Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

Lucas123 writes: The cost of rooftop solar-powered electricity will be on par with prices of coal-powered energy and other conventional sources in all 50 U.S. states in just two years, a leap from today where PV energy has price parity in only 10 states, according to Deutsche Bank's leading solar industry analyst. The sharp decline in solar energy costs is the result of increased economies of scale leading to cheaper photovoltaic panels, new leasing models and declining installation costs, Deutsche Bank's Vishal Shah stated in a recent report. The cost of solar-generated electricity in the top 10 states for capacity ranges from 11-15 cents per kilowatt hour (c/kWh), compared to the retail electricity price of 11-37 c/kWh. Amit Ronen, a former Congressional staffer behind legislation that created an investment tax credit for solar installations, said one of the only impediments to decreasing solar electricity prices are fees proposed by utilities on customers who install solar and take advantage of net metering, or the ability to sell excess power back to utilities.

Comments

They WILL FIght Back

[Anonymous Coward]

In the craphole region in which I live they've already passed ordinances about things like wind turbines within city limits. They call it an "eye sore" and "disruptive." That's how the utility companies will outlaw solar paneling after donating generously to their politician buddies. Either that or they'll so overregulate them that the price will skyrocket beyond most people's financial reach.

Re:They WILL FIght Back

[Shakrai]

They call it an "eye sore" and "disruptive."

They're most definitely both of those things. I had the misfortune of living through the construction of the Mehoopany Wind Farm. Think 24/7 heavy truck traffic, seemingly random road closures to move turbines/blades that were never communicated to the locals (it's awesome being half an hour late for work because they changed their schedule with no notice), huge amounts of deforestation (nine thousand acres worth), formerly crystal clear streams filled with silt from runoff, and dozens of blinking red lights where we formerly had clear nighttime skies. Take a look at this to get a feel for the impact of but one small segment of this wind farm. Look at the footprint for a single turbine and multiply it more than one hundred times, all for this one wind farm.

9,000 acres of real estate for a lousy 141 megawatts of electrical production that's wholly at the mercy of mother nature. Let's contrast that to nuclear power, the cutting edge of 1950s technology: Nine Mile Point occupies 10% of that footprint (900 acres), hosts a second power station on the property and between the two can generate 2,599 megawatts 24/7/365 regardless of the weather. That's more than eighteen times the electrical production for 10% of the land. Zero carbon emissions for production; a non-zero amount overall (plant construction and fuel mining each have a carbon footprint) but that's true of wind as well.

Wind power is a joke regardless of how you look at it. It's more environmentally disruptive than yesterday's technology and doesn't scale nearly as well. I'm not anti-solar; solar can be placed on otherwise wasted space (i.e., my roof) and is an awesome solution for peak power demand (nuclear doesn't work well here, it's better suited for base load)

Re:They WILL FIght Back

[PopeRatzo]

They're most definitely both of those things.

Thank goodness coal-fired power plants are so aesthetically pleasing and pleasant to live around.

Re:They WILL FIght Back

[Rei]

It depends on how you measure it. For example, here it says that solar is rapidly nearing cost parity except in places where restrictions and fees on net metering are in replace. But it's only fair that there should be such fees.

Part of the reason for this battle in the US is the stupid way US consumers are billed, you usually pay a single per-kWh fee. Here in Iceland our electricity bills are broken down into a "distribution fee", for the infrastructure, and a "generation fee", for the power. Surprise surprise, all of that infrastructure costs some serious money, about as much as the cost of generation itself. If a person uses solar and net-meters out at zero, they're still using all of that infrastructure (unless they're off-grid, but nobody's arguing that off-grid is anywhere near price parity). Even more than that you're relying on the existence and functionality of power plants to keep the lights on during the day. If everyone did like you, then there'd have to be instead of power plants massive daytime-energy-storage buffers, be they batteries, pumped hydro, etc (in addition to all of the wires, transformers, etc).

Now if you don't have to pay the utility, who exactly is supposed to fund this stuff? It's not cheap.

