Elon Musk's Solar City Is Ramping Up Solar Panel Production 262
MarkWhittington writes: Elon Musk is well known as a private space flight entrepreneur, thanks to his space launch company SpaceX. He is also a purveyor of high end electric cars manufactured by his other company, Tesla Motors. But many people do not know that Musk has a third business, Solar City, which is a manufacturer of solar panels. On Tuesday that company announced a major play to increase the output of solar panels suitable for home solar units. Solar City has acquired a company called Silevo, which is said to have a line of solar panels that have demonstrated high electricity output and low cost. Silevo claims that its panels have achieved a 22 percent efficiency and are well on their way to achieving 24 percent efficiency. It suggests that 10 cents per watt is saved for every point of efficiency gained. Solar City, using the technology it has acquired from Silevo, intends to build a manufacturing plant in upstate New York with a one gigawatt per year capacity. This will only be the beginning as it intends to build future manufacturing plants with orders of magnitude capacity. The goal appears to be for the company to become the biggest manufacturer of solar panels in the world.
Why Silevo didn't aim to be biggest? (Score:3, Interesting)
Higher capacity for smaller roofs (Score:5, Interesting)
For many people, the limit on the size of their solar array is the size of their roof. If you want to offset your full usage, you may need higher-capacity panels than the standard 250W base panels. There are a number of higher-efficiency panels available, but the cost per Watt is higher. They probably don't cost much more to manufacture, so the more efficient panels have a higher profit margin.
Also, you have to keep improving your technology or you're out of the business when the cheap panels get to be as efficient than what you're producing.
Re:Higher capacity for smaller roofs (Score:5, Interesting)
For many people, the limit on the size of their solar array is the size of their roof.
If you have an unobstructed, south sloping roof, it is likely you can offset all of your electricity needs with standard panels. I looked into this last year, and we needed panels on less than half of our roof. However, we decided against it because it was far more cost effective to invest in cheap LED light bulbs ($2 each on eBay) and attic insulation. That pushed all of our electricity consumption into the lowest billing tier, and the solar panels no longer made financial sense.
Re: (Score:3)
"the lay of the land today, where there are indeed too many suppliers, most of whom are producing relatively low photonic efficiency solar cells at uncompelling costs" (Quote from http://blog.solarcity.com/sile... [solarcity.com])
You have indeed discovered the unvarnished truth, solar is not viable in terms of cost and this is unlikely to change anytime soon. Conservation is usually the best bang for the buck, but even that has it's limits.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true at all. The subsidies and tax write-offs and other benefits continue to pile up. Someone who is paying full retail for his panels is just someone who is too lazy to file the appropriate paperwork.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in a southern climate, sure. If you live in a northern climate, for half of the year you are only getting 50% light cover on your panels at best... and that is assuming you can keep them cleared of snow.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think the northern climate excuse needs to go. Germany is farther north than the entire United States (minus Alaska) and they have been the worlds leader in Photovoltaic power generation since 2005 [wikipedia.org]. It isn't like they get more sunshine than Arizona or have more land area than the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Latitude is not everything when it comes to sunlight and snow. Montreal,Canada is quite a bit further south than London. If you have ever been to Montreal and London in the winter you would know what I am talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Quite a bit of difference between having a dedicated solar furnace in your back yard, vs covering already-wasted space on your roof with more-or-less passive 2x4ft "tiles" that just happen to produce a significant portion of your home's electricity.
That said, I think the big manufacturers have really missed an opportunity i
Re: (Score:2)
We use expensive photovoltaic panels for ginormous solar power plants with active arrays spanning huge fields. We should use salt towers or parabolic reflectors.
Who says you can't mount a shiny satellite dish on top your house?
Re: (Score:2)
the solar panels no longer made financial sense.
It seems unlikely that your electricity usage is so low that the panels would not pay for themselves over their expected lifetime. You could be creative and use electricity for more heating/cool or look at getting an EV too. What about feed-in tariff?
