Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for your house:
http://aprs.org/Energy/solar/efficiency-comparison-cost.png
The 10,000 Watt array for your house costs less than a 10 W array for a cubesat satellite.
I get tired of the excuse, “Im waiting for higher efficiency cells” when the cost of just doubling the efficiency from 15% to 30% is a factor of 1000 times more expensive. You’ll be dead before the expensive ones even come down by half (much less the 1000 to 1 needed to make them practical).
And in fact it will never ever happen. Because a satellite builder will pay a measly $10,000 to DOUBLE the power of his 4 inch satellite and so the market for the highest efficiency cells will always get a premium price because the satellite buyers will always pay max dollars for max power independent of cost.
And there will never be a decaying cost or learning curve, because as soon as someone comes up with a 32% solar cell, then the 30% technology is ABANDONED because the space industry will all move to the 32% cells and be happy to pay even more for the higher power and there is practically no market for last year’s 30% cells that cost 1000 times more than existing silicon cells at 15%. And without a growing market for last year’s HIGH efficiency cells, there will never be a learning curve and declining cost.
Meanwhile the cheap 15% cells being mass produced for the terrestrial solar market in a MILLION times the volume at 1/1000 the cost already cost less than a window of the same size! Witness the cost reduction of 10 to 1 in the last 10 years and the 2 to 1 reduction in the last 3 years with improvements from 15% efficiency up to around 18% not by changing the technology of the 60 year old simple silicon, but just optimizing the manufacturing process (by the billions)…
Solar is here, Now. And it won’t get any cheaper, because as the market expands exponentially the demand for bazillions of watts of solar will soak up every panel produced and homeowners are then competing with massive utility scale purchases of millions of panels. Solar panels now cost less than just a window of the same size. It is no longer the cost of the panels, it is simply the cost of labor that drives the majority of cost now. You can buy solar panels for under $0.70 a watt but to have a contractor installed system is hovering around $3.50 per watt and not going down much at all.
Lastly, if you have sun, you KNOW eventually you will be going solar. So once you realize that, you should also realize that every electric bill you pay from now on is just throwing money away which would have been better invested in free electricity and 10% annual return for life on your roof or in your yard.
Waiting gains nothing. Even the solar panels I bought 4 years ago at twice the price have already paid for themselves. Waiting would have gained nothing except 4 years of more wasted money to the utility and so many tons of burned coal wasted into the air. Here are some more thoughts…
http://aprs.org/solar-now.html
Summary, Solar and Satellites… the same but 1000 times cheaper on Earth.
Bob, Wb4APR
Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation and they improve. nick
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for your house:
Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that about 20 gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the total installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily driven by residential installations. Utility-scale installations are actually down 5%.
One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures were not keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going out of business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up, prompting Elon Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels are expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain in efficiency.
Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches the mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily mean that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those panels may simply sell for 50% more.
73, Bob, WB4SON
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh quadpugh@bellsouth.net wrote:
Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation and they improve. nick
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for your house:
http://aprs.org/Energy/solar/efficiency-comparison-cost.png
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
If the project is not operating by now, it'll cost 30% more after midnight.
Whether or not solar is cost effective is a function of what you want.
Putting solar on an asphalt roof (ask me how many square of architectural shingles I've laid) is a bad idea. Roof costs 10-15k. This is a significant portion (more than 1/4 of the total cost). Not a place to screw up.
Putting 100+ penetrations in a membrane and keeping the warranty was my issue. Not gonna happen. Trouble ahead. PERIOD.
42 panels 50 lbs per (really 48, but back of the envelope math..) not including the racking for 11.34 kW (11 kW AC)
Remember statics and dynamics??
Can you say PE??? Can you pay $$$$$$$$$$. Who is going to do that work? Sistering and bracing rafters in a crawlspace is a mug's game. In Florida in summer? Fatal.
Called Direct Power and Water. Nice to chat with an engineer who is interested.
Pics on Flicr.
Today as of 3pm EDT the system produced 23 kWh. Best day so far was 100% FL sunshine and a COLD day: 82 kWh.
Final step was optimization of the house. Crawling around in the attic sealing ducts, running cat6 and pullling cable then putting 18" of blown in pink fiberglass.... blah, blah, bla, blah.
HF RFI? Undetectable. HP 853a/8557/some amplified HP probe and 6" of wire sees someone's grow lights. Killed all breakers in the house to check if it was my problem..
I got the last (3) 3.8kW transformer based inverters in stock. SMA makes nice gear. Cadwelds, IMC 3/4" conduit.
Hired a welder, auger operator, and crane. I worked as fitter, grunt and oiler.
DIY end to end otherwise.
Busy, busy, busy...
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Bob WB4SON@gmail.com wrote:
Sort of off the AMSAT topic, but the most recent estimate is that about 20 gigawatts of solar will be added in 2016 -- almost doubling the total installed capacity of US solar power. This is being primarily driven by residential installations. Utility-scale installations are actually down 5%.
One thing that was keeping mass market efficiency down was a glut of production capability that existed through 2014. Manufactures were not keen on investing in new processes at the same time they were going out of business or consolidating. That glut has been drying up, prompting Elon Musk's to build a $1 billion dollar factory in Buffalo NY which will produce 1 GW of panels annually by the end of 2016. Those panels are expected to be 22.1% efficient. That's a pretty impressive gain in efficiency.
