meant fits for the anerobic digestion of sheep urine and the burning thereof in gas turbines of the gaseous products so produced - that is what this thread is about isn't it?

Still, Don thought your googling skills were worth a thanks.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

No, I meant fits for the anerobic digestion of sheep urine and the burning thereof in gas turbines of the gaseous products so produced - that is what this thread is about isn't it?

On the one hand, I'm not entirely sure that you are taking this thread seriously.

But, on the other hand, any chance I can buy the Welsh rights off you, as this could possibly double our annual GDP?

Mart.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I wish we could actually get past this point .... Sharp 'manufacture' panels in the UK, the plant is an assembly plant, but assembly plants are manufacturing plants. Gone are the days when iron-ore enters through 'Goods inwards' and finished vehicles drive through the despatch doors as was the case in Dagenham in the middle of last century ... components are now sourced from plants across the globe to final assembly plants in almost every consumer goods industry. We have had this very discussion before and it seems that the point that by weight, added value, labour content or any other likely measure which could be applied, the proportion of the ex-works price of panels leaving the Wrexham plant would be heavily weighted towards being a UK product, and once more, that proportion is growing due to the main commodity, glass (Pilkington St Helens ?) not reducing in price.

Seemingly, having a political view that all forms of subsidy are bad, you would simply be content if Sharp closed it's UK plant and relocated overseas, a very strange position for anyone with a social conscience to formulate .... surely you have access to information to help support this viewpoint ?, this would necessarily include analysis of what the level of regional grant was compared to the benefit to the regional economy, the national tax-take, previous unemployment & social costs, the balance of trade ... etc, etc .... this is exactly what grant scemes do ....

HTH
Z

Hi Z

The context of the discussion was the research and development of PV solar to reduce prices of solar panels.

My point was to illustrate that the cells - the technology - are from the Far East and essentially they are placed in a 'box' by British workers employed by a Japanese firm.

Of course it is a good thing that it provides employment in UK.

Also, your assumption that I think all subsidies are bad is incorrect. It is specifically the FIT scheme for solar that I think is wrong.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I dare say time is a greater reducer of prices than fits - time lowered the £300k/kW down to $4k/kW (or thereabouts) before fits were even a twinkle in a politician's eye.

G - You may have inadvertently just explained the whole rational of FITs.

Prices for new technology, will fall as production rises, whilst the percentage fall for each increase in production (demand) stays steady, that apparent price fall appears to be less numerically, when of course it isn't.

E.g. $100 dropping by 20% to $80, may at first appear to the market as being more than $10 dropping to $8.

Applying Moore's Law to silicon based technology and industrial procedural costs - gives us a rough rule of thumb that for every doubling of production capacity, we will see a 20% reduction in costs. This has largely held true for PV for nearly 30 years.

When PV prices hit $4/watt it was largely down to FITs that production (demand) was lifted enough to reduce costs now to less than $1/watt.

That reduction from 4 to 0.85 (approx) requires 7 steps of 20% or 7 doublings = 128 times increase in production (demand).

Obviously these numbers are not exact, but they reflect the astronomical increase in PV production worldwide.

Had we waited and let the market do it, it would be cheaper, but also slower. We are paying for speed - that may be right or wrong, but pressures is on us, and that is the decision that was chosen.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z

The context of the discussion was the research and development of PV solar to reduce prices of solar panels.

No it wasn't.

You suggested that prices were falling through technological research. Most responders have explained that it is actually through the expansion of production.

Whilst technological development is a good thing, what we are seeing here is not how to build a better panel, rather it is how to build a panel better. There is a significant difference.

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z

The context of the discussion was the research and development of PV solar to reduce prices of solar panels.

My point was to illustrate that the cells - the technology - are from the Far East and essentially they are placed in a 'box' by British workers employed by a Japanese firm.

Of course it is a good thing that it provides employment in UK.

Also, your assumption that I think all subsidies are bad is incorrect. It is specifically the FIT scheme for solar that I think is wrong.

Hi

So, for clarity then, there is no issue with applying regional grants, so there's no longer any need to raise the point every time UK manufacturing (ie Sharp & others) is raised ??

Regarding the cells, 'the technology' .... again, that manufacturing technology already exists within the UK as has been referenced so many times ... http://www.pvcrystalox.com/home/ .... I too would love to see a return of completely integrated manufacturing to the UK in as many industries as possible, however, the likelihood of this ever happening is restricted by the globalisation of manufacturing capabilities in order to provide the low prices we all enjoy, the alternative being duplication, underutilisation and loss of economies of scale resulting in higher pricing ....

The issue being missed is that with pv costs reducing as they are, the 'technology' element involved in panel component manufacture is becoming a much less significant proportion, it's actually moved towards the commodity elements of glass and alumimium along with the investment cost of automated assembly plant & machinery ....

HTH
Z

rogerblack

zeupater wrote: »

The issue being missed is that with pv costs reducing as they are, the 'technology' element involved in panel component manufacture is becoming a much less significant proportion, it's actually moved towards the commodity elements of glass and alumimium along with the investment cost of automated assembly plant & machinery ....

Indeed - think of them like a roof covering.

They've dropped to ~100 pounds a square meter.

Is there space for the price of the panels to come down with existing technology - perhaps.
Maybe another 2-3 fold can be gotten by optimising down production costs, over time, this would be extremely aggressive, and won't be soon.

For example - plastic panels. (I know there are major issues with yellowing)

If it was possible to double the output per square meter of solar cells, and remain at a similar cost point, that would take it to 4-6 times.

But there is no real technology that looks likely to hit 35% efficiency in the near term.
(10 years).

In addition, above Moores law was mentioned.
This _DOES_NOT_APPLY_ to solar panels, as one of the prime reasons for Moores law working is that the area of a chip with a similar functionality drops with time.
Clearly this isn't the case with solar panels!

One way in which solar could be made easier would be if brackets for solar were installed at the time the roof was constructed.
This would let (in principle) fitting be an hours job with a cherry-picker.

don0301

steady there Roger!

you're (cardew ) being a bit positive there!

clearly the "truth" is the 'constant' negative, backed up with dribble, argument!

you know you're (cardew ) 'wrong!'