Version: 2008
  • On CBSNews.com: Katie Couric sits with Barry Diller

Comments on: Getting the price right for solar

To be competitive, solar-panel makers are ramping up manufacturing, betting that economies of scale will translate to lower costs.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (5 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
Solar isn't always available
by kmne68 April 3, 2007 5:42 PM PDT
I very much want to invest in solar power for my home (I have a large, south-facing roof) but I cannot find a dealer in my area (near St. Louis). I have been told that suppliers are concentrating on customers in the sunbelt where electricity costs are relatively high. I understand the financial and marketing logic but it is disappointing for those of us who like the idea of "free" energy.
Reply to this comment
Try findsolar .com to locate an installer
by hindmost April 4, 2007 10:19 AM PDT
This site will list all of the available solar contractors in your area, if there are any.

CW
Initial price is only part of the problem
by adlyb1 April 3, 2007 6:17 PM PDT
The dirty little secret of this technology is the efficiency degrades over time and eventually requires replacement, so do an install today and expect to do it again in 20 years.

So, spend $24K (An estimate given to me last year) and then spread that expense over 20 years which means you have a basic annual cost of $1200 or around $100/month, which is not much less than my average monthly power bill and this assumes that the solar solution will supplant my regular electrical source 100% of the time (In my area, it will be more like 65-70%).

And then there is the environmental factor. First, solar cells are made in a manner similar to computer chips which requires a fair amount of energy and generates a lot of chemical waste.
Second, after twenty years you have to dispose of these things and there are only a few companies that are doing recycling for these products.

I know a lot of things can change in 20 years, but the core technology used in today's cells is pretty much the same as it was 20 years ago and improvements in efficiency, and cost have only been incremental.

I think I will wait a little longer.
Reply to this comment
A good point, but...
by shadowself April 4, 2007 7:16 AM PDT
You make a good point that the article seems to completely miss.

The quote $$ per kilowatt hour, but over how long is that amortized? Five years? 10 years? 20 years? The true unit of measure of solar arrays is kilowatts, NOT kilowatt hours. A more accurate measure would be a quote of $$ per kilowatt -- or even more precisely $$ per kilowatt hour and a period over which this is amortized.

However, you are wrong that you must completely replace your array every 20 years or so. The degradation rate -- even in Earth orbit with none of the protection from adverse solar radiation that we here on the surface are afforded is a componded rate of just 3% a year and the newest cells have a degradation rate of about 2% a year.

Thus after 20 years your array will still output more than 66% of what you had on day one.

Sure there are mechanical and electrical maintenance you will have to do over 20 years (and that cost in NOT trivial). However, you don't have to completely replace your array 20 years from now.
Solar
by honky April 4, 2007 2:48 PM PDT
The cost per KW is constantly going higher as it is locked into fossil fuel cost in most areas that do not have Hydro electric. you might want to look into this company that rents you the panels and locks you at your current rate. Your state must have approved regulations that require the Utility company to buy back excess power that you generate and you must be on the grid.
http://renu.citizenre.com/
Reply to this comment
(5 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

advertisement