Often times market conditions, not technology, dictates what reaches the mass market, and that has most certainly been the case in the solar industry. That 50% increase in panel efficiency doesn't necessarily mean that the cost per watt will be reduced in the short term -- those panels may simply sell for 50% more.
73, Bob, WB4SON
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Nick Pugh quadpugh@bellsouth.net wrote:
Good point Bob but include the real estate cost in to the equation and they improve. nick
-----Original Message----- From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bruninga Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 11:06 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Waiting for Solar Panel Efficiency (Ha!)
Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for your house:
http://aprs.org/Energy/solar/efficiency-comparison-cost.png
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I disagree with only one piece of Bob's analysis and that is the rise a complicating factor.
Just like on earth, every spacecraft developer is faced with the complication of permanent destruction of demand. The complication is most apparent in small spacecraft and/or in LEO.
In GEO, the energy demand is dominated by the need to produce higher power for transmitters so all the power you can generate is better if you decrease the size of solar panels unless you want INCREASE power demand by increasing capacity (add more channels with the same energy consumption per channel as before).
The issue with LEO space craft with smaller antenna and power limitations etc is that the computational requirements might stay the same BUT THE POWER CONSUMED to do the computations is steadily decreasing and is resulting in permanent destruction of demand and the pressure to increase efficiency is offset by decreased power requirements in electronics.
It should be clear that this is a complicated thing to model. I haven't done it and, like Bob says, I just don't care, I just buy what I need for spacecraft.
On house panels, people are not paying attention. All the solar panels you see hanging on telephone poles, charging batteries, to power street lights, etc I never ever looked once at the efficiency of the solar panels I purchased surplus from the bazillion produced for these telephone pole installation. I bought enough panels to produce the power I wanted to produce and with slowly getting enough panels to produce enough at winter solstice and the rest is surplus to my needs but my MPPT deals with that charging my batteries.
The other factor for houses is that permanent destruction of demand is happening there in case you want to set a maximize capacity for your panels and forget it. Permanent destruction of demand is happening in LED light bulbs, LED TV's, tinier power required by computers, more efficient cooling in refrigerators and other appliances. Many power companies and coal producers have become extremely concerned. In Virginia they set a fee on those wishing to tie their solar power to the grid. This is BS since they claim they must charge you to transport your surplus power. It's crap because almost NO ONE produces more power than they consume unless they live in Southern California for example.
The power and coal companies have lobbied for and received a fee to slow down the deployment of home and building owners from decreasing the demand on their grid system being fed by coal power plants.
I despise mostly stupid but sometimes corrupt politicians...
Thank you for your interesting discussion Bob,
Bob N4HY
On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Robert Bruninga bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
Compare the cost and efficiency of solar panels for cubesats and for your house:
http://aprs.org/Energy/solar/efficiency-comparison-cost.png
The 10,000 Watt array for your house costs less than a 10 W array for a cubesat satellite.
I get tired of the excuse, “Im waiting for higher efficiency cells” when the cost of just doubling the efficiency from 15% to 30% is a factor of 1000 times more expensive. You’ll be dead before the expensive ones even come down by half (much less the 1000 to 1 needed to make them practical).
And in fact it will never ever happen. Because a satellite builder will pay a measly $10,000 to DOUBLE the power of his 4 inch satellite and so the market for the highest efficiency cells will always get a premium price because the satellite buyers will always pay max dollars for max power independent of cost.
And there will never be a decaying cost or learning curve, because as soon as someone comes up with a 32% solar cell, then the 30% technology is ABANDONED because the space industry will all move to the 32% cells and be happy to pay even more for the higher power and there is practically no market for last year’s 30% cells that cost 1000 times more than existing silicon cells at 15%. And without a growing market for last year’s HIGH efficiency cells, there will never be a learning curve and declining cost.
Meanwhile the cheap 15% cells being mass produced for the terrestrial solar market in a MILLION times the volume at 1/1000 the cost already cost less than a window of the same size! Witness the cost reduction of 10 to 1 in the last 10 years and the 2 to 1 reduction in the last 3 years with improvements from 15% efficiency up to around 18% not by changing the technology of the 60 year old simple silicon, but just optimizing the manufacturing process (by the billions)…
Solar is here, Now. And it won’t get any cheaper, because as the market expands exponentially the demand for bazillions of watts of solar will soak up every panel produced and homeowners are then competing with massive utility scale purchases of millions of panels. Solar panels now cost less than just a window of the same size. It is no longer the cost of the panels, it is simply the cost of labor that drives the majority of cost now. You can buy solar panels for under $0.70 a watt but to have a contractor installed system is hovering around $3.50 per watt and not going down much at all.
Lastly, if you have sun, you KNOW eventually you will be going solar. So once you realize that, you should also realize that every electric bill you pay from now on is just throwing money away which would have been better invested in free electricity and 10% annual return for life on your roof or in your yard.
Waiting gains nothing. Even the solar panels I bought 4 years ago at twice the price have already paid for themselves. Waiting would have gained nothing except 4 years of more wasted money to the utility and so many tons of burned coal wasted into the air. Here are some more thoughts…
http://aprs.org/solar-now.html
Summary, Solar and Satellites… the same but 1000 times cheaper on Earth.
Bob, Wb4APR _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org javascript:;. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
participants (5)
-
Bob
-
Lizeth Norman
-
Nick Pugh
-
Robert Bruninga
-
Robert McGwier