Leave a comment

gonzo21 October 7 2016, 11:58:02 UTC
This is a concerning statement in the solar panel story though:

"For residential systems, solar panels accounted for less than 20% of total installation costs in the United States in 2015. Even if the solar panels were free, this would not always offset the system's cost. Currently, most of the margin earned by solar energy developers comes from subsidies. Yet these subsidies are declining."

Even if the panels were free, it would not offset the system cost? So even with how expensive electricity is, solar still isn't cheaper? Which, I guess means the technology still has a very long way to go until it's competitive?

Reply

andrewducker October 7 2016, 12:01:53 UTC
Installation costs are very expensive for a lot of home installations.

Industrial installations are a while other ballgame.

Reply

gonzo21 October 7 2016, 12:03:38 UTC
Right, so that's talking about the cost of having a couple of guys in a van come out and clamber about on your roof for a couple of days installing half a dozen panels.

Reply

danieldwilliam October 7 2016, 13:41:22 UTC
Exactly - installing a solar panel as a retrofit on an existing roof which wasn't designed for it requires a couple of guys in a van with scaffolding larking about on your roof with drills and hammers. Installing them as part of a new build housing project is a different matter. A completely different proposition is having them installed on the ground in flat deserts.

Reply

gonzo21 October 7 2016, 16:48:12 UTC
And who wouldn't rather see fields of solar panels instead of fields of fracking installations.

Reply

agoodwinsmith October 8 2016, 08:00:52 UTC
Yo.

Reply

danieldwilliam October 7 2016, 13:38:12 UTC
I think there are two separate points there. I think it's important not to read them as being connected ( ... )

Reply

gonzo21 October 7 2016, 16:45:56 UTC
Interesting, thank you.

I wonder if solar will ever make sense for my part of Scotland.

Reply

skington October 7 2016, 21:35:35 UTC
As I understand it, we're getting solar panels that work even in low light levels these days, so it's possible that we'll get new builds in Scotland with solar panels. Probably something like those really heat-efficient houses they've been building in Germany which have big south-facing windows and are practically air-tight (with decent ventilation) so they don't leak heat and you barely have to heat them most of the time.

You might also see utility-grade solar panel plants in some of the many empty bits of Scotland - sacrifice a grouse moor or two to put up a bunch of solar panels. Probably wind farms as well.

From what I understand of the discussion above, though, we're unlikely to ever get solar panels retrofitted to existing houses. Which makes sense - it already doesn't make economic sense to install double glazing if your house (or, more likely, tenement flat) doesn't have it.

Reply

gonzo21 October 8 2016, 15:16:32 UTC
Can't see any reason why you couldn't have a solar farm and a grouse moor, the grouse would probably quite enjoy the additional shelter.

Reply

skington October 8 2016, 15:47:48 UTC
The toffs might shook the solar panels, though.

Reply

gonzo21 October 8 2016, 15:51:30 UTC
The toffs don't like going up onto the high moors anymore, it's too much like hard work. They get the gamekeepers to rear the grouse down the hillsides somewhere close to the roads so they just have to get out of their 4x4s, shoot something, get back in, without getting their feet dirty or working up a sweat hiking.

Reply

danieldwilliam October 10 2016, 09:19:20 UTC
I think never say never but it's challenging to make retro-fitting domestic solar panels economic without a subsidy in Scotland. The angle of incidence of the sun is unhelpful ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up