You really must be an unusual case if you can't make a little money from solar, but even then your roof is valuable real-estate for PV that someone else could make a profit with and pay you rental.
Re: (Score:2)
Supplemental power is liquid return. It reduces your costs, thus leaving more liquid capital on hand. The original investment is ill-liquid.
PV panels are also far less efficient than parabolic reflectors.
Re: (Score:2)
I see two types of panels being sold:
One type that is used for limited space, engineered to get as many watts from each square centimeter as possible, even if it is more costly. RV-ers come to mind, because for most rigs, space is at a premium.
The second type is to obtain a decent amount of watts, but be cheaper, for larger areas such as a roof. Here, price per watt is more important.
In both cases, reliability is very important and not to be overlooked. Panels don't take much to maintain once in place, b
Re:Why Silevo didn't aim to be biggest? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why Silevo didn't aim to be biggest? (Score:5, Informative)
Why Silevo didn't aim to be biggest?
Legitimate question, to which the summary provides no clue as to the likely answer.
Solar City is not just a manufacturer, they are also, in a sense, a distributed alternative utility. They do not sell panels to homeowners. Instead, they install solar systems on homes and sell the electricity produced to the homeowner. The advantage is that the homeowner has $0 upfront costs, and is guaranteed a specified level of savings over their current utility prices. So it's a much easier sell, since homeowners don't have to apply for a loan, cough up a down payment, make monthly payments and so on.
This model has been very successful at brining in sales, and Musk has been pretty successful at raising the enormous amounts of capital required to scale this model. (Solar City fronts the whole cost of installation, then earns that + profit back over a pretty long period of time.) It would be a heck of a challenge for a manufacturer of panels to go out and build the kind of business that Solar City has built.
Re: Why Silevo didn't aim to be biggest? (Score:2)
OMG with orders of magnitude capacity? (Score:2)
Is that even possible?
Re: (Score:3)
Well - one - sure.
The largest players in the market are at the moment shipping a gigawatt a quarter or so.
Ten gigawatts a year would make them the largest in the world by a comfortable margin.
And likely depress the price to well below $.50/W.
If they can get the price well under this - say $.25/W - then solar becomes economic in a lot
more places.
At that price, I'm buying 6kW or so.
At $.25/W, that is a price of $50/m^2.
This is in the range where it's sort-of-comparable with other roof claddings.
Re: (Score:2)
>This is in the range where it's sort-of-comparable with other roof claddings.
Now that's what I'm waiting for - solar propanel so that you don't need to cover your roof with weather-protection only to cover *that* with solar panels.
I'm confused (Score:2)
What does that mean ?
My electricity cost of approx. € 0.25 / kwh
How do I save 10 cents per watt ? Or are they talking about the re-purchase price of the panel ?
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
They're talking about purchase and installation:
"Because less modules are needed for the same power output, less land, labor, mounting structures, wiring and support racks are also required, saving an estimate of 10 cents a watt for every point of efficiency gained."
So if you're installing 4000 watts worth of panel, using 23% efficiency panels costs $400 less to purchase and install than 22% efficiency panels.
The man has vision (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The man has vision (Score:5, Interesting)
He's like an actual, decent version of an Ayn Rand book.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Compare to other tech billionaires and what they do with theirs...
Re: (Score:3)
Nice to see a billionaire that actually has interests in using his money to build things instead of just buy things.
Re:The man has vision (Score:4, Insightful)
It's pretty simple, Bill Gates built two things: Microsoft and the Gate Foundation. Most of the innovative things that Microsoft has done have come from company's that Microsoft bought. Furthermore, Microsoft's (and Gate's) money comes mostly comes from anti-competitive and illegal agreements that shut competitors out of the PC marketplace and the monopoly rents those agreements enabled. The money came from overchanging PC manufacturers for an operating system, and those manufacturers, in turn, passed that cost onto computer purchasers. Microsoft skimmed money from the entire computer industry for over a decade by hiding the cost in the price of a new computer. They required every computer to have Windows on it. If a distributor didn't put Windows on every computer or at least charge for it on every computer, then Microsoft would prevent them from putting Windows on any computer. Ditto if they promoted any computer that didn't have Windows on it.