Yes, many US states require free net metering and power resale. It's the law, so utilities have to do it. But all you're doing at the time being is transferring the solar-generators' share of the infrastructure costs onto the non-solar-generators share. So when you report that these people can "break even", is that really a fair comparison?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big solar fan. And I think that to reach true parity subsidies - such as these free net metering laws - are a great way to help get solar to that point. But let's not kid ourselves, it is a subsidy.

(Things would be a lot less controversial if you'd properly break up your power bills into distribution vs. generation costs. Personally I think bills should be even further broken down to time intervals over the course of the day and have the purchase / sale price of electricity match the actual market price for that time. It'd be a big boon for solar users, at least in warm places with low to moderate market penetration where midday electricity is expensive and nighttime electricity is cheap)

My two cents...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it'd be fine for utilities to charge something nominal for the privilege of solar. After all, you're not off the grid AND the power company has to deal with the upkeep of the cables. Provided it's not a money grab... that it's justified.

Net metering is when it runs backwards? That's probably find in a single month. But to carry it out over the year doesn't seem fair because during winter months, the solar panel user really is taking advantage of the grid.

As for the pricing when there's a surplus during the summer (when you sell it back), as I said before, you're not dealing with the cables/power lines... they are (the power company).

If solar power reduces carbon output from coal, good. Personally, if I could afford solar panels, I'd be interested in what uses it could provide during power outages combined with a battery backup for certain breakers/circuits (fridge, lights, and maybe one for TV watching).

don't tax alternative energy and transportation

[presidenteloco]

"fees proposed by utilities on customers who install solar and take advantage of net metering, or the ability to sell excess power back to utilities"

this reminds me of the states that are passing taxes on electric vehicles because they don't pay gas tax.

There is a monumental, staggering level of myopia in those who propose and enact measures like these.

We have to transition to ~ 90% of the transport and energy in the economy to non-fossil, in a damn hurry (e.g. 2050), and we are way less than 1% of the way to where we need to get, so why the H3LLLLLL! would anyone be trying to put the brakes on the change already. Insanity, or stupidity of the highest order.

Re:don't tax alternative energy and transportation

[dgatwood]

But we need to pay for infrastructure. SO we need to tax electricity to recoup lost revenue form the gas tax.

It would make more sense to crank up the diesel tax. Big trucks cause about three orders of magnitude more damage to roads than cars do anyway (one 18 wheeler does as much damage as 9,600 cars, according to the GAO), so it is only fair that trucking companies should pay essentially the entire cost of upkeep. If they raise the taxes high enough, perhaps we’ll see a resurgence in the use of trains for shipping (which is more energy efficient, too).

"eye sore"

[grimJester]

You know they're desperate when the only argument against new technologies they can come up with is that they're ugly.

Re:"eye sore"

[Ol Olsoc]

What is confusing is, why is there a debate about wind turbines on an article about SOLAR?

False equivocation? The bizzare ability of some folks to add up equate supposed disadvantages of multiple different technologies and lump them into one pile of fail, while some existing technology is heralded as perfection, ignoring any problems it might have?

Wind turbine are probably irritating and it might be better to install them in deserts, away from residences.

Kind of a whooshing sound, if they are a nuisance to anyone, that same person would not be able to live in a suburban environment, with buses and traffic and lawnmowers and leaf blowers and all.. And jet traffic would be completely intolerable for them. I've stood within 50 feet directly under one, and there simoply isn't all that much noise. On the mountaintops where they are installed here, the wind through the trees makes more noise.

Regardless, the big advantadge of the solar panels and their proliferation is that the people installing them don't give a flying fig about the naysayers. They've heard so much bullshit about how the panels will self destruct long before the investment return or warrantee period, how solar will never ever be able to provide their needs, and how the terrible poisons involved in making solar panels are somehow worse than the benzene in the gasoline they inhale every time they pump it or the MTBE octane booster isn't bad at all, the lead that used to be in it wasn't a problem at all, and that nothing beats good old fossil fuel, which we'll apparently have forever and ever, world without end, amen.

The solar users just install them, use them, and don't pay much in utility bills - or attention to the naysayers.