I worked for a company installing solar systems all summer. Funny thing is I was wanting to do this at my house before I worked. After I was done working and the company split up between owners I had already figured out it’s not for me. I’m not bashing. Simply pointing out my experiences. One thing he mentioned is the standardization of roofs here in the US. That is very true and plus our shingles don’t last the same time of the expected life of panels, so in contrast if your roof goes bad you have to uninstall your panels, put new roof on and then reinstall your panels. So that is Tripling install cost. No one ever worked that into their cost analysis for a job we did. Now there are other methods, pole mounts and rack systems, that can be put in yards or fields but away from trees and buildings, but that is almost impossible to do in the city which is where the energy cost are more and the higher need for solar systems. All these cost analysis were done if everything goes right. Roof leak? Now ya have to remove panels. Roofer won’t mess with them. So a simple leak can cost thousands. You might have to get an electrician and a solar company to remove panels before your roofer gets to the leak. Also all the activity of installing them running around on your roof degrades the shingle life. Now we have storm problems that cause about half the problem besides the electrical problems. Wind blows a wire loose, limb falls from a nearby tree. It was the neighbors tree. Now we’re in a fight for repair. Who’s fault, leads us to insurance. Now your homeowners might say yes we cover it but we need it inspected and proof of cost but you didn’t think of that before your $20k system got installed. Some won’t cover it. Some will. Do your research! And Hail storms? I can’t comment cause I haven’t seen one but the threat is there. We had multiple problems with getting the panels here from China that were not damaged. About 1 in 10 were damaged.& also the inverters and optimizers went bad. Sometimes taking a lot of work to repair and some not covered by manufacturers so we had to eat it and so did homeowner. The next thing is not even related to solar panels. Now don’t get me wrong I like them, I wanna save the earth and also save money. Most of our customers don’t even care about the earth they just wanted to screw the power company and gov as much as they could. But while installing not one homeowner was ever on their roof and in their attic. We discovered on every job at least one major problem causing inefficiency for them. Example a cold air return vent was just laying up there open to all the roof heat! Others had roof vents blocked and restricted. Or lack of insulation for our climate. People, solar panels won’t just fix it all. You have to know your house. We improved people’s efficiency with out ever putting a system in. This means you need to do a whole house evaluation. Old HVAC system can kill your bill and render panels useless on a cost analysis. Then the last thing is are you going to stay at that same house for 20 years?!! Not many people do. Are you gonna just take them down drag them to your next house where they are outdated and lost their productivity. Many things to think of.
KPMACHINE1 how about with the federal ITC @26% and the IL SRECs. Pair that with the depreciation schedule of 1-5 years at 85% of total system cost.... it would be worth it over 5 years or as little at 1 year for some people. I’m new in this field and I liked reading about your experience. I will definitely think about it. What’s crazy is the fact that we have the best silicon sand (st.peters sandstone 99.9% quartz) in IL and ship 80% away to other states, mainly Texas, for hydraulic fracturing. The other ~
Yes! Consumer solar is ridiculously inefficient, and the government subsidizing it is an infuriating subsidy of wealthy people's virtue signalling. Utility and even commercial rooftop solar are better in every way.
Interesting information - and a first hand one! I live in Brazil and nothing here is standardized and most people who can afford sollar panels will have wither concrete roofs or ceramic (masonry) tiles over wooden structures. We have almost no preoccupation with cold weather (except for some regions and during some parts of the year). We do have problems with leakage because it rains a lot everywhere at least during some part of the year. Do you think it would be cheaper to install under these conditions where, for instance, you don't have to worry about things getting frozen? Now, a curiosity of mine: why do change the tiles in the roof frequently? Thanks!
and yet, there are those of us that do not live in the city and have solar homes - I remember the $6 per watt days and how precious those panels were and now bask in the $0.50 per watt panels and have to worry about my battery in uncontrolled conditions. You are absolutely right in your observations - solar, for the reasons you're expounding, isn't right for rooftop installations. But there ARE installations where it really works. Like mine. Haven't paid a utility bill (except propane and buying batteries and some diesel) for 30 years. To be truthful, though, the cost savings isn't as great as one would believe. But, I didn't have to write that check every month. It was worth it.
I thought he did a good job with the presentation and looking at all the elements of the cost of solar. He gets bonus credit for pointing out the graph not having an origin at zero. This is something that comes up in presentations and something you have to watch for. I will watch more of his videos.
People that watch this video are much smarter than Political Science majors at Harvard and Yale. By watching this and wanting to learn rational thinking you are intelligent. To stay a fool and believe half witted politicians is what defines stupid.
A friend of mine bought a cabin in the Tehachapi Mountains and he and his wife live there full-time. No power grid is available and one has few choices for power. Anyway he has been happily electrified since 1986 using a system I designed. Hopefully I will be able to do more of this sort of thing when I retire. This is an excellent video, suitable for the beginner and for professionals. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants a realistic view of this subject. As I see it, we have two choices for future power options assuming fusion isn't commonplace: nuclear and photovoltaic. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and there is no reason why both cannot be used simultaneously.
_There are many options,_ most you will likely be unaware of, such as PES (PhotoElectroSynthesis) which has 95% photon efficiency and stores the captured light energy as methanol. Or tethered electric kite-planes like Makani makes, to name but two.
Gotta love that Michael Jackson disco they have out there. Wind generator lights flash on/off all night long. Ask your friend how they heat? It gets pretty cold below freezing there in the winter. Solar panels are fine to power a laptop or LED light when propane does the heavy lifting.
YodaWhat having not looked up/knowing anything about the kite-planes, I can say, as a pilot, they wouldn’t make it large scale, let alone do much better than ground based solar. 9/10 when there are clouds blocking ground solar, there are 4+ layers at different altitudes raging from low (only a few thousand feet) to high (20,000 feet plus). Not to mention that airspace can’t be blocked off from commercial, general, and military aviation use. Take key west as an example. There is a weather balloon thats launched from near the air force base, it’s air traffic exclusion zone is 4 miles wide and is one of few permanently closed air spaces within the us to all aircraft (ish)
I worked for a guy who did solar installations. It’s pretty easy to install them. We have rails that are bolted into the roof and sealed at the bolts so no water leaks in. The panels mount on top of them. Then you add inverters on each panel, which snap on to the leads coming off the panel Then you have an electrician wire it into your home/grid. It only costs 8-10k to buy a good system, which when installed by a solar installer, jumps to 20k. You could cut these numbers in half if you did it yourself. It might take 1-2 days to install the panels.
This figure makes me wonder how insanely rich the people must be who decide to have other people install them -- is their time really worth 10k per day? Or are these people total pussies? Just do it yourself and save 70% of the cost, you can buy a big lithium battery with the savings.
@@DavenH Mostly the RICH purchase these solar panels , which keeps their cost high . ( it isn’t poor folks who buy Tesla’s ) . Additionally , these “GREEN” technologies are subsidized ( translation : the middle class & working class pays for it ) . We essentially are forced to pay for the obsessions of the wealthy 😉 Have a nice day 👋
if you want limited bad info..yes. i used to think he was good. untill i hear him talk about something i actually knew about. then he sounded like a dope.
reverend moonie no one who has the intelligence for those above mentioned fields would say” come at me bro” what is it like to be a pretender? You are embarrassing yourself.
Solar prices have fallen drastically since 2013. Even by 2015 they were closer to $4 per installed watt. There's some underhanded math going on here. US **residential** costs are now closer to $3 per installed watt **unsubsidized**. They're closer to $2 per installed watt after tax incentives (in most places). Most solar panels are warranted for 20 years, if you read the fine print, that's when the panel's output is expected to fall to 80% of its rating. It's not like the panel vaporizes after 20 years, they're still perfectly useful. Here's my source: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72399.pdf If that link doesn't show up, it's: www nrel gov docs fy19osti 72399 pdf
@@AbeDillon Even better, while most panels are given a lifetime of 30 years, in reality after 30 years it's more likely that your whole roof needs to be replaced anyway, while most of the panels will still work, even if only at 70% original capacity. So you buy new more efficient yet cheaper panels, but there are likely to be plenty of DIY people who would like those old panels for their off-grid farm so recycling them is not a problem either.
WhiteShadow2k1 Typical panels are rated to survive something like golf ball sized hailstones and making the cutoff switch easily accessible is basic regulations. Most houses can go 60 years without burning down or getting bombarded by hailstones big enough to break trough the roof, so if those are actual real near future concerns you should think about leaving town rather than installing solar panels.
Excellent videos and this is no exception. As to warranties, many companies (and maybe even foreign or domestic manufacturers) have no intention of being in business for the length of the warranty, and many have gone out of business. The warranty is worthless if the company offering it is gone.
Planned obsolescence. Two words that infuriate me. I have a little old fridge from the 70s that's chugging along without a hiccup through all kinds of abuse. The new reefers have to be replaced every 10-15 years with maintenance in between!
Some of his information is outdated. Install costs for utility solar have been $1 per W or less for a couple years now. Even in 2015, $5 / W was not an accurate number. And residential pv systems run around $3 / W or less. Utility solar projects are signing long-term power purchase agreements where they sell power to the utility at 2 cents per kWh or less. Storage is not really necessary unless you want to go off-grid, but that's such an extreme case, it shouldn't affect the cost comparison for PV as a whole. Having batteries is nice during a power outage and they can produce income from buying power when the price is low (or when the power from the solar PV is free) and then selling the power back when its more expensive. At utility scale, solar with 4 hours of storage is being built for 2 - 2.5 cents per kWh all-in: www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nevada-beat-arizona-record-low-solar-ppa-price I always get the quip, "Yeah, that's the price with subsidies!!!!!" Well, any power source has a price that includes subsidies. The price of Fossil fuels include the subsidies of not incorporating the costs of their pollution and climate change into their price. The price of nuclear power includes subsidies ranging from decades of R&D going back to the Manhattan Project, free liability insurance from the government in case of meltdowns, actual assumption of damages from meltdowns by the federal government in case one actually happens...plus all the financial shell-games the nuclear industry has played (see WPPSS, Ontario Hydro, etc.) and continues to play (pre-charging utility customers billions of dollars for nuke plants under construction like at Vogtle). Plus, we spent $12B on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository only to find out it was an inadequate solution. The actual cost to safely deal with nuclear waste for 100,000 years will be much higher. How higher, nobody knows. But this nuclear waste is the government's, and therefore the taxpayers', problem that is not nearly paid for by the waste storage fees on nuclear power.
@@saultcrystals energy storage is, in lieu of relatively controllable production, vital for a national power grid. Conventional batteries are in no way a solution. Until energy storage issues are solved, renewables are, even when cheap, are an unreliable and inconsistent source. The vast majority of renewable energy is currently wasted. There's no point being super cheap if that cheap energy is available when demand is low. Like a coal plant at full burn at 3am. Huge amount of really cheap energy, that no one's using, and ironically becomes expensive to operate due to low ROI.
The only real technical debate on how reliably renewables can power entire regions is whether it gets expensive above 80% penetration or 100% is totally achievable. Are you following any of the debates on these issues or just regurgitating fossil fuel industry talking points? www.resilience.org/stories/2017-06-27/100-renewables-a-few-remarks-about-the-jacobsonclack-controversy/ The "vast majority of renewable energy" is definitely NOT currently wasted. This is a complete BS talking point. The only people spouting this nonsense are fossil fuel industry shills or the people dumb enough to fall for their propaganda. Solar output pairs well with energy demand during the day. Offshore wind turbines are achieving 60% capacity factors and could go higher. Do you even know what capacity factor is??? And you clearly don't know how renewable energy plants have zero marginal costs to operate. Free fuel and vanishingly small O&M costs will do that. So once again, you clearly don't even know what you're talking about when it comes to how expensive certain power plants are to operate.
@@saultcrystals Ah of course all those coal industry shills, o right and coal industry propaganda. Because you certainly aren't citing propaganda as a reliable source o no no, because renewables are good right, and the coal industry is double plus ungood so that means people who disagree with you are nothing but evil fools while you are warrior for righteous truth. Sadly you are just spouting different talking points, have you ever bothered to actually check what the conclusions of research are regarding the cost? Or have you chosen a lens and now you just look through it.
@@saultcrystals now hold on there a minute. Zero marginal cost, fucking what? To claim such utter bullshit, you not only need to not open any article on economy in your life, you have to not able to understand basic trade relationships between people on fundamental level. Some might've even called you a commie (not me though). No buisness will ever have "zero marginal", because marginal is the cost they add to the product, including their expected profit. Who the fuck would make a buisness which makes no profit, what insanity is what? And i don't even mention labor, maintenance and initial construction, which would be no doubt included in the price of your energy, just the fact what you say "zero marginal cost" inherently implies it makes no profit, which is not how the world works.
You can go to caiso.com and see the "duck's back" in the real time graph of the energy used in the state of California. This dip shows how much of the energy used is being created by renewables, mostly solar in the daytime. It's a huge amount. When (not if) the electric vehicle makers get their vehicles to be bidirectional, then owners can charge their EV during max solar, and run their home (and some of the neighbors) from their vehicle the rest of the time. That car battery will make it possible to be 100% renewable energy.
@@acmefixer1 www.nordicenergy.org/article/solar-power-at-the-arctic-circle/ 1x PCs @ 700W * 24h * 365d ~= 6MWh If my math isn't off... This "powerplant" can barely run 4x non-gamer PC's for a year. I mean - to anyone living near the Equator...? Go ahead! Would be dumb NOT to harness the power of the Sun!! ...but don't turn this into a religion; some places will just never be able to use sun-power as more than a cosmetic/environmentalist bragging point.
Having had worked in both the PV and Battery industries I pretty much agree with everything he said. I'd love to see an updated video that takes into account: -Inflation and inflation adjusted costs on the historical graphs. -Labor costs. I do not know about you but labor is out of control - can't get anyone to do any sort of trade, even unskilled, for under $100/hr. Heck I was quoted a new roof and when you pulled out the labor costs out of the quote it was nearly $300/hr. -Recent advances and efficiencies and how that has affected price per watt - I am very certain labor has more than offset this. -Include, if the data didn't already normalize for this, the effects that high and low temperatures have on panels, hot and sunny areas can often have less efficiency than places that are a bit cooler with slightly less sun. -How to factor in minimum billing against PV costs as some grid operators are billing people a minimum bill even if they use zero electricity? -Also please touch on the costs when the panels are done and worn out. Several ways to present this but it'd be an interesting footnote. Lastly, as I said having worked in both industries PV + battery, there is nothing green, clean, or environmentally friendly about the cell growing and paneling processes. Heavy metals, lots of solvents, massive furnaces for crystals, very nasty chemicals, bases, and acids, and tens of thousands of gallons of ultra pure water to clean the cells, clean the chemicals, neutralize the chemicals, and for decontamination of materials and processing tools. Batteries are much of the above but add in more heavy metal and chemical concerns (depending on type). Unfortunately the media and marketing has been effective at only reporting the upside, so the only thing the consumer sees is a shiny panel making "free and green" electricity. I personally still feel the PV technology needs more advancement, storage needs more advancement, and regulation + costs needs to be reigned in, somehow.
@@wrongway1100 don't be, David Copperfield is a household name for me, I remember watching him in my childhood in the '90s. Maybe he simply was more famous in Europe?
