I am leaving the post unaltered below for context. See this graphic, which says that module cost is already at approximately grid parity:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/04/15/opinion/041514krugman1/041514krugman1-blog480.png On 02/04/14 02-Apr-2014;8:05 am, Udhay Shankar N wrote: > On 17-Jun-13 10:37 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote: > >> More on the dropping cost of PV panels: >> >> http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands >> >> Rebranding is always a tricky exercise, but for one field of technology >> 2013 will be the year when its proponents need to bite the bullet and do >> it. That field is alternative energy. The word “alternative”, with its >> connotations of hand-wringing greenery and a need for taxpayer subsidy, >> has to go. And in 2013 it will. “Renewable” power will start to be seen >> as normal. > > Some more data (the entire piece is worth viewing at the URL below dues > to embedded graphics, but I will highlight 2 key parts): > > http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/the_disruptive_potential_of_solar_power?cid=ResourceRev-eml-alt-mkq-mck-oth-1404 > > "The price US residential consumers pay to install rooftop solar PV > (photovoltaic) systems has plummeted from nearly $7 per watt peak of > best-in-class system capacity in 2008 to $4 or less in 2013.1 Most of > this decline has been the result of steep reductions in upstream (or > “hard”) costs, chiefly equipment. Module costs, for example, fell by > nearly 30 percent a year between 2008 and 2013, while cumulative > installations soared from 1.7 gigawatts in 2009 to an estimated 11 > gigawatts by the end of 2013, according to GTM Research. > > While module costs should continue to fall, even bigger opportunities > lurk in the downstream (or “soft”) costs associated with installation > and service. Financing, customer acquisition, regulatory incentives, and > approvals collectively represent about half the expense of installing > residential systems in the United States. Our research suggests that as > they become cheaper, the overall costs to consumers are poised to fall > to $2.30 by 2015 and to $1.60 by 2020." > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > "Since the solar installation often puts money in the homeowner’s pocket > from day one, it is a relationship that can generate goodwill. But, most > important, since solar panels are long-lived assets, often with > power-purchase agreements lasting 15 or 20 years, the relationship also > should be enduring. > > That combination may make solar installers natural focal points for the > provision of many products and services, from security systems to > mortgages to data storage, thermostats, smoke detectors, > energy-information services, and other in-home products. As a result, > companies in a wide range of industries may benefit from innovative > partnerships built on the deep customer relationships that solar players > are likely to own. Tesla Motors already has a relationship with > SolarCity, for example, to develop battery storage coupled with solar. > It is easy to imagine future relationships between many other > complementary players. These possibilities suggest a broader point: the > solar story is no longer just about technology and regulation." > > > -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
