So if my math is right, 7.5KW residential, battery-backed system they are using as an example is $32K, all costs included _except_ the yearly cleaning cost, which for a rooftoop system will be, say, $300-400/yr (gutter cleaning is $300 for example) or $6-8K extra over the 20 year lifespan of the system, in today's dollars. That's for something that produces about 85 cents worth of electricity per hour at 100% illumination where I live.
Let's say there are about as many "100% sun" hours per year on average as there are working hours, 2000. That's $1700/yr tops, an extremely optimistic estimate that assumes full sun and perfect positioning.
This PV system will never pay for itself, and you're _way_ better off putting that money into an index fund for example. And on top of that the costs aren't dropping as quickly as they used to.
_This_ is what's being proposed as a viable alternative to nuclear? It needs to be one third the cost to be clearly economically viable, yet if you uncritically read the mainstream press, which is how most people read it, you'd think that's already the case.
You might argue that nuclear needs to be a lot cheaper too, which I'd agree with, but that seems like a more tractable problem to me - streamline regulations and build hundreds of smaller, more modern, cookie-cutter reactors outside seismically active areas. Oh and brainwash the public, too. We're clearly way better at that nowadays than at anything else.
Something strange is going on with their figures that I don't understand. In Australia I got a 5kW system installed for AUD8000 before rebate (AUD3500 after rebate). So that's USD6000 for 5kW, or about $1.20 per W installed.
I think the "5kW" I'm talking here refers to kW of AC current at peak generation - whenever I walk past I tend to see about 4.5 kW give or take any time between 9am and 4pm. My system is neither the flashiest nor the cheapest components.
How can it be $3 per W installed in USA but only $1.20 per W in expensive Australia? Am I missing something?
In the US any subsidies tend to just increase the overall cost to what the market will bear anyway (hence $60K/yr for college, for example), which is why you see such a huge slice of the pie (for residential) going to whoever is selling and installing the system. Also, this is probably not the cheapest system available, nor the cheapest labor available. But you could pay even more where market bears more, such as where I live - tons of FAANG people with too much money on hand. Unfortunately for them, there's no meaningful sun exposure for 6 months in any given year, so solar is utterly dumb here, unlike in Australia.
Ah that explains everything. The cost I paid a few years back in Australia exactly matches their costs before they add this "soft cost".
It really seems very strange that my residential solar cost me USD6000 and by their estimates I passed on an additional ~USD8000 to... I don't know, the electricity company?
I'd be surprised if the utilities were that much out of pocket somehow.
6 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 11.3 ms ] threadLet's say there are about as many "100% sun" hours per year on average as there are working hours, 2000. That's $1700/yr tops, an extremely optimistic estimate that assumes full sun and perfect positioning.
This PV system will never pay for itself, and you're _way_ better off putting that money into an index fund for example. And on top of that the costs aren't dropping as quickly as they used to.
_This_ is what's being proposed as a viable alternative to nuclear? It needs to be one third the cost to be clearly economically viable, yet if you uncritically read the mainstream press, which is how most people read it, you'd think that's already the case.
You might argue that nuclear needs to be a lot cheaper too, which I'd agree with, but that seems like a more tractable problem to me - streamline regulations and build hundreds of smaller, more modern, cookie-cutter reactors outside seismically active areas. Oh and brainwash the public, too. We're clearly way better at that nowadays than at anything else.
I think the "5kW" I'm talking here refers to kW of AC current at peak generation - whenever I walk past I tend to see about 4.5 kW give or take any time between 9am and 4pm. My system is neither the flashiest nor the cheapest components.
How can it be $3 per W installed in USA but only $1.20 per W in expensive Australia? Am I missing something?
This is a weird cost estimation. Is there really a hidden sink of costs that doubles the effective outlay to get solar and storage?
It really seems very strange that my residential solar cost me USD6000 and by their estimates I passed on an additional ~USD8000 to... I don't know, the electricity company?
I'd be surprised if the utilities were that much out of pocket somehow.