I think I figured out the optical method. So, have a camera record you behind the translucent chalkboard; is all backwards. Then, just mirror the video; one is viewing through the perspective of the mirror. Behind the image, so to speak.
More like; the cost of keeping the county commissioners nephew in business. Building codes should be State regulations. Not zoning laws that are different from block to block and change all the time.
Can we revisit this in 2021, please? Would like to see todays numbers plotted on graphs to visualize the changes from when this excellent video clip was made.
If you install it yourself in your yard, and not on your roof, the cost per kwh is supposedly on track to surpass fossil fuels in the next couple of years as battery technology advances. The cost and lifespan of the batteries is the only thing holding back solar at this point. Installed cost is a different story. Having a system installed on your roof can easily more than double the cost. And then there is the matter of cleaning, maintaining and repairing the panels which no one talks about. If you aren't willing to do all that yourself, then solar is always going to be more expensive. How much more expensive will be interesting to see. And don't forget, you'll need to invest in some sort of backup generator for those times the system fails, if you don't have one already.
@@spuriouseffect it does not cost a lot extra to install panels on the roof. And you dont necessarily need batteries as you are still connected to the grid and you can draw on power when the sun is out. There is next to no maintenance required and you dont need to clean them, the rain does that and you dont need to buy fossil fuels to keep it running
@@bruceevennett955 In the desert where you have the most sunshine, you have little rain, and in northern climates you have snow, so yes you do have to clean them. And rain or not they still get dirty. Even grid power often goes down, so if you don't have batteries, then you most certainly need a backup power generator to supply you with power. And you are dreaming if you think paying someone to install them on your roof is the same price as installing them yourself on the ground.
@@spuriouseffect Lol what are you talking about. My parents have a home PV roof system, no batteries needed, the utility accepts all excess power at some predetermined rate.
@@pspublic13 I wasn't talking about continuing to use fossil fuels. I was talking about switching over to solar completely. Yes, simply hooking up to the grid makes perfect financial sense right now if you have to money to invest.
IDK how I got here. But I've watched like 4 of your videos now. They are very well done and very interesting. Love the examples and how clean everything is done in terms of providing information.
What are the economics of the energy used to create a solar cell and it's energy output over its expected lifetime? I read an article from Stanford that said until around 2015 it took more energy to produce a solar cell than the energy it was expected to produce. Then there's the matter of shifting pollution to create the solar cells to other countries.
I would guess that the cost of the energy to produce a solar cell would naturally be reflected in the price of it. Who is going to buy energy to make something but not add it to the sale price? But otherwise, I agree with what you are asking. Much of what we think is "green" energy just shifts the pollution to some other place that we cannot easily see.
No energy solution has a net positive output. Nuclear, coal, gas all take more energy to create than they produce. If we could make positive energy then we would live in a very different world
@@TheJorge100 I think you are wrong at that one. If all energy capture or extraction methods were net-negative, then we would all be dead. That would be like eating celery. It takes more energy to chew and digest it than you get back in calories. But most all other foods give you more energy than it takes to consume it. Ditto for energy 'production'. Let's look at an example like hydro-power. One can quantify the total energy required to build the system. Then, once installed and running, you might run it for decades with very little additional input other than the water power that is provided with no human input required. Our mere existence and increase in population suggests that we are obtaining more energy from our surroundings than we are expending.
@@mikebetts2046 I hadnt considered hydro, so that is possible, but it still could not be. When I mean negative I mean barely. Like 0.001. Its why we still need fossil fuels and they are the reason we arent dead. We are using a finite resource to convert energy into something we can use. When I mean net energy I mean the energy to build, maintain, transport materials, fuel, workers, etc.
@@TheJorge100 I had thought you did mean the 'maintain, transport, fuel, workers...' part. On that score I still say that the overall system must be net positive, otherwise for the last few thousand years we would have been expending more energy than we have been getting and thus we would dwindle in just a few weeks or months. Imagine a person spending his every waking hour digging, hunting, and collecting food. He does this 12 hours per day x7 x 365 and maintains the exact same weight. We might assume he is net-neutral on energy. Now he sacrifices some time (and weight) and makes some tools to increase his efficiency. He can now do the same food-gathering tasks in 8 hours rather than 12. Were he to work the same 12, he would then gain and be net-positive. And probably gain weight, or have enough energy to get his woman pregnant and also support another child. And so the cycle continues with ever-expanding efficiency. It is true that the sun gives us its' energy for free and we do not consider it in the calculation. So if we want to include the sun (energy burned for energy given) then maybe we are negative.
Part of one of my engineering classes was to see how long it would take for the solar installation at the college in the Seattle area to pay for itself. Assuming no loss in production capacity and no maintenance cost, about 220 years.
Norm T Even on a peak day the power generated MIGHT have been enough for just one building, on a day like today it would be lucky to charge your phone. Giant waste of money nowhere near the reliability of a diesel generator.
@@HughesEnterprises Where did you get your numbers from? That sounds remarkably misaligned with real world data, unless you have among the worst conditions in the world.
Jon Doe Seattle is one of the worst places in the world to get solar power. The only thing that makes it worthwhile for homeowners is the piles and piles of tax breaks and incentives that make the panels nearly free at the cost of the taxpayer. The array was in a fixed position that could not adjust to changing sun position, the panels rarely passed 8% efficiency. On a weekend day in August in full sun it could barely power the empty 20,000 square foot building they were on top of.
Hughes Enterprises Well that’s quite unfortunate. Presumably the electric is cheap as well? For a great deal of the world solar works great and payback can be remarkably brief in areas with expensive electricity along with favorable conditions.
Great content Prof. I wish I had a teacher like you when I was a student. I have very big respect for you and your institution for creating and sharing these gems. Every teacher needs to first fill the gaps in the big picture like you do here. And then fill the gaps in specific areas like the math and science of the subject. So that the students know why they are doing all those calculations and make sense out of the results they get. PLEASE keep more solar coming. Greetings from Istanbul.
This dude has amazing presentation skills. To put it in context how good his presentation was I am a master nanotechnology student and I dint watch the video, I was just listening it in the background and got 100% of the info he intended for the viewer to understand. Amazing work as all his other videos. Wish all proffessors were as good as this guy.
They can be minimized because they can be easily addressed with a high-voltage DC super-grid costing a tiny fraction of the cost of the generating capacity of wind or solar. Europe has already built out an extensive super-grid which reduces the need for storage drastically. The more expansive the super-grid, the less storage required.
@@AbeDillon Nonsense. Unless your magical super-grid spans across oceans, it will do little to reduce the need for storage. The sun doesn't set that much later in California than it does in Florida. And even at that scale, there are such things as transmission losses which can't be ignored.
@@AbeDillon Good luck using your planet-wide super grid when half the Earth is in night and there's a continent-sized storm during the day. We are NOWHERE CLOSE to replacing fossil or nuclear fuel energy plants because of the storage problem and 24/7 needs of the energy system. That this professor spent less than a minute talking about this issue is a joke.
Prof. I just noticed an overlook error at 14:00, You were looking at the average price installed, but not considering the local price installed. Labor cost and regulations in California are higher than in say Texas, in theory wouldn't the actual cost installed (before subsidies) in California be higher possible effecting the economics? Also, did you account for the energy loss of the inverter and the up/down of the battery. I would think that 1kw*hr produced by the cell does not equal 1 kw*hr consumed at the outlet, so what is the average loss?
Good video but one point that bugs me. Panels generally last well over 50 years so using the warranty period of 20 years for average or expected lifespan is silly and misleading.... The efficiency reduces over time but they don't generally stop working
Show me the generally available panel that's 50 years old and maybe I'll believe you. Then go study the carizo project and you'll see that factors can affect panel performance.
Wonderful info. California has several large-scale solar installations, but a problem is the lowered demand during the day means the utility company disconnects their solar farm, so the energy is not used. IMO new large-scale solar installations should *not* be permitted unless there's local storage to time-shift the power produced to when the power is needed. For example using your Illinois number of 0.2, for each MW of peak solar produced you actually get 200KW over a 24 hour period (on an average day). So a battery system to suck up the 800KW "excess" during peak (the other 200KW goes directly to the grid), then off peak dribble out 200KW from the batteries. Thus, it's not a 1MW solar farm, but a 200KW solar farm. Fortunately batteries are getting better and cheaper. Of course the demand isn't flat during the day, so maybe 100 - 150KW out to the grid during the day, then 300 - 400KW in the evening, dropping back near 100KW in the wee hours. As for small-scale privately-owned systems, the market place will make designs without storage economically painful. If power sells for 2¢/KWh during the day, and 18¢/KWh in the evening, even with net metering, buying something like a Tesla Powerwall starts to look a lot more viable than slapping solar on the roof. This doesn't solve the problem of a week of cloudy weather, or shorter days during the winter, but it's a useful start. One of the toughest challenges of renewable energy is "the last MWh challenge." Fusion someday, but meanwhile we really should get back into fission. The Sierra Club lobbied *for* the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. They saw it as a way to save pristine high Sierra mountain valleys from being dammed and flooded. Nukes have a positive CO2 impact as well, but no one thought much about CO2 in those days except for a few scientists. Then Three-Mile Island happened and politics turned against nuclear.
I like his videos. I thought he was going to talk about the hidden cost of solar like the toxic materials and chemicals used to make them. Fyi in my area it's about $3.60/ watt (cape cod)
You are thinking of wind turbines, the solar panels just have issues with lead solder and a couple of other chemicals, refining the materials for wind turbine magnets is one of the most polluting processes I know about.
this vid sucked...i didnt mention that they degrade badly over time and have to be disposed of..you have to spend 20 years worth of power up front in money..an investement ,,that would other wise earn money. and why the hell would people want to buy one today,,when they apear to keep getting better fast....your system is old tech in 5-10 years...and then it also starts to work shitty
@@autopartsmonkey7992 the panel's i use, Silfab, are warranted for 30 to operate above 80%. The workmanship comes 12yr and can be upgraded to 25yr. In my area the payback is 6-7 yr.
@@simclardy1 id need alot of proof for that. 7 years is basically the break even point vs just using existing power sources. and from what the experts say the cost isnt equal yet. plus im sure that inculdes some dicey math, like costs being subsidized by the state ,,feds ..etc. so in reality your just passing the cost onto the public.
How much does the German government's solar installation subsidies play into the equation now days? I haven't been a solar panel manufacturer raw material provider since I walked away from the industry more than a decade ago; but, I remember the influence that the German subsidies played on the industry in the early 2000's...
Great video. However thre cost of solar needs to include the cost of having standby power available instantaneosly. You have to keep the current system fully staffed to support it..
and the inital sunk cost,, say it costs 20k today to setup. he just avgs that out like its nothing, if you instead put that 20k in the bank. the accumulated profit over 20 years erases any savings the solar may have gotten ya. plus the solar degrades massively with time..so yeah it works 20 years,,at 50% the last 7
Not much discussion about how intermittent, low density energy sources interact with modern electrical grids, and how that effects the economics of wind and solar.
They interact with a MODERN grid very well thank you. The problem is electric companies refusing to modernize the ancient power lines, which in addition to causing fires and blackouts means you can't transmit power far.
@@AnalystPrime No, they are an enormous problem for the grid. The grid CAN NOT store energy. If the sky is spotty then the PV-Systems will produce energy sporadically and the actual powerplants have to compensate for that on a second-by-second basis. Of course you can not ramp up a generator that fast, so what do you do? Oh right - let them CONSTANTLY run on standby and most of their production-capabilities is wasted on that. Either you use the energy on the spot or it is useless.
@@ABaumstumpf There have been energy storage systems that work faster than power plants all over for exactly that reason long before solar and wind became a thing. The reason why people try to sell you a power plant instead and claim renewables can't be used is because that standby plant is still using fuel, which they don't tend to include into calculations how much you will end up paying them for it. And yes, the power from that standby plant is wasted. Funny, it is not only far cheaper to build windmills or PV farms that don't need expensive fuels that are running out, rising in cost and also could be used for other industries, but the people building the renewable solutions are also smart enough to understand you might not want to waste the excess power they produce, even if it is free. The only problem is without a proper smart grid we can't just connect New York to PV in California, or even Florida. With one we can balance the production second by second, selling the extra to other cities that have too much clouds or finding someone who wants to charge their EV or Powerwall or using it in plants that do not need to operate at full capacity 24/7. Also, while people keep talking about solar a lot, the main benefit will be the ability to use localized sources like hydro, geothermal, tidal and offshore wind further than fifty miles away. We might want to use that field outside the city to build a new suburb a decade from now so there would be no point building windmills there, but nobody is going to change established shipping lanes any time soon so it will be easy to find a few thousand square miles of free estate on the ocean. And yes, transmission losses are a thing. However, once you actually decide to build a modern grid that covers the whole country it becomes economical to include extra long distance lines, possibly even superconducting ones. Also, solar and wind will need some overcapacity to cover for low production times anyway; by building even more of them we can produce power at such low cost that losing some on the way thousands of miles away will not be a problem. AND, even more importantly, that way we won't have a new energy crisis next year when it turns out our needs have increased and what we built last year no longer produces enough. If you build a bigger coal plant to keep on standby you just waste more money on fuel, if you build more renewables you get more free power that will inspire more people to figure out useful things to do with it.
@@AnalystPrime "There have been energy storage systems that work faster than power plants all over for exactly that reason long before solar and wind became a thing." Yes, we have energy storage all over the place. Most of that in form of water. And guess what? There is one already pretty much everywhere we can built them and they are running at full capacity. Look at germany - the energystorage of germany combined with all its neighbours is barely capable of holding the grid alive and that nearly killed the whole grid at the start of 2019. "And yes, the power from that standby plant is wasted. Funny, it is not only far cheaper to build windmills or PV farms that don't need expensive fuels that are running out, rising in cost and also could be used for other industries, but the people building the renewable solutions are also smart enough to understand you might not want to waste the excess power they produce, even if it is free." You do realise you are contradicting your self there on multiple issues? it is exactly wind and solar that lead to wasting a lot of energy. And neither of them are particular cheap - they run on heavy government subsidies and are still not cheaper than gas and hydropower in most countries. "The only problem is without a proper smart grid we can't just connect New York to PV in California, or even Florida." A grid can not be "smart". If you are that ignorant that you believe the marketing hype then you are really far from knowing anything. "Also, while people keep talking about solar a lot, the main benefit will be the ability to use localized sources like hydro, geothermal, tidal and offshore wind further than fifty miles away." A yeah - great idea. built very expensive and lossy long distance lines - what a sublime idea.................................... "it becomes economical to include extra long distance lines, possibly even superconducting ones." The good old "if we get this futuristic materials that current science tells us we can not produce and even in 100 years we will likely not have anything even coming close - and have that for dirt cheap now - then we can make our idea barely viable". "If you build a bigger coal plant to keep on standby you just waste more money on fuel, if you build more renewables you get more free power that will inspire more people to figure out useful things to do with it." it is the other way around. BECAUSE of wind and solar they HAVE to run other fossil-fueled powerplants on standby 24/7.
Not really. It's lack of UNIFORM regulation. Regulation, taken as a whole, is generally GOOD for innovation, but only when it's based on sound, rational thinking, and is easy to interpret, follow, and enforce. US building codes favor rich developers over all else. Balloon construction has many hidden costs. (Balloon construction (BC) refers to how most western houses are built). BC has enormous energy costs--hard to insulate well, lots of thermal short circuits, can only be inspected at specific times which complicates logistics of building, material transport and storage, and labor arrangements. BC creates hideously complicated build project timelines.