So because Gate's wealth was won mostly through deception and illegal practices, and Microsoft has a habit of buying new and interesting things and then letting them die, Bill Gates simple does not seem praiseworthy as a visionary. Jobs, on the other hand, was an asshole but it's reasonable to credit to his obsession and micromanagement as being integral to the success of the iPod and iPhone, which earns him the visionary credit (even if we ignore his role in the original idea that personal computers could actually be a thing).
So Bill Gates can be legitimately viewed as a con man because most of his wealth was earned through anti-competitive practices and extortion. Furthermore, as Bill Gates has been moving into charitable work, there have been disturbing indications that he's been repeating the boot stomping that Microsoft did while it was trying to be "the only company in computers". The rumours of NDAs or other agreements requiring research exclusivity with the Gates Foundation, for example, seem to indicate a greater concern for control and credit than results.
I suppose it comes down to the simple question: Can you actually name anything revolutionary that Gates has done? If you can't (and I can't), it's very difficult to justify calling him a visionary.
Personally, I tend to view Bill Gates as a very successful parasite, more than a con man.
um (Score:4, Funny)
Haven't we all watched enough James Bond and Super Man films to know that Elon Musks true goal is to build a Giant Robot and/or Start WW3?
Re: (Score:2)
True, but the supervillian only loses in the movies. In the real world, you are better off being on his side than against him.
Re: (Score:2)
Hank Scorpio offers great salaries, awesome compensation packages, on-the-job hammocks, and if you want to kill someone on the way out, it would really help him out.
What's not to like?
Re: (Score:2)
It's fairly obvious that he's developing all the technologies needed for an evil fortress built on the moon.
Well, we'll know for certain when he starts up a computer cluster called Mycroft.
Re: (Score:2)
So how is a laser like a goldfish?
Where's the new ROI calculator? (Score:2)
I've played around with a few ROI calculators and thus far it appears that I wouldn't break even for 17 years. That's a pretty lousy return on investment particularly if the cells only have a 20 year life. And the performance degrades over time. These calculators don't seem to take that into account.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that you're stuck in a 15+ year lease that could affect selling your home and such.
When I looked into this, I not only closed the browser, but haven't even looked in their general direction since.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't even consider leasing them because if it benefited the customer, the solar companies wouldn't do it.
So with an outright purchase, the ROI doesn't seem to be there.
Re:Where's the new ROI calculator? (Score:4, Informative)
Solar panels typically have a 20 year warranty, and are guaranteed to output 80% of their power at year 20 (these figures are required to be met in order for the systems to qualify for tax incentives, so they're pretty common amongst manufacturers). They'll most likely continue working after the warranty. I will, however, probably have to replace my inverter every 10 years or so. It looks like I can pick up a new one on ebay for around $2000 right now. I'm hoping the cost of these drops over time or the technology improves such that my next one is more reliable.
As for ROI, my break even was only 5-6 years. In Southern California we pay dearly for electricity (over 30 cents per kWh once you get past some scant "baseline"), but we have plenty of sunshine. It's been almost 3 years now. The estimated savings for my $15k investment was projected at $100k or so over 20 years. I feel they're using too high of a percentage year-over-year increase of utility power, but even if I only make half that, it's still a good investment.
I did opt to buy instead of a pre-paid lease. The salescritters promised that the leasing companies would effectively gift me the system for $0 at year 20 because it would be too costly to remove, and that the real money was in the accelerated depreciation in years 0-5. However, if I think of the solar panels as a money printing machine, it seems unlikely that the panels, even if they're 20 years old, would have a fair market value of $0. No business would give away something that they can get money for, so I have to assume that at year 20 they will do something to ensure they continue to get a profit from the system that they legally own on my roof. Forget that uncertainty, I decided to just buy it so there are no unknowns. I think it will be really fascinating to see what happens to all of these ultra-long leases in the 2032 time frame.
