Comments on: Pace of Solar Innovation Not That Fast, Says Solar Installer CEO

By: nintendo is best

nintendo is best — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:50:00 +0000

does anyone know about the new nintendo coming out?

By: BP

BP — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:10:53 +0000

I agree with Barry, the major solar news today is that super low cost panels are hitting the market, however they are not as efficient.

The FACT is, it costs less to install a system now to cover the more expensive portion of your bill. The panels have a known quantity of production, it would not make any sense to replace them, you would simply add on to an already existing system

By: Andrew Condon

Andrew Condon — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:03:36 +0000

I don’t see a conflict here – small increases in efficiency will matter to utilities and installers of very large installations so there is reason to push the technology. For individual purchases installation costs may indeed outweigh efficiency considerations. Different market segments, different needs.

By: jeff

jeff — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:41:14 +0000

oops. sorry.missed the earlier post! my bad.

but it does seem relevant to the question at hand . . .

By: jeff

jeff — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:36:31 +0000

better packaging and cheaper/easier installation makes tons of sense to me . . .

seen this, on cheaper manufacturing?
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/18/nanosolar-begins-shipping-world-s-lowest-cost-solar-panel/

By: Shivering Timbers

Shivering Timbers — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:21:14 +0000

I think what he's saying is that the cost driver for PV systems in the real world is not efficiency, so there's not much real-world advantage to a hyper-efficient solar panel.

Which makes perfect sense. What matters in the real world is installed cost per watt, and something like half the cost is installation.

A more efficient solar panel doesn't make sense if it's significantly more expensive per installed watt. The limited resource for most solar installations isn't available area, but available dollars.

The installation costs are a real tough nut, since that's skilled labor and not subject to Moore's Law. The panels themselves could be free, and it would still be expensive to put in a residential PV system. It costs real money to hire a bunch of guys to crawl around on a roof, attach mounting hardware, lift heavy panels, pull cables, etc.

What will bring down the installation cost is not better solar panels, but better packaging: simple mounting systems, snap-together wiring, dirt-stupid site selection methods, and so forth. Sadly, better packaging isn't all that sexy.

By: Jason Morris

Jason Morris — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:27:00 +0000

Let’s pretend Barry is wrong. Let’s pretend there are major advancements in efficiency. Then there are two other things to consider:
-My guess is that a majority of early adopters installed solar because they were driven by their personal concern for the environment. Any economic advantage was a bonus. So, those aren’t the type to feel buyer’s remorse or cheated about higher efficiency systems hitting the market.
-The market may get so competitive that installers would start offering incentives or discounts to upgrade an “outdated” system. If it involves just replacing the panels, it might be a feasible business. Maybe the government would even kick in some sort of rebate for solar updating.