@@nicklockardsounds like BC is dripping with Regs too. When something is simple-/., regulation machines can’t help but adding complications. Green washing is a great business out here in Cali. As well.
My self installed 10KW system with Enphase microinverters came in at $1.50/W. While researching my system I was so impressed with Enphase I bought stock. It's earned $15K so my system was free even before the 30% tax credit.
You have found the one way that solar is profitable. Buy stock in the companies that sell it to people and benefit from the taxpayers forced to subsidized the agenda. FYI the average cost in the USA is $1.2/W from our utility company.
I’m a retired nuclear engineer but I have rooftop solar. It has worked out real well for me with an estimated payback period of about 7 years. However, 1) I got the system basically at cost since my wife works for the company, 2) I got all sorts of tax credits and incentives from the state and federal government and the local utility, 3) I live in southern California where the sun shines almost every day and 4) the local utility rates are very high.Despite the dramatic drop in panel costs, I am surprised that about 10% in my area (and it may be as low as 5%) have solar panels installed. These are homes that go from about $800K to well over a million dollars.
I am also retired from the nuclear industry. These are really valuable videos. The only thing I would add from a nuclear perspective, besides the obvious capacity factor values, is that the current gen 3 reactors (minus a few like yours, assuming you worked at San Onofre) are good for 80 years. So there needs to be a multiplier added in to make the costs equivalent to nuclear. Nonetheless, these videos are pure gold!
Most likely it's written and filmed normally. Nothing spectacular. The only trick is flipping the image horizontally. Even basic webcams tend to have that option, I think :).
Lot's of good info. It would be nice if you did a talk including the economics of the duck curve and battery storage for places that want to rely primarily on renewables.
I’ve done a few solar farm jobs and I was amazed at how much energy is used to create these farms. Between manufacturing, shipping ( the panels came from China to the US east coast), installation of the not only the panels, but all the mounting hardware, it is expensive and time consuming. Plus all of the power cables, combiner boxes, and eventually feeding to the inverters. Most people don’t realize that solar panels produce DC voltage that needs to be converted to AC, using inverters. Converting AC to DC is easy, but converting DC to AC is much harder with a substantial loss of power.
Ugly Blue Chair Productions: Yes, exactly. He also made no mention of the ways that China extracts and processes the materials - i.e. the environmental damage caused. Another point I rarely hear mentioned is the the home owner maintenance required - assuming battery/etc hookup, not grid tie. How many folks will even check the oil in their auto, much less constantly monitor/maintain their system? Being a retired EE, I love all things electrical, but we must be realistic about advantages and disadvantages. For our farm gate and a remote shallow well solar is just great. For our home and workshop - not yet. And I see no usable solar powered tractors on the market yet! (-; ................
@@dd_ranchtexas4501 All energy has environmental cost. Fossil fuels are very high because you have to keep digging them up. Solar is less because you can recycle the materials after the cells run out. Also most of the cells will last for more than 20 years. That is just what the manufacturer guarantees. It is like cars. Most cars last longer than the manufacturer's warranty. Also maintenance is why you want utility scale solar rather than residential scale.
My wife was convinced that our power bill had gone up significantly with the sale of Southern Company. Turned out that when we had our roof replaced a few weeks before the roofers had put the wrong vent on the roof for our clothes dryer which resulted in a blockage and caused the dryer to run 3X longer to dry a load of clothes. I figured all this out when she casually expressed her frustration for how long it was taking to dry a load of laundry. I got curious and checked the vent and discovered the problem.
EROEI is not that great for solar. Nuclear is much higher. Also the amount of mining, land use and waste from solar does not make it an attractive long term option. Plus it is intermittent and you would like to store the excess energy. IMHO, the only reasons solar is a thing is because a)can make more money initially than nuclear(much cheaper startup cost). b) everyone is scared of nuclear power. c) perhaps the most important point, fossil fuel companies love solar and wind, it locks in their product.
Jim Miller the big issue I have with this plan, besides the fact solar panels are not truly renewable, is...how are you making all those cool items in your home that you want to power with your solar panels? It takes alot of energy. Solar/wind are good for a camping lifestyle. They cannot power our industrial society,
If X has an EROEI of 1M but it costs $15/w and Y has an EROEI of 7 and it costs $2/w the thing that costs $2/w wins because economics matters. As long as the EROEI is >1 the cheaper option wins because economics matters. Wind and solar beat nuclear because economics matters. Thermal generation is a lost cause...... because economics matters.
@@Chris-ie9os Economies of scale also matter. Take your short term thinking elsewhere. Those who bet on nuclear will see a sustainable long term economic return on investment while those who bet on wind and solar won't. Just look at Germany and France.
@@Chris-ie9os That assumes static situation, however all prices change over time and the future is not know at the time the decision are made so it is not that clear cut.
05:44 No, manufacturers warranty is not a good indicator for solar cells, current understanding is that they can easily last a century by which time output will have halved, but hey, half of free = free.
Yeah, that bothered me too. The warranty is usually for 80% of rated capacity for 20 years and frequently for 25 years. They don't just drop to 0% at the 20 year mark. The warranty means that you can be sure you're still getting at least 80% of what you got when they were new. If you get the worst possible degradation without a warranty replacement, and if you have the roof space, you could just buy 20% more panels at the 20 year mark and be back up to full capacity. Even if you want to replace them all, you'll be able to sell your panels for some percentage of their original value. They also have significant reclaim value for the steel, aluminium, copper, glass and silicon.
@@luisdestro7662 ... NEW nuclear is ~10x more per watt and ~4x more per watt-hr. But it looks like even new wind or solar is now cheaper than existing nuclear... cleantechnica.com/2019/11/22/solar-costs-wind-costs-now-so-low-theyre-competitive-with-existing-coal-nuclear-lazard-lcoe-report/
The thing about nuclear is that it's energy dense in a way renewables like solar and wind just can't be. You can't power a car manufacturering plant or googles supercomputer with renewables. Transporting energy incurs losses and there exists a point where all of the energy leaks out after it's been moved a certain distance. To power the things I've mentioned you'd need a field of solar panels that exceeds that maximum carry capacity by quite a bit. Even if it was possible it still be hilariously space inefficient. That's why we need nuclear.
@@SIRslipperyasp91 ???? Sure you can... a GWh is a GWh. Energy is Energy. There is FAR more energy available from solar and wind than we could possibly use. >90% of our society has been running on stored sunlight since the beginning of time.
There is a good solid reason where our roofs are different. The roof in Fla has to be much different than one in Montana. Think of hurricanes and snow here where in Ger, the weather is generally the same.
Solar makes a good supplement but I believe its being oversold. Your discussion doesn't include the monetized environmental and health cost of energy associated with fossil fuels. You also need storage and a base load generator usually fossil fueled. .But the big problems with solar and wind are land area vs electricity produced by a base load plant. Also you didn't even mention nuclear power, the cleanest, most efficient, and cheapest by any measure, especially the next generation LFTR nuclear plants fueled by thorium.
Yes about Nuclear being best option and Solar fluctuating and being terrible for power grids. Except for 100k in batts per person how is Solar and Wind grid even supposed to work once they become most of the grid, this is impossible green plan which is never addressed?
storage isnt possible...not at all.. not even a fraction. you guys have it easy down there...ill say this loud... ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAT NORTHERN CITIES WITH OUT BURNING SOMETHING OR SPLITTING AN ATOM. end stop. you simply cannot heat nyc with out fuel.
@@autopartsmonkey7992 .. Actually i wonder if u can put billboard size mirror north of house n beam sun into window w black water tank, even in winter this cld work if tank big nuff to cover cloudy week, so heatin green is possible but we need to test, nuke needed for electricity...
This is a fantastic video for the analysis of consumer home level solar usage, but it definitely doesn't work on a system wide basis because of the storage problem. I am very curious how that would be calculated for on a system level, or even if it could be due to the fluctuating output and demand for energy.
imagine putting a power wire over the Arctis to Europe, so we could use each other's salt Power while it's night at our place. Speaking for Europe: connecting from Portugal to Russia there would be an enormous potential to move power geographically by grid instead of temporarily by storage
@@xXxno6xXx With Europe I agree that there would be potential there, but there is no way nations would ever allow their interests to be overshadowed to such a degree. Imagine Germany trying to sanction Russia when Russia could turn their lights out at the flip of a button. For USA there is no way that such a thing is practical. It would be the single most vulnerable "soft target" in the world and would extend our military too much. I think the problem of sharing power between two areas in the same state in the US would be a big enough problem, because the problem is that nobody wants to deal with a blackout even if it is necessary on a grid level.
@@peterranney9488 actually, we have power lines crossing borders and trade electric energy all the time. Speaking of Germany: we have a high population density, import oil and gas from Russia already and don't even have nuclear Ressources. What we got plenty of is just the worst type of coal. What I'm trying to say: we import energy today. Why should we put on enormous economic burden to reach self sufficiency, when the stated goal is global minimization of radiative forcing. Connecting existing grids can do a lot ,in lowering cost for all parties. As speaking of Russia, president Putin said something in this kind about a multipolar world with multilateral dependencies. Maybe it helps to not bomb each other if we are hooked up to the same wires
@@paulbart3156 Yeah, in a perfect world, people would realize that solar and renewables are completely unnecessary compared to nuclear. Next gen nuclear reactors can load-follow the demand curve very well. Or, if you want them to operate at a constant temperature 24/7, you could electrolysis hydrogen or desalinate ocean water during the off-peak times.
I can't believe people in 2019 believe coal companies spreading the myth of nuclear being good. It's crazy expensive for starters( no nuclear power plant has ever turned a profit) Takes decades to build (Us just built one in 44 years) It's not that green (if we went 100% nuclear compared to 100% natural gas we'd only save 3% emissions)
Ethan, I am not sure that I agree with any of the premises. Firstly the cost. France that derives 70% of its energy from nuclear, has the cheapest energy in Europe. Cost of construction and time to complete : in USA the high costs and long time to build, come mainly from environmental red tape. In China the cost to build one is comparable to a coal fired one. I am not sure where you getting your numbers re CO2. I am assuming you building in the CO2 produced during construction. Let's face it produces virtually no CO2 during operation.
Really, really, really informative and interesting. How about the return on investment? The purchase and installation are upfront costs. It would be interesting to calculate and compare present value for solar power vs. market prices for power.
I think the low installation costs in Germany are a product of the "Renewable Energy Law" which supported the rise of PV (and wind power) in a strong way: A vast amount of PV installations was performed in a short time ... scale of economy! And this law also helped the Chinese economy to sell PV modules while crushing the initial german pv module industry around 2010 who was to slow to raise the bar - e.g. with higher efficiencíes to reduce the solar module area for the same peak power or increase the power output for the same roof. It would be interesting too to see some calculations with storage - using a Tesla power wall I get some 15-25 ct/kWh for a very energy efficient household (1000 kWh / year) but the investment of ~ 20 000 $ / EUR is high - I pay 400 EUR per year and my expected life time is round about 20 years if everything wents well - this is the life time of the components too so maybe not the best idea! Finally: Thanks for your video and greetings from Germany - Michael
When you're comparing Germany to the US, it's easy to think of it as a straight comparison - Nation to Nation, as it were. Unfortunately, that's not really valid. Thing is, that in terms of size and, in this case, climate and construction variety, Germany is more like a single state - about the size of New Mexico, with weather that approximates Virginia - albeit with a population of 77 million people. Full nationwide standardization on that scale is practical. In something as large and physically diverse as the United States (Or Canada, or Russia) it is not. National standards need to be drawn very carefully, so that they apply to things that are, as near as possible, constant across all regions. Otherwise, it ends up being an attempt to pound oval pegs into undersized round holes.
Yeah, that kinda isn't how it is though. German DIN standards for the most part are same as European EN standards which for the most part are same as worldwide ISO standards. The differences only happen when they are truly needed and even then the attempt is made to just widen the scope of the higher order standard instead of writing a local specialized standard. The entire point of standardization is to make things same everywhere. In US on the other hand everyone wonders why the entire rest of the world is not compatible with their local homebrew standards.
Germany has to rely on France for energy, because they foolishly discontinued their nuclear plants, and bet on solar and wind without thinking about 24/7 reliability. They went with feel-good politics over hard engineering.
@@chrimony At roughly 80% nuclear, France doesn't have the ability to ramp up and down to meet their own demand. France relies on Germany (and other nearby nations) for their electricity supply as well, just for different reasons.
He does a wonderful job of explaining things. Regardless, solar power is the future. It will get cheaper and when we factor in that solar doesn't polite much it will become prevalent.
Great video! You can really see how solar really isn’t an option most places due to physics and just a few economic considerations. There are a few additional things that make solar even more expensive he didn’t cover: 1. Subsidies. Money taken from taxpayers and redistributed to solar companies, installers, and customers to artificially reduce the cost. True costs are far higher. 2. Efficiency over time. Solar efficiency drops dramatically over the years. 3. Warranties. He came up with a 20-year warranty but no company has lasted anywhere close to that long. And even if there is a warranty, that’s not a guarantee you’ll receive it. This number should be cut by 50-75% 4. Maintenance. Other forms of power require no maintenance by the consumer. Solar panels need to be frequently cleaned or efficiency goes down even further. Also they are usually mounted on things like roofs which also need to be replaced or maintained and solar would need to be removed. 5. Damage. He waived off hail and storm damage and didn’t figure it in at all. But most solar systems get damaged quite easily and the consumer would need to pay to replace it. They don’t pay for traditional methods. 6. Balancing the load: Solar systems usually can’t stand alone because they have a hard time balancing power loads without gigantic and expensive battery arrays. Most solar systems are used in conjunction with grid tied power sources which provide the actual stable power and in emergency situations as well.
Let's take each of the points you mentioned: 1) Nuclear has received 50% of the subsidies granted by the U.S. for energy. Fossil fuels, 25%. Everything else, 25%. True costs for nuclear are much higher because they haven't disposed of any nuclear waste in 75 years and taxpayers are paying utilities $1 billion a year to store their own nuclear waste. on site within 100 miles of every major city in the U.S. What could possible go wrong? Nuclear is not required to obtain insurance for liabilities from nuclear damage. Nuclear utilities are bribing legislators to increase subsidies for nuclear and strike down legislation favorable to energy conservation. 2) 48% of the nuclear reactors ordered from 1953 through 2008 were cancelled, 18% were prematurely shut down and 14% experienced at a one-year-or-more outage. Not very reliable, eh? 3) The only warranty you will get from the nuclear industry is that they will take the profits and the public will pay for any liabilities. History has shown there will be plenty of liabilities from the nuclear industry. You betcha!! 4) See item #2, except add a few billion for much costlier nuclear maintenance and cost for substitute power. New Orleans' ratepayers had their bills go up 300% in one month in 2020 due to the maintenance shutdown at Grand Gulf nuclear plant. 5) The whole world for many generations to come will pay for nuclear damage. Damage that cannot be completely mitigated once you open nuclear's Pandora's Box. 6) You just haven't been keeping up with the current events in the energy field have you? Existing storage systems for any energy source are readily available. There have been astronomical advances in storage technology in the last decade as well as cost reductions in renewables. Lazard, the largest independent financial institution in the world. states that storage can be managed for 1.0-1.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Wind or solar and battery storage can be had for less than half the price of nuclear.