But when... (Score:2)
But when will Elon Musk build his Iron Man suit?
great homage (Score:2)
Just dropping in to say that anyone who names a company after a pinball game [ipdb.org] has my vote.
Plus I loved that machine.
Musk, please takes steps and be careful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now he is upsetting another huge industry with trillion dollars in assets, the electric utility companies. And the technique he is using requires someone with great credibility to raise incredible sums of money. Solar never threatened utilities before because, the system cost was high, and individual home owners had to do some complex breakeven analysis, raise funds and take some risk. But Solar City is zero risk to the home owners, perfect distributed competitor to the utilities, plans to make electricity using zero cost fuel (sunlight). The entire cost is cost of servicing debt. Interest rates are lowest in known memory.
The technology and the business model will make it immaterial who the prime-movers are backing it. But the speed at which change happens depends on a charisma and credibility of players like Musk. The utility companies would not hesitate to find scandals, astro turf to create fake scandals, engage in character assassination etc to bring him down personally. So he should be careful with his dealings.
Sustainability (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon
"Over 90% of the Earth's crust is composed of silicate minerals..."
I don't think Silicon is the problem here. Most (if not all) solar panels depend on other rare earth materials that may be in short supply tho.
Re: (Score:2)
Most (if not all) solar panels depend on other rare earth materials that may be in short supply tho.
Please be so kind to list rare earths necessary for manufacturing silicon PV cells. I'm really not aware of any.
Re: (Score:3)
none of the doping materials in common use for these high efficiency cells are really "rare" either. Indium is probably the "rarest", and there is three times as much ore of that as silver on this planet. You'll see some sensationalist investor "doomsday" reports of exhausting Indium by 2017 or so, which are just rubbish disconnected from reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium
Well if you need some, just make some more! Jeez, I thought this was a discussion board for smart people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the materials, per se (Score:3)
The sustainability of solar panels is tied to the end-user cost per kWh. Here's how I see it: every dollar spent at the consumer end is a dollar in non-renewable energy cost. Why? Every material in this world is free. What is not free is the energy it takes to extract, refine, and manufacture. And no matter how you slice it, that dollar is going to end up in energy - as fuel for an agricultural tractor, or as fuel to smelt ore, or as fuel to drive a boring machine to extract materials, or as fuel to power a
Re:It's not the materials, per se (Score:5, Insightful)
The sustainability of solar panels is tied to the end-user cost per kWh.
Unfortunately, it has to compete with forms of power for which sustainability is not even being considered, obviously namely coal and oil. As long as the cost of cleaning up the pollution of using "traditional" energy-generating sources is handwaved away, solar's gonna have a bad time.
Re: (Score:2)
Handwaved away? On that issue I disagree with you. Such costs are routinely considered when a company goes though the decision cycle of "should we build a new plant?" They'd be stupid not to consider, "how much will it cost to clean up the mess?" in today's day and age where the EPA can come in and pretty much regulate you out of business for messing things up.
Right now, if one considers the TCO of solar, they come up way short of other options. Environmentally they fail too, but you have to open up y
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, if one considers the TCO of solar, they come up way short of other options. Environmentally they fail too, but you have to open up your aperture to the total life cycle of the system to be totally fair.
All current-production solar panels are highly recyclable and they are being made of decreasing quantities of ever more common and less polluting materials. The hardware that ties the system together is more reliable and lighter than ever. I'm going to go ahead and say [citation needed] on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll revise my statement... For now, Solar use in the most ideal of circumstances seems to be comparable, but there are significant environmental issues that need to be carefully controlled or the production, use and decommissioning of the components WILL be an issue. You just don't landfill this stuff to get rid of it and if you do, it's going to be a really big mess. Also, using solar in less than ideal locations, simply doesn't work out for the environment or the ROI.