@@jackfanning7952 I’m not sure where you got your information from but it’s all wrong or outdated?? So-callled “Renewable energy” obtained a whopping 93% of federal energy fuel subsidies while generating a mere 22% of total U.S. energy. This is directly from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). This also doesn’t include how most states don’t tax wind and solar and give them other benefits redistributed from unfair additional tax levies placed on nuclear. The vast majority of nuclear waste is kept on site, safely, securely and without any additional cost in concrete caskets the size of a car. What can go wrong?? Not much. Because it’s easy to simply pour another concrete container. The entirety of all nuclear waste produced in history can fit on a single football field it’s so little. New reactor designs actually run on what was previously considered waste. And I’m glad you brought up insurance liabilities, because wind and solar are completely free from prosecution even after all the environmental damage they caused. Wind has special permits to kill rare endangered birds. And if you want to talk about bribes, that’s what the wind and solar industry is based on because they don’t make a profit since they produce so little energy. Talking about reactors shut down is just political decisions, not economic ones. And there is no warranty from wind and solar, all the companies fail after a short time. The only guarantee is that they waste taxpayer money to prop up the industry. The Grand Gulf power plant provided power at 0.5 cents per kilowatt which is one of the cheapest rates in the US… so whining about a 300% increase is just silly if you look at the actual prices paid. Regardless, people are getting a rebate on their bills now. And if you want to talk about permanent damage, wind and solar are far far faaaaaarrrrr worse. The current mines can’t keep up with production for all the needed rare earth metals and other materials so more and more mines are needed. Most of which are incredibly destructive to the environment and operated using child slave labor. Let me say that again. CHILD SLAVE LABOR. Wind and solar’s short lifespan also has them filling up toxic waste dumps to capacity. Unlike your goofy claims of not keeping up, you should take your own advice. There aren’t anywhere remotely enough batteries to store the energy required for homes. The batteries are also far worse for the environment than anything else and don’t last long. They aren’t economical and the advances are all in a lab and not practical to use anytime soon. Lazard’s figures by the way factor in billions of dollars in taxpayer funded subsidies to come up with the 1-1.5 cents per kilowatt hour. That is 3x times the cost of Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant by the way!! And that’s not even counting the costs to generate, deliver and maintain the power which is astronomically stupid. If you think wind and solar are a good idea, reach into your own pocket and personally donate your own money to subsidize it. But let’s be honest here, we both know you’d never do that.
Carbon footprint of storage batteries production vs fossil fuels vs nuclear, all things to consider, I think most people don’t mind paying a little more if we dump less carbon into our atmosphere, great video.
This is a great video. The economics of energy production is one of my favorite subjects. However, where is the part where he adds on the cost of the non-solar power generation capacity required to provide power when the sun is not out?
It's only an 18-minute video. :) You're right that storageless (and even most with storage) solar PV installations need some external electricity to meet demand, and in many locales surplus solar-generated electricity can be sold back to the grid at the retail rate or higher or lower. I do research into this sort of thing for work and one of the most surprising findings I made was that in these buyback regimes, whether or not you lose your shirt in the end is very sensitive to the retail electricity rate, which brings up the spectre of having utilities artificially propping up their rates - to the detriment of people with no solar - just to subsidize the people who have solar.
@@hubbsllc I have always had a problem with net metering because with net metering the homeowner gets transmission costs for negative cost. They are the only electricity generator that gets paid retail for producing. As more homeowners have solar installations, I wonder if this will ever get pushback from the infrastructure owners. I realize that net metering is easy because solar production simply slows or eliminates the rate as which power is taken from the grid, but some arrangement should exist wherein the homeowner should have some rate at which they will sell power and the power company can choose to accept or not based upon competing alternatives.
@@es330td There is certainly room for determining just what would be a "society-optimal" regime. Personally I'd rather have the utilities handle the solar PV in big farms. We were never expected to have gas turbines in our homes for generating electricity; the replication and spread of all the complex components needed to make that work would make for a very resource-inefficient situation.
Nuclear costs 2-5 times more for energy than renewables and combined with existing energy storage options ALREADY AVAILABLE is still half as costly as nuclear and cheaper than fossil fuels.
This U of I grad has a solar array (installed in the sunny desert in in 2019) that produces 115% of my annual use. Zero electrical bills except for the annual $150 hook-up charge. 17 year warranty with only a 4% drop in efficiency. Estimated 25 year lifespan. Payoff at 8.5 years. My wife loves opening the power bill each month and seeing a negative number. Battery storage coming soon for my three inverters which are designed to manage battery storage. Hoping LiFe comes way down this year.
Greetings from a German architect! In Germany, houses look very very different, but they all deal with the same national or international regulations (statics, electricity etc. pp) in some cases for almost a century. But otherwise, there’s a huge capacity of PV installed on ground the last few years in Europe and Germany. This has nothing do do with rooftops.
I don't know where you live in Germany but in Bavaria all the roofs are the same and I have never ever seen PV on ground, only on rooftops. Actually roofs have to be all the same as the weather is same in the whole country. The fact that PV is cheaper is because the government pays subsidies for ppl to install it.
Great presentation (as always). The big question that I have is, that if the government did not subsidize these installs, would they make economic sense. Do the panels over the lifetime, produce more Joules than it takes to mine the silicon, manufacture, ship, install (and constantly clean) them.
Narayan Mohanram Depends on the subsidy but I would say no bc solar is not energy dense so it will ever tackle our energy growth on an large scale. Scalable energy production will only by fossil fuels and the new molten salt reactors (hopefully Thorium based).
This should be pretty obvious just from looking at the economics. Right now it looks like commercial scale solar costs about $0.16 per watt of panel(and about $0.45 installed). When you factor in all the labor involved in mining, refining, manufacturing, and transporting the solar panels along with a profit margin it is obvious that the cost of energy used per watt of panel built must be considerable lower than that. Assuming that the average panel is installed somewhere with a capacity factor of closer to 0.3 rather than the 0.2 it is in Illinois and each watt of panel will produce 2.6 Kwh per year. Even allowing for lower energy costs in China it seems unlikely that making the panels would use more than a years worth of the energy it produces, and newer panels should last long enough to produce about 25 years worth of power over 30 or so years, allowing for degradation. That means that solar panels take about 4% as much energy to make as they generate, going up to maybe 5-6% when inverters and support brackets and such are factored in.
Forgot to mention the largest component. Cost of the Land on which they have to be installed. Add to that the regular maintenance cost to keep them dust free to enable them to work at peak efficiency and prevent the dust and leaves from blocking the sunlight. Deserts may be good for sunlight, but they definitely add to the cost of cleaning due to all the sand and dust and winds that are there due to the arid conditions.
Solar has many more problems for grid-scale. Duck curve is one of them. You can manage it with storage, but there's not much interest in that because its super expensive. California and South Australia are already suffering this. Spain also did suffer and had to withdraw subsidies, bankrupting several families.
In the US there are deserts. That should allow much cheaper installations than any however well standardized roof. Even in Germany a big part comes from solar plants on the open field. I think the number is significant, like more than 50% . How do those compare?
Another cost rarely considered at the 'blue sky thinking' stage is that of land when considering grid-scale installations covering hundreds/thousands of acres. Are you covering prime farmland or scrub desert? How far is your solar garden from the loads you will service [transmission line costs], etc etc. As this video explains, solar in Hawaii is a no-brainer. Washington State not so much - inexpensive hydro...
Regulation is one of the biggest differentiators here except for the amount of sunlight. I have built my PV system 4 years ago where I managed to be included in a scheme where I'm on the grid and I don't get anything for the energy I pump into the system, but I can then take energy from the system at 80% discount as long as my two-way meter shows that I have a surplus (I put more energy into the grid then I consume). With the rising power prices this has proven to be immensely profitable for me, as my power bill is 10% of what I would have to pay now without PV. However the regulation was later changed and now people no longer have the option to use the grid as their "battery". They get paid for what they upload to the grid in wholesale prices and then can buy power back for regular consumer prices. This means that my PV installation had a ROI time of just under 4 years and had to be just 10-15% overscaled over my consumption. Theirs has to be 2x-3x over their consumption and they get less money back, so their ROI time is 10-15 years. Adding battery pack into the mix maximizes your autoconsumption which moves a lot of levers on the accounting charts, but battery pack itself is costly and needs replacing at around 10 year mark, so you're still looking at 10+ years of ROI time. And if you did your project and calculations wrong + at the same time decided to switch from gas to electric heating/heat pump, you may not be happy with the final result. Even such considerations as the type of roof can skew your calculations, because if you have a ceramic roof rated for minimum 50 years and you put 25 years rated PV on it, you're golden, but if you put it on a flat roof covered with roofing felt, then you're in some dire straits after maybe just 10 years. In some places it is essential to mix PV with one or two mini wind turbines to minimize your costs in winter. However turbines require more costly maintenance, which PVs don't. For me however, in my regulatory scheme, the investment proved to be extremely good idea. ROI under 4 years (planned 5 years ROI, down thanks to rising prices) and currently it gives me savings of over 3000 $ / year.
The electricity industry usea LCOE for lifecycle cost of generatiom options. Solar+wind+storage is already the cheapest and decreasing in cost. With decreasing cost of panels the economics supports larger installations which will lead to excess power. This is already happening in Australia. It's a shame Prof didn't mention the important step changes forced by exponential cost reduction and the effect of economies of scale on all issues such as install costs and storage. Pretty big omissions for the most important changes to the grid for 100 years!
Yes, much more! U.S. generated more energy with wind and solar in 2020 than all energy sources except natural gas. Wind and solar outproduced all other energy source in 2020 in the EU. China produced 15% of its energy from wind and 16% from solar in 2020 and less than 5% from nuclear.
adjust for government subsidies. I would only install them to handle "peaking" power, and only in the southern states on utility power. Homes could probably enjoy a benefit too, but that would be a personal choice issue.
the real kicker at 2019 is storage ( lead/acid batteries are still the best all round for cost/maintenance/lifespan) and the fact that inverters that tie to the grid are often having issues meshing with the grid.
The good news is that lithium battery tech for electric vehicles is improving rapidly, and so is the number of wrecked EVs with perfectly good battery packs that can be turned into fixed storage units for rooftop solar. We are only just at the beginning of these changes. Now we must work to persuade people that modern GenIV nuclear isn't their grandparents dangerous nuke tech, but is walk-away safe, much more efficient, and cheaper to build and operate.
Very interesting. Could you include the price of storage in this calculation? What would it cost extra, to have the same continuous energy supply 24 hours a day, as a coal plant would have?
Seriously this is what all university professors should strive for.. engaging speaker, excellent use of graphics and explains the "why".
I'm just happy he speaks english.
On Point Analysis
I'd take his classes anytime anywhere anywhy.
They're not interested in that anymore. Just pushing ideologies. We are all about to get a LOT more stupid. The solution? Read on your own.
Cool thanks buddy
I worked for a company installing solar systems all summer. Funny thing is I was wanting to do this at my house before I worked. After I was done working and the company split up between owners I had already figured out it’s not for me. I’m not bashing. Simply pointing out my experiences. One thing he mentioned is the standardization of roofs here in the US. That is very true and plus our shingles don’t last the same time of the expected life of panels, so in contrast if your roof goes bad you have to uninstall your panels, put new roof on and then reinstall your panels. So that is Tripling install cost. No one ever worked that into their cost analysis for a job we did. Now there are other methods, pole mounts and rack systems, that can be put in yards or fields but away from trees and buildings, but that is almost impossible to do in the city which is where the energy cost are more and the higher need for solar systems. All these cost analysis were done if everything goes right. Roof leak? Now ya have to remove panels. Roofer won’t mess with them. So a simple leak can cost thousands. You might have to get an electrician and a solar company to remove panels before your roofer gets to the leak. Also all the activity of installing them running around on your roof degrades the shingle life. Now we have storm problems that cause about half the problem besides the electrical problems. Wind blows a wire loose, limb falls from a nearby tree. It was the neighbors tree. Now we’re in a fight for repair. Who’s fault, leads us to insurance. Now your homeowners might say yes we cover it but we need it inspected and proof of cost but you didn’t think of that before your $20k system got installed. Some won’t cover it. Some will. Do your research! And Hail storms? I can’t comment cause I haven’t seen one but the threat is there. We had multiple problems with getting the panels here from China that were not damaged. About 1 in 10 were damaged.& also the inverters and optimizers went bad. Sometimes taking a lot of work to repair and some not covered by manufacturers so we had to eat it and so did homeowner. The next thing is not even related to solar panels. Now don’t get me wrong I like them, I wanna save the earth and also save money. Most of our customers don’t even care about the earth they just wanted to screw the power company and gov as much as they could. But while installing not one homeowner was ever on their roof and in their attic. We discovered on every job at least one major problem causing inefficiency for them. Example a cold air return vent was just laying up there open to all the roof heat! Others had roof vents blocked and restricted. Or lack of insulation for our climate. People, solar panels won’t just fix it all. You have to know your house. We improved people’s efficiency with out ever putting a system in. This means you need to do a whole house evaluation. Old HVAC system can kill your bill and render panels useless on a cost analysis. Then the last thing is are you going to stay at that same house for 20 years?!! Not many people do. Are you gonna just take them down drag them to your next house where they are outdated and lost their productivity. Many things to think of.
KPMACHINE1 how about with the federal ITC @26% and the IL SRECs. Pair that with the depreciation schedule of 1-5 years at 85% of total system cost.... it would be worth it over 5 years or as little at 1 year for some people.
I’m new in this field and I liked reading about your experience. I will definitely think about it.
What’s crazy is the fact that we have the best silicon sand (st.peters sandstone 99.9% quartz) in IL and ship 80% away to other states, mainly Texas, for hydraulic fracturing. The other ~
Yes! Consumer solar is ridiculously inefficient, and the government subsidizing it is an infuriating subsidy of wealthy people's virtue signalling.
Utility and even commercial rooftop solar are better in every way.
Are solar installation workers unionized?
Interesting information - and a first hand one! I live in Brazil and nothing here is standardized and most people who can afford sollar panels will have wither concrete roofs or ceramic (masonry) tiles over wooden structures. We have almost no preoccupation with cold weather (except for some regions and during some parts of the year). We do have problems with leakage because it rains a lot everywhere at least during some part of the year. Do you think it would be cheaper to install under these conditions where, for instance, you don't have to worry about things getting frozen?
Now, a curiosity of mine: why do change the tiles in the roof frequently?
Thanks!
and yet, there are those of us that do not live in the city and have solar homes - I remember the $6 per watt days and how precious those panels were and now bask in the $0.50 per watt panels and have to worry about my battery in uncontrolled conditions. You are absolutely right in your observations - solar, for the reasons you're expounding, isn't right for rooftop installations. But there ARE installations where it really works. Like mine. Haven't paid a utility bill (except propane and buying batteries and some diesel) for 30 years. To be truthful, though, the cost savings isn't as great as one would believe. But, I didn't have to write that check every month. It was worth it.
I thought he did a good job with the presentation and looking at all the elements of the cost of solar. He gets bonus credit for pointing out the graph not having an origin at zero. This is something that comes up in presentations and something you have to watch for. I will watch more of his videos.
I'm not a well educated person and I could listen to this man speak all day.
People that watch this video are much smarter than Political Science majors at Harvard and Yale. By watching this and wanting to learn rational thinking you are intelligent. To stay a fool and believe half witted politicians is what defines stupid.
A friend of mine bought a cabin in the Tehachapi Mountains and he and his wife live there full-time. No power grid is available and one has few choices for power. Anyway he has been happily electrified since 1986 using a system I designed. Hopefully I will be able to do more of this sort of thing when I retire.
This is an excellent video, suitable for the beginner and for professionals. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants a realistic view of this subject. As I see it, we have two choices for future power options assuming fusion isn't commonplace: nuclear and photovoltaic. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and there is no reason why both cannot be used simultaneously.
_There are many options,_ most you will likely be unaware of, such as PES (PhotoElectroSynthesis) which has 95% photon efficiency and stores the captured light energy as methanol. Or tethered electric kite-planes like Makani makes, to name but two.
There are MANY options including continued use of coal.
Gotta love that Michael Jackson disco they have out there. Wind generator lights flash on/off all night long. Ask your friend how they heat? It gets pretty cold below freezing there in the winter. Solar panels are fine to power a laptop or LED light when propane does the heavy lifting.
mind sharing the system you designed?
YodaWhat having not looked up/knowing anything about the kite-planes, I can say, as a pilot, they wouldn’t make it large scale, let alone do much better than ground based solar. 9/10 when there are clouds blocking ground solar, there are 4+ layers at different altitudes raging from low (only a few thousand feet) to high (20,000 feet plus). Not to mention that airspace can’t be blocked off from commercial, general, and military aviation use. Take key west as an example. There is a weather balloon thats launched from near the air force base, it’s air traffic exclusion zone is 4 miles wide and is one of few permanently closed air spaces within the us to all aircraft (ish)
I worked for a guy who did solar installations.
It’s pretty easy to install them. We have rails that are bolted into the roof and sealed at the bolts so no water leaks in. The panels mount on top of them.
Then you add inverters on each panel, which snap on to the leads coming off the panel
Then you have an electrician wire it into your home/grid.
It only costs 8-10k to buy a good system, which when installed by a solar installer, jumps to 20k. You could cut these numbers in half if you did it yourself. It might take 1-2 days to install the panels.
This figure makes me wonder how insanely rich the people must be who decide to have other people install them -- is their time really worth 10k per day? Or are these people total pussies? Just do it yourself and save 70% of the cost, you can buy a big lithium battery with the savings.
@@DavenH
Mostly the RICH purchase these solar panels , which keeps their cost high .
( it isn’t poor folks who buy Tesla’s ) .
Additionally , these “GREEN” technologies are subsidized ( translation : the middle class & working class pays for it ) .
We essentially are forced to pay for the obsessions of the wealthy 😉
Have a nice day 👋
Tesla has solar roof shingles that gather energy while acting as shingles. If one goes bad. pluck it out and replace it. No problem.
You are a great teacher.
Mark ya, his channel pretty cool. Very professional professor. To the point with very good facts with the math to back it up.
if you want limited bad info..yes. i used to think he was good. untill i hear him talk about something i actually knew about. then he sounded like a dope.
Great idiot...solar pv enegy cost on average 50$ per kilowatohour...
@ihategooglespooks ceramic engineering , hard glass manufacture, chemisty of phosphors and electronics . come at me bro...
reverend moonie no one who has the intelligence for those above mentioned fields would say” come at me bro” what is it like to be a pretender? You are embarrassing yourself.
love the pause at 05:20 while he thinks about the concept of "forever"
this is from 2015, right? i would love to see an updated version.🌞🚀
Solar prices have fallen drastically since 2013. Even by 2015 they were closer to $4 per installed watt. There's some underhanded math going on here. US **residential** costs are now closer to $3 per installed watt **unsubsidized**. They're closer to $2 per installed watt after tax incentives (in most places). Most solar panels are warranted for 20 years, if you read the fine print, that's when the panel's output is expected to fall to 80% of its rating. It's not like the panel vaporizes after 20 years, they're still perfectly useful.
Here's my source: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72399.pdf
If that link doesn't show up, it's: www nrel gov docs fy19osti 72399 pdf
@@AbeDillon thanks! the link works.
@@AbeDillon Even better, while most panels are given a lifetime of 30 years, in reality after 30 years it's more likely that your whole roof needs to be replaced anyway, while most of the panels will still work, even if only at 70% original capacity. So you buy new more efficient yet cheaper panels, but there are likely to be plenty of DIY people who would like those old panels for their off-grid farm so recycling them is not a problem either.
WhiteShadow2k1 Typical panels are rated to survive something like golf ball sized hailstones and making the cutoff switch easily accessible is basic regulations. Most houses can go 60 years without burning down or getting bombarded by hailstones big enough to break trough the roof, so if those are actual real near future concerns you should think about leaving town rather than installing solar panels.
here you are
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#/media/File:CellPVeff(rev191101).png
Excellent videos and this is no exception. As to warranties, many companies (and maybe even foreign or domestic manufacturers) have no intention of being in business for the length of the warranty, and many have gone out of business. The warranty is worthless if the company offering it is gone.
Planned obsolescence. Two words that infuriate me. I have a little old fridge from the 70s that's chugging along without a hiccup through all kinds of abuse. The new reefers have to be replaced every 10-15 years with maintenance in between!
Smartest dude ive seen in a long time , his words cut like a sword
That just answered a ton of questions. I’m gonna let everyone I can know about your channel. Thank you very much.
Some of his information is outdated.
Install costs for utility solar have been $1 per W or less for a couple years now. Even in 2015, $5 / W was not an accurate number. And residential pv systems run around $3 / W or less.
Utility solar projects are signing long-term power purchase agreements where they sell power to the utility at 2 cents per kWh or less.
Storage is not really necessary unless you want to go off-grid, but that's such an extreme case, it shouldn't affect the cost comparison for PV as a whole. Having batteries is nice during a power outage and they can produce income from buying power when the price is low (or when the power from the solar PV is free) and then selling the power back when its more expensive. At utility scale, solar with 4 hours of storage is being built for 2 - 2.5 cents per kWh all-in:
www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nevada-beat-arizona-record-low-solar-ppa-price
I always get the quip, "Yeah, that's the price with subsidies!!!!!"
Well, any power source has a price that includes subsidies. The price of Fossil fuels include the subsidies of not incorporating the costs of their pollution and climate change into their price. The price of nuclear power includes subsidies ranging from decades of R&D going back to the Manhattan Project, free liability insurance from the government in case of meltdowns, actual assumption of damages from meltdowns by the federal government in case one actually happens...plus all the financial shell-games the nuclear industry has played (see WPPSS, Ontario Hydro, etc.) and continues to play (pre-charging utility customers billions of dollars for nuke plants under construction like at Vogtle). Plus, we spent $12B on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository only to find out it was an inadequate solution. The actual cost to safely deal with nuclear waste for 100,000 years will be much higher. How higher, nobody knows. But this nuclear waste is the government's, and therefore the taxpayers', problem that is not nearly paid for by the waste storage fees on nuclear power.
@@saultcrystals energy storage is, in lieu of relatively controllable production, vital for a national power grid.
Conventional batteries are in no way a solution.
Until energy storage issues are solved, renewables are, even when cheap, are an unreliable and inconsistent source.
The vast majority of renewable energy is currently wasted. There's no point being super cheap if that cheap energy is available when demand is low.
Like a coal plant at full burn at 3am. Huge amount of really cheap energy, that no one's using, and ironically becomes expensive to operate due to low ROI.
The only real technical debate on how reliably renewables can power entire regions is whether it gets expensive above 80% penetration or 100% is totally achievable. Are you following any of the debates on these issues or just regurgitating fossil fuel industry talking points?
www.resilience.org/stories/2017-06-27/100-renewables-a-few-remarks-about-the-jacobsonclack-controversy/
The "vast majority of renewable energy" is definitely NOT currently wasted. This is a complete BS talking point. The only people spouting this nonsense are fossil fuel industry shills or the people dumb enough to fall for their propaganda.
Solar output pairs well with energy demand during the day. Offshore wind turbines are achieving 60% capacity factors and could go higher. Do you even know what capacity factor is??? And you clearly don't know how renewable energy plants have zero marginal costs to operate. Free fuel and vanishingly small O&M costs will do that. So once again, you clearly don't even know what you're talking about when it comes to how expensive certain power plants are to operate.
@@saultcrystals Ah of course all those coal industry shills, o right and coal industry propaganda.
Because you certainly aren't citing propaganda as a reliable source o no no, because renewables are good right, and the coal industry is double plus ungood so that means people who disagree with you are nothing but evil fools while you are warrior for righteous truth.
Sadly you are just spouting different talking points, have you ever bothered to actually check what the conclusions of research are regarding the cost? Or have you chosen a lens and now you just look through it.
@@saultcrystals now hold on there a minute. Zero marginal cost, fucking what? To claim such utter bullshit, you not only need to not open any article on economy in your life, you have to not able to understand basic trade relationships between people on fundamental level. Some might've even called you a commie (not me though). No buisness will ever have "zero marginal", because marginal is the cost they add to the product, including their expected profit. Who the fuck would make a buisness which makes no profit, what insanity is what? And i don't even mention labor, maintenance and initial construction, which would be no doubt included in the price of your energy, just the fact what you say "zero marginal cost" inherently implies it makes no profit, which is not how the world works.
If I had professors like this guy when I was in high school and college...I would have learned a hell of a lot more.
wow.... wrote the exact same thing before scrolling down to see your comment. :D
You can go to caiso.com and see the "duck's back" in the real time graph of the energy used in the state of California. This dip shows how much of the energy used is being created by renewables, mostly solar in the daytime. It's a huge amount. When (not if) the electric vehicle makers get their vehicles to be bidirectional, then owners can charge their EV during max solar, and run their home (and some of the neighbors) from their vehicle the rest of the time. That car battery will make it possible to be 100% renewable energy.
@@acmefixer1
www.nordicenergy.org/article/solar-power-at-the-arctic-circle/
1x PCs @ 700W * 24h * 365d ~= 6MWh
If my math isn't off... This "powerplant" can barely run 4x non-gamer PC's for a year.
I mean - to anyone living near the Equator...? Go ahead! Would be dumb NOT to harness the power of the Sun!!
...but don't turn this into a religion; some places will just never be able to use sun-power as more than a cosmetic/environmentalist bragging point.
Having had worked in both the PV and Battery industries I pretty much agree with everything he said.
I'd love to see an updated video that takes into account:
-Inflation and inflation adjusted costs on the historical graphs.
-Labor costs. I do not know about you but labor is out of control - can't get anyone to do any sort of trade, even unskilled, for under $100/hr. Heck I was quoted a new roof and when you pulled out the labor costs out of the quote it was nearly $300/hr.
-Recent advances and efficiencies and how that has affected price per watt - I am very certain labor has more than offset this.
-Include, if the data didn't already normalize for this, the effects that high and low temperatures have on panels, hot and sunny areas can often have less efficiency than places that are a bit cooler with slightly less sun.
-How to factor in minimum billing against PV costs as some grid operators are billing people a minimum bill even if they use zero electricity?
-Also please touch on the costs when the panels are done and worn out. Several ways to present this but it'd be an interesting footnote.
Lastly, as I said having worked in both industries PV + battery, there is nothing green, clean, or environmentally friendly about the cell growing and paneling processes. Heavy metals, lots of solvents, massive furnaces for crystals, very nasty chemicals, bases, and acids, and tens of thousands of gallons of ultra pure water to clean the cells, clean the chemicals, neutralize the chemicals, and for decontamination of materials and processing tools. Batteries are much of the above but add in more heavy metal and chemical concerns (depending on type).
Unfortunately the media and marketing has been effective at only reporting the upside, so the only thing the consumer sees is a shiny panel making "free and green" electricity.
I personally still feel the PV technology needs more advancement, storage needs more advancement, and regulation + costs needs to be reigned in, somehow.
I’m impressed how he can write in mirror image.
@Loafus Kramwell Laterally inverted*. But yes, ur right
@Loafus Kramwell
Way to kill the magic.
Jokingly of course.
To continue the joke.
Don't tell me you you ruin shows with David Copperfield.
@Loafus Kramwell
No sir.
You are showing my age.
He was a famous magician in the late 80s early 90s.
Yes. I am old. Now I am depressed.
@@wrongway1100 don't be, David Copperfield is a household name for me, I remember watching him in my childhood in the '90s. Maybe he simply was more famous in Europe?
I think I figured out the optical method. So, have a camera record you behind the translucent chalkboard; is all backwards. Then, just mirror the video; one is viewing through the perspective of the mirror. Behind the image, so to speak.
This series of videos is fantastic. Engaging, interesting, and covers real world applications. His fusion video was very interesting!
You are the first one I found that talks about the cost from the bureaucracy and laws to "protect" the engineers and doctors from their debt.
More like; the cost of keeping the county commissioners nephew in business.
Building codes should be State regulations. Not zoning laws that are different from block to block and change all the time.
Really loved this lecture. I’m a UIC student studying EAES and working as a solar technician! Renewables is happening!
Can we revisit this in 2021, please? Would like to see todays numbers plotted on graphs to visualize the changes from when this excellent video clip was made.
If you install it yourself in your yard, and not on your roof, the cost per kwh is supposedly on track to surpass fossil fuels in the next couple of years as battery technology advances. The cost and lifespan of the batteries is the only thing holding back solar at this point. Installed cost is a different story. Having a system installed on your roof can easily more than double the cost. And then there is the matter of cleaning, maintaining and repairing the panels which no one talks about. If you aren't willing to do all that yourself, then solar is always going to be more expensive. How much more expensive will be interesting to see. And don't forget, you'll need to invest in some sort of backup generator for those times the system fails, if you don't have one already.
@@spuriouseffect it does not cost a lot extra to install panels on the roof. And you dont necessarily need batteries as you are still connected to the grid and you can draw on power when the sun is out. There is next to no maintenance required and you dont need to clean them, the rain does that and you dont need to buy fossil fuels to keep it running
@@bruceevennett955 In the desert where you have the most sunshine, you have little rain, and in northern climates you have snow, so yes you do have to clean them. And rain or not they still get dirty. Even grid power often goes down, so if you don't have batteries, then you most certainly need a backup power generator to supply you with power. And you are dreaming if you think paying someone to install them on your roof is the same price as installing them yourself on the ground.
@@spuriouseffect Lol what are you talking about. My parents have a home PV roof system, no batteries needed, the utility accepts all excess power at some predetermined rate.
@@pspublic13 I wasn't talking about continuing to use fossil fuels. I was talking about switching over to solar completely. Yes, simply hooking up to the grid makes perfect financial sense right now if you have to money to invest.
Could be the best solar salesperson ever! I’ll buy from this guy
whats amazing is that 35 yrs ago , this guy played a villian on Knight rider
IDK how I got here. But I've watched like 4 of your videos now. They are very well done and very interesting. Love the examples and how clean everything is done in terms of providing information.
What are the economics of the energy used to create a solar cell and it's energy output over its expected lifetime? I read an article from Stanford that said until around 2015 it took more energy to produce a solar cell than the energy it was expected to produce. Then there's the matter of shifting pollution to create the solar cells to other countries.
I would guess that the cost of the energy to produce a solar cell would naturally be reflected in the price of it. Who is going to buy energy to make something but not add it to the sale price? But otherwise, I agree with what you are asking. Much of what we think is "green" energy just shifts the pollution to some other place that we cannot easily see.
No energy solution has a net positive output. Nuclear, coal, gas all take more energy to create than they produce. If we could make positive energy then we would live in a very different world
@@TheJorge100 I think you are wrong at that one. If all energy capture or extraction methods were net-negative, then we would all be dead. That would be like eating celery. It takes more energy to chew and digest it than you get back in calories. But most all other foods give you more energy than it takes to consume it. Ditto for energy 'production'. Let's look at an example like hydro-power. One can quantify the total energy required to build the system. Then, once installed and running, you might run it for decades with very little additional input other than the water power that is provided with no human input required.
Our mere existence and increase in population suggests that we are obtaining more energy from our surroundings than we are expending.
@@mikebetts2046 I hadnt considered hydro, so that is possible, but it still could not be. When I mean negative I mean barely. Like 0.001. Its why we still need fossil fuels and they are the reason we arent dead. We are using a finite resource to convert energy into something we can use. When I mean net energy I mean the energy to build, maintain, transport materials, fuel, workers, etc.
@@TheJorge100 I had thought you did mean the 'maintain, transport, fuel, workers...' part. On that score I still say that the overall system must be net positive, otherwise for the last few thousand years we would have been expending more energy than we have been getting and thus we would dwindle in just a few weeks or months.
Imagine a person spending his every waking hour digging, hunting, and collecting food. He does this 12 hours per day x7 x 365 and maintains the exact same weight. We might assume he is net-neutral on energy. Now he sacrifices some time (and weight) and makes some tools to increase his efficiency. He can now do the same food-gathering tasks in 8 hours rather than 12. Were he to work the same 12, he would then gain and be net-positive. And probably gain weight, or have enough energy to get his woman pregnant and also support another child. And so the cycle continues with ever-expanding efficiency. It is true that the sun gives us its' energy for free and we do not consider it in the calculation. So if we want to include the sun (energy burned for energy given) then maybe we are negative.
Excellent and useful information
I like his way of explaining things. Also, he sounds like the narrator in Series of Unfortunate events.
Thank you, Professor! Very nice presentation!. I wish I had professors like this man.
Love the sqeeking of the marker, gives shivers every moment new facts arrive
Thank you, Professor! Very nice presentation!
Part of one of my engineering classes was to see how long it would take for the solar installation at the college in the Seattle area to pay for itself. Assuming no loss in production capacity and no maintenance cost, about 220 years.
Norm T Even on a peak day the power generated MIGHT have been enough for just one building, on a day like today it would be lucky to charge your phone. Giant waste of money nowhere near the reliability of a diesel generator.
@@HughesEnterprises Where did you get your numbers from? That sounds remarkably misaligned with real world data, unless you have among the worst conditions in the world.
Jon Doe Seattle is one of the worst places in the world to get solar power. The only thing that makes it worthwhile for homeowners is the piles and piles of tax breaks and incentives that make the panels nearly free at the cost of the taxpayer.
The array was in a fixed position that could not adjust to changing sun position, the panels rarely passed 8% efficiency. On a weekend day in August in full sun it could barely power the empty 20,000 square foot building they were on top of.
Hughes Enterprises Well that’s quite unfortunate. Presumably the electric is cheap as well? For a great deal of the world solar works great and payback can be remarkably brief in areas with expensive electricity along with favorable conditions.
Jon Doe Where I live is over 85% hydro power. The rest is Nuclear and some wind. Electricity is near unlimited and cheap.
Great content Prof. I wish I had a teacher like you when I was a student. I have very big respect for you and your institution for creating and sharing these gems. Every teacher needs to first fill the gaps in the big picture like you do here. And then fill the gaps in specific areas like the math and science of the subject. So that the students know why they are doing all those calculations and make sense out of the results they get. PLEASE keep more solar coming. Greetings from Istanbul.
The glass board in front of the dude that he can write on is super cool.
It’s flipped of course but imagine if he could write backwards like that
This dude has amazing presentation skills. To put it in context how good his presentation was I am a master nanotechnology student and I dint watch the video, I was just listening it in the background and got 100% of the info he intended for the viewer to understand. Amazing work as all his other videos. Wish all proffessors were as good as this guy.
Yes, he is a great liar.
Spent decades as a Physics teacher....wish I had some of your vids available back then, retired now
well..so you admit your just a lazy bad teacher then? idk wher your going with this.
@@autopartsmonkey7992 having a second explanation in different words has nothing to do with being lazy.
I'm so happy I found your channel. You have a great gift of how you share knowledge and explain the why. But great video
Too bad it is misinformation.
The professor is very good at writing mirrored text. Amazing.
th-cam.com/video/FYwXOLU4TKk/w-d-xo.html
How does this guy not have a million+ subs?
...and what's with not even 1k upvotes!
Guys... come on! Give the guy some love. :D
I love his videos and I've been binge watching all of them. It's like having Walter White as a teacher before starting his meth business.
ilotitto I liked him better after his meth business. Lol
Hahaha, same feeling here. Binge watching all the lessons of Mr. White!
He actually reminds me a lot of Saul's brother Chuck
Its a disgrace that you channel isn't massive yet, very informative fantastic 👍
Disappointed how the costs of storage for solar electricity were basically hand-waved away. Those should not be minimized.
They can be minimized because they can be easily addressed with a high-voltage DC super-grid costing a tiny fraction of the cost of the generating capacity of wind or solar. Europe has already built out an extensive super-grid which reduces the need for storage drastically. The more expansive the super-grid, the less storage required.
@@AbeDillon Nonsense. Unless your magical super-grid spans across oceans, it will do little to reduce the need for storage. The sun doesn't set that much later in California than it does in Florida. And even at that scale, there are such things as transmission losses which can't be ignored.
@@rexstuff4655 Cables!? Across the ocean!? IMPOSSIBLE!
LOLOLOLOLOL! You are dumb.
@@AbeDillon Good luck using your planet-wide super grid when half the Earth is in night and there's a continent-sized storm during the day. We are NOWHERE CLOSE to replacing fossil or nuclear fuel energy plants because of the storage problem and 24/7 needs of the energy system. That this professor spent less than a minute talking about this issue is a joke.
@@chrimony I wouldn't waste much breath on old Abe. He seems to see no issue with long distance DC transmission.
Just smile and pat him on the head.'
Prof.
I just noticed an overlook error at 14:00,
You were looking at the average price installed, but not considering the local price installed.
Labor cost and regulations in California are higher than in say Texas, in theory wouldn't the actual cost installed (before subsidies) in California be higher possible effecting the economics?
Also, did you account for the energy loss of the inverter and the up/down of the battery.
I would think that 1kw*hr produced by the cell does not equal 1 kw*hr consumed at the outlet, so what is the average loss?
Good video but one point that bugs me. Panels generally last well over 50 years so using the warranty period of 20 years for average or expected lifespan is silly and misleading.... The efficiency reduces over time but they don't generally stop working
Agreed. The panels I have installed have a 25-year warranty with 86% of nominal output at that age.
Show me the generally available panel that's 50 years old and maybe I'll believe you. Then go study the carizo project and you'll see that factors can affect panel performance.
Wonderful info.
California has several large-scale solar installations, but a problem is the lowered demand during the day means the utility company disconnects their solar farm, so the energy is not used. IMO new large-scale solar installations should *not* be permitted unless there's local storage to time-shift the power produced to when the power is needed.
For example using your Illinois number of 0.2, for each MW of peak solar produced you actually get 200KW over a 24 hour period (on an average day). So a battery system to suck up the 800KW "excess" during peak (the other 200KW goes directly to the grid), then off peak dribble out 200KW from the batteries. Thus, it's not a 1MW solar farm, but a 200KW solar farm. Fortunately batteries are getting better and cheaper. Of course the demand isn't flat during the day, so maybe 100 - 150KW out to the grid during the day, then 300 - 400KW in the evening, dropping back near 100KW in the wee hours.
As for small-scale privately-owned systems, the market place will make designs without storage economically painful. If power sells for 2¢/KWh during the day, and 18¢/KWh in the evening, even with net metering, buying something like a Tesla Powerwall starts to look a lot more viable than slapping solar on the roof.
This doesn't solve the problem of a week of cloudy weather, or shorter days during the winter, but it's a useful start.
One of the toughest challenges of renewable energy is "the last MWh challenge." Fusion someday, but meanwhile we really should get back into fission. The Sierra Club lobbied *for* the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. They saw it as a way to save pristine high Sierra mountain valleys from being dammed and flooded. Nukes have a positive CO2 impact as well, but no one thought much about CO2 in those days except for a few scientists. Then Three-Mile Island happened and politics turned against nuclear.
I like his videos. I thought he was going to talk about the hidden cost of solar like the toxic materials and chemicals used to make them. Fyi in my area it's about $3.60/ watt (cape cod)
You are thinking of wind turbines, the solar panels just have issues with lead solder and a couple of other chemicals, refining the materials for wind turbine magnets is one of the most polluting processes I know about.
this vid sucked...i didnt mention that they degrade badly over time and have to be disposed of..you have to spend 20 years worth of power up front in money..an investement ,,that would other wise earn money. and why the hell would people want to buy one today,,when they apear to keep getting better fast....your system is old tech in 5-10 years...and then it also starts to work shitty
No im talking solar. The true cost to manufacture and dispose of properly is around $800 vs the $200 you pay for at the supply store.
@@autopartsmonkey7992 the panel's i use, Silfab, are warranted for 30 to operate above 80%. The workmanship comes 12yr and can be upgraded to 25yr. In my area the payback is 6-7 yr.
@@simclardy1 id need alot of proof for that. 7 years is basically the break even point vs just using existing power sources. and from what the experts say the cost isnt equal yet. plus im sure that inculdes some dicey math, like costs being subsidized by the state ,,feds ..etc. so in reality your just passing the cost onto the public.
Amazing content, and engaging professor aside. That sexy unit analysis was so satisfying
How much does the German government's solar installation subsidies play into the equation now days? I haven't been a solar panel manufacturer raw material provider since I walked away from the industry more than a decade ago; but, I remember the influence that the German subsidies played on the industry in the early 2000's...
Please keep updating this. It is excellent
Great video. However thre cost of solar needs to include the cost of having standby power available instantaneosly. You have to keep the current system fully staffed to support it..
and the inital sunk cost,, say it costs 20k today to setup. he just avgs that out like its nothing, if you instead put that 20k in the bank. the accumulated profit over 20 years erases any savings the solar may have gotten ya. plus the solar degrades massively with time..so yeah it works 20 years,,at 50% the last 7
Don't need stand-by power. Already available through utility scale battery power. Try to keep up. We don't need no steenkin' nuclear or fossil fuels.
Good lord - I'm loving these lectures...
I wish that I had had teachers like you back when I was a youngster. lol.
Not much discussion about how intermittent, low density energy sources interact with modern electrical grids, and how that effects the economics of wind and solar.
My roof generates >2x as much energy as I need for my home and car to drive ~12k miles/yr... so it's more than energy dense enough.... :)
They interact with a MODERN grid very well thank you. The problem is electric companies refusing to modernize the ancient power lines, which in addition to causing fires and blackouts means you can't transmit power far.
@@AnalystPrime No, they are an enormous problem for the grid. The grid CAN NOT store energy. If the sky is spotty then the PV-Systems will produce energy sporadically and the actual powerplants have to compensate for that on a second-by-second basis. Of course you can not ramp up a generator that fast, so what do you do? Oh right - let them CONSTANTLY run on standby and most of their production-capabilities is wasted on that.
Either you use the energy on the spot or it is useless.
@@ABaumstumpf There have been energy storage systems that work faster than power plants all over for exactly that reason long before solar and wind became a thing. The reason why people try to sell you a power plant instead and claim renewables can't be used is because that standby plant is still using fuel, which they don't tend to include into calculations how much you will end up paying them for it.
And yes, the power from that standby plant is wasted. Funny, it is not only far cheaper to build windmills or PV farms that don't need expensive fuels that are running out, rising in cost and also could be used for other industries, but the people building the renewable solutions are also smart enough to understand you might not want to waste the excess power they produce, even if it is free.
The only problem is without a proper smart grid we can't just connect New York to PV in California, or even Florida. With one we can balance the production second by second, selling the extra to other cities that have too much clouds or finding someone who wants to charge their EV or Powerwall or using it in plants that do not need to operate at full capacity 24/7.
Also, while people keep talking about solar a lot, the main benefit will be the ability to use localized sources like hydro, geothermal, tidal and offshore wind further than fifty miles away. We might want to use that field outside the city to build a new suburb a decade from now so there would be no point building windmills there, but nobody is going to change established shipping lanes any time soon so it will be easy to find a few thousand square miles of free estate on the ocean.
And yes, transmission losses are a thing. However, once you actually decide to build a modern grid that covers the whole country it becomes economical to include extra long distance lines, possibly even superconducting ones. Also, solar and wind will need some overcapacity to cover for low production times anyway; by building even more of them we can produce power at such low cost that losing some on the way thousands of miles away will not be a problem.
AND, even more importantly, that way we won't have a new energy crisis next year when it turns out our needs have increased and what we built last year no longer produces enough. If you build a bigger coal plant to keep on standby you just waste more money on fuel, if you build more renewables you get more free power that will inspire more people to figure out useful things to do with it.
@@AnalystPrime
"There have been energy storage systems that work faster than power plants all over for exactly that reason long before solar and wind became a thing."
Yes, we have energy storage all over the place. Most of that in form of water. And guess what? There is one already pretty much everywhere we can built them and they are running at full capacity.
Look at germany - the energystorage of germany combined with all its neighbours is barely capable of holding the grid alive and that nearly killed the whole grid at the start of 2019.
"And yes, the power from that standby plant is wasted. Funny, it is not only far cheaper to build windmills or PV farms that don't need expensive fuels that are running out, rising in cost and also could be used for other industries, but the people building the renewable solutions are also smart enough to understand you might not want to waste the excess power they produce, even if it is free."
You do realise you are contradicting your self there on multiple issues?
it is exactly wind and solar that lead to wasting a lot of energy. And neither of them are particular cheap - they run on heavy government subsidies and are still not cheaper than gas and hydropower in most countries.
"The only problem is without a proper smart grid we can't just connect New York to PV in California, or even Florida."
A grid can not be "smart". If you are that ignorant that you believe the marketing hype then you are really far from knowing anything.
"Also, while people keep talking about solar a lot, the main benefit will be the ability to use localized sources like hydro, geothermal, tidal and offshore wind further than fifty miles away."
A yeah - great idea. built very expensive and lossy long distance lines - what a sublime idea....................................
"it becomes economical to include extra long distance lines, possibly even superconducting ones."
The good old "if we get this futuristic materials that current science tells us we can not produce and even in 100 years we will likely not have anything even coming close - and have that for dirt cheap now - then we can make our idea barely viable".
"If you build a bigger coal plant to keep on standby you just waste more money on fuel, if you build more renewables you get more free power that will inspire more people to figure out useful things to do with it."
it is the other way around. BECAUSE of wind and solar they HAVE to run other fossil-fueled powerplants on standby 24/7.
Best explainer of solar and nuclear ... thank you so much!
Called it. Regulation. ! I just bought and installed my solar for under 5$k. ( no regs.). With regs, and a company (22k$)
Not really. It's lack of UNIFORM regulation. Regulation, taken as a whole, is generally GOOD for innovation, but only when it's based on sound, rational thinking, and is easy to interpret, follow, and enforce. US building codes favor rich developers over all else. Balloon construction has many hidden costs. (Balloon construction (BC) refers to how most western houses are built). BC has enormous energy costs--hard to insulate well, lots of thermal short circuits, can only be inspected at specific times which complicates logistics of building, material transport and storage, and labor arrangements. BC creates hideously complicated build project timelines.
@@nicklockardsounds like BC is dripping with Regs too. When something is simple-/., regulation machines can’t help but adding complications. Green washing is a great business out here in Cali. As well.
Wonderful as always. Roof tiles may be a game changer on a slow replacement cycle.
Why doesn’t the Gigafactory that makes solar roof tiles use tge tiles it makes to power itself?
2019 Update: Solar Panels are now
youre telling me for 5k theyll put 5kw system on my house.. i find that hard to believe
@@AndrewBrowner I'm telling you that you can buy 5kW for
@@Chris-ie9os I doubt they'll last longer a couple years. I've heard the markets has flooded with cheap chinese knock-offs.
@@Jawshuah I bought some 'cheap chinese knock-offs' ~5 years ago... still doing great. It's not hard to make a solar panel...
@@AndrewBrowner you'd pay between 1.5 and 2 USD/kWp in europe right now
Don’t photovoltaic cells also have an inverse relationship between efficiency and heat?
My self installed 10KW system with Enphase microinverters came in at $1.50/W. While researching my system I was so impressed with Enphase I bought stock. It's earned $15K so my system was free even before the 30% tax credit.
Thanks for reaching into MY pocket for YOUR tax credit.
@@DocSiders no one's stopping you from installing your own solar
@@TheCynicsCynic ...typical leftist Authoritarian theif.
You have found the one way that solar is profitable. Buy stock in the companies that sell it to people and benefit from the taxpayers forced to subsidized the agenda. FYI the average cost in the USA is $1.2/W from our utility company.
@@fedcoin1602 utility scale solar is below $1/installed watt now
I’m a retired nuclear engineer but I have rooftop solar. It has worked out real well for me with an estimated payback period of about 7 years. However, 1) I got the system basically at cost since my wife works for the company, 2) I got all sorts of tax credits and incentives from the state and federal government and the local utility, 3) I live in southern California where the sun shines almost every day and 4) the local utility rates are very high.Despite the dramatic drop in panel costs, I am surprised that about 10% in my area (and it may be as low as 5%) have solar panels installed. These are homes that go from about $800K to well over a million dollars.
I am also retired from the nuclear industry. These are really valuable videos. The only thing I would add from a nuclear perspective, besides the obvious capacity factor values, is that the current gen 3 reactors (minus a few like yours, assuming you worked at San Onofre) are good for 80 years. So there needs to be a multiplier added in to make the costs equivalent to nuclear. Nonetheless, these videos are pure gold!
I've been watching this guy for a week now. Im still unsure how he writes backwards 100% of the time...
He’s not. It’s a mirror the camera is shooting.
Most likely it's written and filmed normally. Nothing spectacular. The only trick is flipping the image horizontally.
Even basic webcams tend to have that option, I think :).
Lot's of good info. It would be nice if you did a talk including the economics of the duck curve and battery storage for places that want to rely primarily on renewables.
Ask Elon Musk, not this nukie.
I’ve done a few solar farm jobs and I was amazed at how much energy is used to create these farms. Between manufacturing, shipping ( the panels came from China to the US east coast), installation of the not only the panels, but all the mounting hardware, it is expensive and time consuming. Plus all of the power cables, combiner boxes, and eventually feeding to the inverters. Most people don’t realize that solar panels produce DC voltage that needs to be converted to AC, using inverters. Converting AC to DC is easy, but converting DC to AC is much harder with a substantial loss of power.
Ugly Blue Chair Productions: Yes, exactly. He also made no mention of
the ways that China extracts and processes the materials - i.e. the
environmental damage caused. Another point I rarely hear mentioned is
the the home owner maintenance required - assuming battery/etc hookup,
not grid tie. How many folks will even check the oil in their auto, much less
constantly monitor/maintain their system? Being a retired EE, I love all
things electrical, but we must be realistic about advantages and
disadvantages. For our farm gate and a remote shallow well solar is just
great. For our home and workshop - not yet. And I see no usable solar
powered tractors on the market yet! (-; ................
@@dd_ranchtexas4501 All energy has environmental cost. Fossil fuels are very high because you have to keep digging them up. Solar is less because you can recycle the materials after the cells run out. Also most of the cells will last for more than 20 years. That is just what the manufacturer guarantees. It is like cars. Most cars last longer than the manufacturer's warranty. Also maintenance is why you want utility scale solar rather than residential scale.
Modern inverters can sync to the grid and convert DC => AC with 98% efficiency. 2% loss is 'substantial'?
Hi. Great explanation. Just wondering what is the source for the Total Yearly Insolaation data?
Pay attention, this is where you get your investment advice
My wife was convinced that our power bill had gone up significantly with the sale of Southern Company. Turned out that when we had our roof replaced a few weeks before the roofers had put the wrong vent on the roof for our clothes dryer which resulted in a blockage and caused the dryer to run 3X longer to dry a load of clothes.
I figured all this out when she casually expressed her frustration for how long it was taking to dry a load of laundry. I got curious and checked the vent and discovered the problem.
EROEI is not that great for solar. Nuclear is much higher. Also the amount of mining, land use and waste from solar does not make it an attractive long term option. Plus it is intermittent and you would like to store the excess energy.
IMHO, the only reasons solar is a thing is because a)can make more money initially than nuclear(much cheaper startup cost). b) everyone is scared of nuclear power. c) perhaps the most important point, fossil fuel companies love solar and wind, it locks in their product.
Well, an individual can install solar, not so much nuclear. So IF solar is cheaper I'm all for it.
Jim Miller the big issue I have with this plan, besides the fact solar panels are not truly renewable, is...how are you making all those cool items in your home that you want to power with your solar panels? It takes alot of energy.
Solar/wind are good for a camping lifestyle. They cannot power our industrial society,
If X has an EROEI of 1M but it costs $15/w and Y has an EROEI of 7 and it costs $2/w the thing that costs $2/w wins because economics matters. As long as the EROEI is >1 the cheaper option wins because economics matters. Wind and solar beat nuclear because economics matters. Thermal generation is a lost cause...... because economics matters.
@@Chris-ie9os Economies of scale also matter. Take your short term thinking elsewhere. Those who bet on nuclear will see a sustainable long term economic return on investment while those who bet on wind and solar won't. Just look at Germany and France.
@@Chris-ie9os That assumes static situation, however all prices change over time and the future is not know at the time the decision are made so it is not that clear cut.
05:44 No, manufacturers warranty is not a good indicator for solar cells, current understanding is that they can easily last a century by which time output will have halved, but hey, half of free = free.
Yeah, that bothered me too. The warranty is usually for 80% of rated capacity for 20 years and frequently for 25 years. They don't just drop to 0% at the 20 year mark. The warranty means that you can be sure you're still getting at least 80% of what you got when they were new. If you get the worst possible degradation without a warranty replacement, and if you have the roof space, you could just buy 20% more panels at the 20 year mark and be back up to full capacity. Even if you want to replace them all, you'll be able to sell your panels for some percentage of their original value.
They also have significant reclaim value for the steel, aluminium, copper, glass and silicon.
@@Ladadadada Agreed. The panels I have installed have a 25-year warranty with 86% of nominal output at that age.
Next gen modular nuclear is the best way to go.
Only if they can get the cost down. Nuclear is currently ~10x more per watt and ~4x more per watt-hr compared to wind or solar.
@@Chris-ie9os, where I live in Ontario, nuclear is the cheapest, followed by hydo, natural gas and renewables the most expensive. We don't have coal.
@@luisdestro7662 ... NEW nuclear is ~10x more per watt and ~4x more per watt-hr. But it looks like even new wind or solar is now cheaper than existing nuclear... cleantechnica.com/2019/11/22/solar-costs-wind-costs-now-so-low-theyre-competitive-with-existing-coal-nuclear-lazard-lcoe-report/
The thing about nuclear is that it's energy dense in a way renewables like solar and wind just can't be. You can't power a car manufacturering plant or googles supercomputer with renewables. Transporting energy incurs losses and there exists a point where all of the energy leaks out after it's been moved a certain distance. To power the things I've mentioned you'd need a field of solar panels that exceeds that maximum carry capacity by quite a bit. Even if it was possible it still be hilariously space inefficient.
That's why we need nuclear.
@@SIRslipperyasp91 ???? Sure you can... a GWh is a GWh. Energy is Energy. There is FAR more energy available from solar and wind than we could possibly use. >90% of our society has been running on stored sunlight since the beginning of time.
There is a good solid reason where our roofs are different. The roof in Fla has to be much different than one in Montana. Think of hurricanes and snow here where in Ger, the weather is generally the same.
Solar makes a good supplement but I believe its being oversold. Your discussion doesn't include the monetized environmental and health cost of energy associated with fossil fuels. You also need storage and a base load generator usually fossil fueled. .But the big problems with solar and wind are land area vs electricity produced by a base load plant. Also you didn't even mention nuclear power, the cleanest, most efficient, and cheapest by any measure, especially the next generation LFTR nuclear plants fueled by thorium.
yes
Yes about Nuclear being best option and Solar fluctuating and being terrible for power grids. Except for 100k in batts per person how is Solar and Wind grid even supposed to work once they become most of the grid, this is impossible green plan which is never addressed?
storage isnt possible...not at all.. not even a fraction. you guys have it easy down there...ill say this loud... ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAT NORTHERN CITIES WITH OUT BURNING SOMETHING OR SPLITTING AN ATOM. end stop. you simply cannot heat nyc with out fuel.
@@autopartsmonkey7992 .. Actually i wonder if u can put billboard size mirror north of house n beam sun into window w black water tank, even in winter this cld work if tank big nuff to cover cloudy week, so heatin green is possible but we need to test, nuke needed for electricity...
@@amyself6678 you would be amazed how little sunlight we get in winter in vermont.
This is a fantastic video for the analysis of consumer home level solar usage, but it definitely doesn't work on a system wide basis because of the storage problem. I am very curious how that would be calculated for on a system level, or even if it could be due to the fluctuating output and demand for energy.
imagine putting a power wire over the Arctis to Europe, so we could use each other's salt Power while it's night at our place.
Speaking for Europe: connecting from Portugal to Russia there would be an enormous potential to move power geographically by grid instead of temporarily by storage
@@xXxno6xXx With Europe I agree that there would be potential there, but there is no way nations would ever allow their interests to be overshadowed to such a degree. Imagine Germany trying to sanction Russia when Russia could turn their lights out at the flip of a button.
For USA there is no way that such a thing is practical. It would be the single most vulnerable "soft target" in the world and would extend our military too much.
I think the problem of sharing power between two areas in the same state in the US would be a big enough problem, because the problem is that nobody wants to deal with a blackout even if it is necessary on a grid level.
@@peterranney9488 actually, we have power lines crossing borders and trade electric energy all the time.
Speaking of Germany: we have a high population density, import oil and gas from Russia already and don't even have nuclear Ressources.
What we got plenty of
is just the worst type of coal.
What I'm trying to say: we import energy today. Why should we put on enormous economic burden to reach self sufficiency, when the stated goal is global minimization of radiative forcing.
Connecting existing grids can do a lot ,in lowering cost for all
parties.
As speaking of Russia, president Putin said something in this kind about a multipolar world
with multilateral dependencies. Maybe it helps to not bomb each other if we are hooked up to the same wires
In a perfect world, Solar Panels would be supplying power during the day and Nuclear would be during the night
In a perfect world we would use energy from nuclear plants 24/7, and not stuffing up the environment with solar.
@@paulbart3156 Yeah, in a perfect world, people would realize that solar and renewables are completely unnecessary compared to nuclear. Next gen nuclear reactors can load-follow the demand curve very well. Or, if you want them to operate at a constant temperature 24/7, you could electrolysis hydrogen or desalinate ocean water during the off-peak times.
I can't believe people in 2019 believe coal companies spreading the myth of nuclear being good. It's crazy expensive for starters( no nuclear power plant has ever turned a profit)
Takes decades to build (Us just built one in 44 years)
It's not that green (if we went 100% nuclear compared to 100% natural gas we'd only save 3% emissions)
Ethan, I am not sure that I agree with any of the premises. Firstly the cost. France that derives 70% of its energy from nuclear, has the cheapest energy in Europe. Cost of construction and time to complete : in USA the high costs and long time to build, come mainly from environmental red tape. In China the cost to build one is comparable to a coal fired one. I am not sure where you getting your numbers re CO2. I am assuming you building in the CO2 produced during construction. Let's face it produces virtually no CO2 during operation.
@@paulbart3156 ok, good chat then
Really, really, really informative and interesting.
How about the return on investment? The purchase and installation are upfront costs. It would be interesting to calculate and compare present value for solar power vs. market prices for power.
low interest environment ist great for renewables as capital is cheap and discount factors are low.
I think the low installation costs in Germany are a product of the "Renewable Energy Law" which supported the rise of PV (and wind power) in a strong way: A vast amount of PV installations was performed in a short time ... scale of economy!
And this law also helped the Chinese economy to sell PV modules while crushing the initial german pv module industry around 2010 who was to slow to raise the bar - e.g. with higher efficiencíes to reduce the solar module area for the same peak power or increase the power output for the same roof.
It would be interesting too to see some calculations with storage - using a Tesla power wall I get some 15-25 ct/kWh for a very energy efficient household (1000 kWh / year) but the investment of ~ 20 000 $ / EUR is high - I pay 400 EUR per year and my expected life time is round about 20 years if everything wents well - this is the life time of the components too so maybe not the best idea!
Finally: Thanks for your video and greetings from Germany - Michael
Could you make an updated version of this please
When you're comparing Germany to the US, it's easy to think of it as a straight comparison - Nation to Nation, as it were. Unfortunately, that's not really valid.
Thing is, that in terms of size and, in this case, climate and construction variety, Germany is more like a single state - about the size of New Mexico, with weather that approximates Virginia - albeit with a population of 77 million people.
Full nationwide standardization on that scale is practical. In something as large and physically diverse as the United States (Or Canada, or Russia) it is not.
National standards need to be drawn very carefully, so that they apply to things that are, as near as possible, constant across all regions. Otherwise, it ends up being an attempt to pound oval pegs into undersized round holes.
Yeah, that kinda isn't how it is though. German DIN standards for the most part are same as European EN standards which for the most part are same as worldwide ISO standards. The differences only happen when they are truly needed and even then the attempt is made to just widen the scope of the higher order standard instead of writing a local specialized standard.
The entire point of standardization is to make things same everywhere. In US on the other hand everyone wonders why the entire rest of the world is not compatible with their local homebrew standards.
Germany has to rely on France for energy, because they foolishly discontinued their nuclear plants, and bet on solar and wind without thinking about 24/7 reliability. They went with feel-good politics over hard engineering.
I trust that German engineers had their reasons to do what they did.
@@aleksandersuur9475 The US is also alone in using Fahrenheit, feet and inches.
@@chrimony At roughly 80% nuclear, France doesn't have the ability to ramp up and down to meet their own demand. France relies on Germany (and other nearby nations) for their electricity supply as well, just for different reasons.
This great and all, but I need to know how many of these solar thingies I need to get to 1.21 Gigawatts. Asking for a friend.
ONE POINT TWENTY ONE GIGAWATTS?!
"The Cost of Chinese Slave Labour " could be his most important presentation.
He does a wonderful job of explaining things. Regardless, solar power is the future. It will get cheaper and when we factor in that solar doesn't polite much it will become prevalent.
His ability to write backwards is astonishing
Right? I’m wondering if it’s some sort of trick, or if he’s actually doing that.
Astounding yes. Even more impressive is he has his jacket tailored with the pocket over the right breast. Perhaps because he is left handed?
They simply horizontally mirror the image guys, seriously use your brains haha
@@mattyb1624Do ya think?
Great video!
You can really see how solar really isn’t an option most places due to physics and just a few economic considerations.
There are a few additional things that make solar even more expensive he didn’t cover:
1. Subsidies. Money taken from taxpayers and redistributed to solar companies, installers, and customers to artificially reduce the cost. True costs are far higher.
2. Efficiency over time. Solar efficiency drops dramatically over the years.
3. Warranties. He came up with a 20-year warranty but no company has lasted anywhere close to that long. And even if there is a warranty, that’s not a guarantee you’ll receive it. This number should be cut by 50-75%
4. Maintenance. Other forms of power require no maintenance by the consumer. Solar panels need to be frequently cleaned or efficiency goes down even further. Also they are usually mounted on things like roofs which also need to be replaced or maintained and solar would need to be removed.
5. Damage. He waived off hail and storm damage and didn’t figure it in at all. But most solar systems get damaged quite easily and the consumer would need to pay to replace it. They don’t pay for traditional methods.
6. Balancing the load: Solar systems usually can’t stand alone because they have a hard time balancing power loads without gigantic and expensive battery arrays. Most solar systems are used in conjunction with grid tied power sources which provide the actual stable power and in emergency situations as well.
Lies
@@jackfanning7952 Solar advocates do lie frequently... I guess you have a point there. ;-)
Let's take each of the points you mentioned:
1) Nuclear has received 50% of the subsidies granted by the U.S. for energy. Fossil fuels, 25%. Everything else, 25%. True costs for nuclear are much higher because they haven't disposed of any nuclear waste in 75 years and taxpayers are paying utilities $1 billion a year to store their own nuclear waste. on site within 100 miles of every major city in the U.S. What could possible go wrong? Nuclear is not required to obtain insurance for liabilities from nuclear damage. Nuclear utilities are bribing legislators to increase subsidies for nuclear and strike down legislation favorable to energy conservation.
2) 48% of the nuclear reactors ordered from 1953 through 2008 were cancelled, 18% were prematurely shut down and 14% experienced at a one-year-or-more outage. Not very reliable, eh?
3) The only warranty you will get from the nuclear industry is that they will take the profits and the public will pay for any liabilities. History has shown there will be plenty of liabilities from the nuclear industry. You betcha!!
4) See item #2, except add a few billion for much costlier nuclear maintenance and cost for substitute power. New Orleans' ratepayers had their bills go up 300% in one month in 2020 due to the maintenance shutdown at Grand Gulf nuclear plant.
5) The whole world for many generations to come will pay for nuclear damage. Damage that cannot be completely mitigated once you open nuclear's Pandora's Box.
6) You just haven't been keeping up with the current events in the energy field have you? Existing storage systems for any energy source are readily available. There have been astronomical advances in storage technology in the last decade as well as cost reductions in renewables. Lazard, the largest independent financial institution in the world. states that storage can be managed for 1.0-1.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Wind or solar and battery storage can be had for less than half the price of nuclear.
@@jackfanning7952
I’m not sure where you got your information from but it’s all wrong or outdated??
So-callled “Renewable energy” obtained a whopping 93% of federal energy fuel subsidies while generating a mere 22% of total U.S. energy. This is directly from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). This also doesn’t include how most states don’t tax wind and solar and give them other benefits redistributed from unfair additional tax levies placed on nuclear.
The vast majority of nuclear waste is kept on site, safely, securely and without any additional cost in concrete caskets the size of a car. What can go wrong?? Not much. Because it’s easy to simply pour another concrete container. The entirety of all nuclear waste produced in history can fit on a single football field it’s so little. New reactor designs actually run on what was previously considered waste. And I’m glad you brought up insurance liabilities, because wind and solar are completely free from prosecution even after all the environmental damage they caused. Wind has special permits to kill rare endangered birds. And if you want to talk about bribes, that’s what the wind and solar industry is based on because they don’t make a profit since they produce so little energy. Talking about reactors shut down is just political decisions, not economic ones. And there is no warranty from wind and solar, all the companies fail after a short time. The only guarantee is that they waste taxpayer money to prop up the industry. The Grand Gulf power plant provided power at 0.5 cents per kilowatt which is one of the cheapest rates in the US… so whining about a 300% increase is just silly if you look at the actual prices paid. Regardless, people are getting a rebate on their bills now. And if you want to talk about permanent damage, wind and solar are far far faaaaaarrrrr worse. The current mines can’t keep up with production for all the needed rare earth metals and other materials so more and more mines are needed. Most of which are incredibly destructive to the environment and operated using child slave labor. Let me say that again. CHILD SLAVE LABOR. Wind and solar’s short lifespan also has them filling up toxic waste dumps to capacity. Unlike your goofy claims of not keeping up, you should take your own advice. There aren’t anywhere remotely enough batteries to store the energy required for homes. The batteries are also far worse for the environment than anything else and don’t last long. They aren’t economical and the advances are all in a lab and not practical to use anytime soon. Lazard’s figures by the way factor in billions of dollars in taxpayer funded subsidies to come up with the 1-1.5 cents per kilowatt hour. That is 3x times the cost of Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant by the way!! And that’s not even counting the costs to generate, deliver and maintain the power which is astronomically stupid. If you think wind and solar are a good idea, reach into your own pocket and personally donate your own money to subsidize it. But let’s be honest here, we both know you’d never do that.
Even AOC could follow this! 🤔 ok well maybe not.
Well he failed to account for any external costs. His analysis is only useful from a business perspective but not from a economic one.
I wish I had professors like this man
Carbon footprint of storage batteries production vs fossil fuels vs nuclear, all things to consider, I think most people don’t mind paying a little more if we dump less carbon into our atmosphere, great video.
Can you make an updated video with 2021 data? Want to see how much it has changed
This is a great video. The economics of energy production is one of my favorite subjects. However, where is the part where he adds on the cost of the non-solar power generation capacity required to provide power when the sun is not out?
It's only an 18-minute video. :) You're right that storageless (and even most with storage) solar PV installations need some external electricity to meet demand, and in many locales surplus solar-generated electricity can be sold back to the grid at the retail rate or higher or lower. I do research into this sort of thing for work and one of the most surprising findings I made was that in these buyback regimes, whether or not you lose your shirt in the end is very sensitive to the retail electricity rate, which brings up the spectre of having utilities artificially propping up their rates - to the detriment of people with no solar - just to subsidize the people who have solar.
@@hubbsllc I have always had a problem with net metering because with net metering the homeowner gets transmission costs for negative cost. They are the only electricity generator that gets paid retail for producing. As more homeowners have solar installations, I wonder if this will ever get pushback from the infrastructure owners.
I realize that net metering is easy because solar production simply slows or eliminates the rate as which power is taken from the grid, but some arrangement should exist wherein the homeowner should have some rate at which they will sell power and the power company can choose to accept or not based upon competing alternatives.
@@es330td There is certainly room for determining just what would be a "society-optimal" regime. Personally I'd rather have the utilities handle the solar PV in big farms. We were never expected to have gas turbines in our homes for generating electricity; the replication and spread of all the complex components needed to make that work would make for a very resource-inefficient situation.
Nuclear costs 2-5 times more for energy than renewables and combined with existing energy storage options ALREADY AVAILABLE is still half as costly as nuclear and cheaper than fossil fuels.
Just found your channel. Awesome content!
This U of I grad has a solar array (installed in the sunny desert in in 2019) that produces 115% of my annual use. Zero electrical bills except for the annual $150 hook-up charge. 17 year warranty with only a 4% drop in efficiency. Estimated 25 year lifespan. Payoff at 8.5 years. My wife loves opening the power bill each month and seeing a negative number. Battery storage coming soon for my three inverters which are designed to manage battery storage. Hoping LiFe comes way down this year.
No electronics last that long
how much energy do you use, and how much did your system cost?
@@4468861989 solar panels do! Ive got panels from 2006 still producing at 90%, and today's panels are much better.
@@ObjectiveTruth5168 It produces 3-4 kwh per day depending on the time of year. 8-9 year payoff. $48k install price.
@@4468861989 Buddy has an early system installed with 18 year old German inverters. Still running great.
Greetings from a German architect! In Germany, houses look very very different, but they all deal with the same national or international regulations (statics, electricity etc. pp) in some cases for almost a century. But otherwise, there’s a huge capacity of PV installed on ground the last few years in Europe and Germany. This has nothing do do with rooftops.
I don't know where you live in Germany but in Bavaria all the roofs are the same and I have never ever seen PV on ground, only on rooftops. Actually roofs have to be all the same as the weather is same in the whole country. The fact that PV is cheaper is because the government pays subsidies for ppl to install it.
Great presentation (as always). The big question that I have is, that if the government did not subsidize these installs, would they make economic sense. Do the panels over the lifetime, produce more Joules than it takes to mine the silicon, manufacture, ship, install (and constantly clean) them.
Narayan Mohanram Depends on the subsidy but I would say no bc solar is not energy dense so it will ever tackle our energy growth on an large scale. Scalable energy production will only by fossil fuels and the new molten salt reactors (hopefully Thorium based).
Yes, they do have more energy output than the inputs... unless you put them in a stupid place like a roadway...
This should be pretty obvious just from looking at the economics. Right now it looks like commercial scale solar costs about $0.16 per watt of panel(and about $0.45 installed). When you factor in all the labor involved in mining, refining, manufacturing, and transporting the solar panels along with a profit margin it is obvious that the cost of energy used per watt of panel built must be considerable lower than that. Assuming that the average panel is installed somewhere with a capacity factor of closer to 0.3 rather than the 0.2 it is in Illinois and each watt of panel will produce 2.6 Kwh per year. Even allowing for lower energy costs in China it seems unlikely that making the panels would use more than a years worth of the energy it produces, and newer panels should last long enough to produce about 25 years worth of power over 30 or so years, allowing for degradation. That means that solar panels take about 4% as much energy to make as they generate, going up to maybe 5-6% when inverters and support brackets and such are factored in.
Forgot to mention the largest component. Cost of the Land on which they have to be installed. Add to that the regular maintenance cost to keep them dust free to enable them to work at peak efficiency and prevent the dust and leaves from blocking the sunlight. Deserts may be good for sunlight, but they definitely add to the cost of cleaning due to all the sand and dust and winds that are there due to the arid conditions.
Solar has many more problems for grid-scale.
Duck curve is one of them. You can manage it with storage, but there's not much interest in that because its super expensive. California and South Australia are already suffering this. Spain also did suffer and had to withdraw subsidies, bankrupting several families.
In the US there are deserts. That should allow much cheaper installations than any however well standardized roof. Even in Germany a big part comes from solar plants on the open field. I think the number is significant, like more than 50% . How do those compare?
Another cost rarely considered at the 'blue sky thinking' stage is that of land when considering grid-scale installations covering hundreds/thousands of acres. Are you covering prime farmland or scrub desert? How far is your solar garden from the loads you will service [transmission line costs], etc etc. As this video explains, solar in Hawaii is a no-brainer. Washington State not so much - inexpensive hydro...
What about location? Does Germany install solar on manufacturing building roof tops and in USA we need to buy/lease additional land to add capacity?
Regulation is one of the biggest differentiators here except for the amount of sunlight. I have built my PV system 4 years ago where I managed to be included in a scheme where I'm on the grid and I don't get anything for the energy I pump into the system, but I can then take energy from the system at 80% discount as long as my two-way meter shows that I have a surplus (I put more energy into the grid then I consume). With the rising power prices this has proven to be immensely profitable for me, as my power bill is 10% of what I would have to pay now without PV. However the regulation was later changed and now people no longer have the option to use the grid as their "battery". They get paid for what they upload to the grid in wholesale prices and then can buy power back for regular consumer prices. This means that my PV installation had a ROI time of just under 4 years and had to be just 10-15% overscaled over my consumption. Theirs has to be 2x-3x over their consumption and they get less money back, so their ROI time is 10-15 years. Adding battery pack into the mix maximizes your autoconsumption which moves a lot of levers on the accounting charts, but battery pack itself is costly and needs replacing at around 10 year mark, so you're still looking at 10+ years of ROI time. And if you did your project and calculations wrong + at the same time decided to switch from gas to electric heating/heat pump, you may not be happy with the final result. Even such considerations as the type of roof can skew your calculations, because if you have a ceramic roof rated for minimum 50 years and you put 25 years rated PV on it, you're golden, but if you put it on a flat roof covered with roofing felt, then you're in some dire straits after maybe just 10 years. In some places it is essential to mix PV with one or two mini wind turbines to minimize your costs in winter. However turbines require more costly maintenance, which PVs don't. For me however, in my regulatory scheme, the investment proved to be extremely good idea. ROI under 4 years (planned 5 years ROI, down thanks to rising prices) and currently it gives me savings of over 3000 $ / year.
The electricity industry usea LCOE for lifecycle cost of generatiom options. Solar+wind+storage is already the cheapest and decreasing in cost. With decreasing cost of panels the economics supports larger installations which will lead to excess power. This is already happening in Australia. It's a shame Prof didn't mention the important step changes forced by exponential cost reduction and the effect of economies of scale on all issues such as install costs and storage. Pretty big omissions for the most important changes to the grid for 100 years!
Yes, much more! U.S. generated more energy with wind and solar in 2020 than all energy sources except natural gas. Wind and solar outproduced all other energy source in 2020 in the EU. China produced 15% of its energy from wind and 16% from solar in 2020 and less than 5% from nuclear.
Does installed cost include the land? Land is no doubt a large cost since you need so much surface area.
adjust for government subsidies. I would only install them to handle "peaking" power, and only in the southern states on utility power. Homes could probably enjoy a benefit too, but that would be a personal choice issue.
the real kicker at 2019 is storage ( lead/acid batteries are still the best all round for cost/maintenance/lifespan) and the fact that inverters that tie to the grid are often having issues meshing with the grid.
The good news is that lithium battery tech for electric vehicles is improving rapidly, and so is the number of wrecked EVs with perfectly good battery packs that can be turned into fixed storage units for rooftop solar. We are only just at the beginning of these changes. Now we must work to persuade people that modern GenIV nuclear isn't their grandparents dangerous nuke tech, but is walk-away safe, much more efficient, and cheaper to build and operate.
Would using cheap nuclear energy to create the hydrogen make enough of a difference for hydrogen fuel cells? Regards
Cool presentation. Sweet tie.
How regulation increases de amount of cost of instalation?
Very interesting. Could you include the price of storage in this calculation? What would it cost extra, to have the same continuous energy supply 24 hours a day, as a coal plant would have?
See WNISR 2020 World Nuclear Status Report for all that and much more accurate information on worldwide energy production, storage and distribution.