M
Re: (Score:2)
For now, Solar use in the most ideal of circumstances seems to be comparable, but there are significant environmental issues that need to be carefully controlled or the production, use and decommissioning of the components WILL be an issue. You just don't landfill this stuff to get rid of it
That's what I said. You don't get to claim that my statement is your statement, especially when the facts surrounding it support my argument and not yours. Today's panels are highly recyclable.
and if you do, it's going to be a really big mess.
That is also ignorant at best. Modern panels meet certain criteria for leaching if they are landfilled, which you shouldn't do anyway.
Many solar panels are NOT highly recyclable and contain components which are highly toxic.
Few modern solar panels meet that description. Many old ones do, so those will be an issue.
Consumers, on average, have no clue about these issues, so I'm sure the "ideal" situation for handling these components will be the exception and not the rule.
Consumers, on average, won't be taking down broken solar panels. They'll pay someone to do tha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They'd be stupid not to consider, "how much will it cost to clean up the mess?" in today's day and age where the EPA can come in and pretty much regulate you out of business for messing things up.
That's true, which is one reason why not many coal plants are being built in the USA today.
However, solar panels aren't competing against new coal plants -- they are competing against the many existing coal plants which have been running for years, and whose construction has already been paid for. Those plants' only ongoing costs are maintenance and fuel, which makes them relatively inexpensive to operate.
The cost of repairing the damage to the climate that those plants cause, OTOH, may be quite large, but
Re: (Score:2)
They'd be stupid not to consider, "how much will it cost to clean up the mess?" in today's day and age where the EPA can come in and pretty much regulate you out of business for messing things up.
That's true, which is one reason why not many coal plants are being built in the USA today.
However, solar panels aren't competing against new coal plants -- they are competing against the many existing coal plants which have been running for years, and whose construction has already been paid for. Those plants' only ongoing costs are maintenance and fuel, which makes them relatively inexpensive to operate.
The cost of repairing the damage to the climate that those plants cause, OTOH, may be quite large, but the owners of the plants will not be responsible for paying that cost, so they don't care.
I think you are mistaken. Most Coal plants today are headed for the dust bin of history for a number of political and regulatory reasons. It's simply much cheaper to use Natural Gas (thanks to fracking) than coal. Of course the current administration's choice to cap C02 emissions per Watt hour produced didn't help coal either.
But I think solar faces a real problem too. The disposal of solar panels can be a significant problem because they contain some seriously toxic materials. You cannot just land fill
Externalities (Score:3)
Handwaved away? On that issue I disagree with you. Such costs are routinely considered when a company goes though the decision cycle of "should we build a new plant?
Fossil fuel plants are not required to pay for or clean up substantial amounts of pollution they generate. They dump vast quantities of CO2 and other pollutants, both gaseous and particulate, and never are required to pay for the full impact they have. Sure, there are some emissions controls and cleanup they are required to consider but they do not and never have been required to pay for the full cost of their pollution. Good luck getting them to pay to "clean up" their toxic byproducts [wikipedia.org] too. This is cal
Re:It's not the materials, per se (Score:5, Insightful)
you need to refresh your dimensional analysis, because you are missing a term or two. 1800-1900h/year * 20 years = 37000 hours of productive life per panel, not 37000 watt-hours of total output. If the total lifetime output of a solar panel over 20 years was a measly 37 kWh (roughly the daily energy consumption of a home in the United States) no one would buy them.
What's missing in your analysis is the power output of the panel during those daylit hours. For the 5 hours of peak generation during the day, you could expect about 200 W for a "standard" panel. (You'll get not-insignificant power generation during all daylight hours, but we'll focus on peak generation for now.) That brings the lifetime output to something like 7.4 MWh, which at wholesale (not residential customer) electrical rates of $50/MWh equates to $370 worth of electricity. Even taking net present value into consideration, the energy cost breakeven for manufacturing solar cells is measured in years, if not months.
Solar panels are not merely an energy storage device that captures conventional energy sources during their manufacture, only to trickle that energy out with sunshine. They are a net energy producer many times over. With (currently impractical, not-at-scale) methods for storing and buffering the power, it is feasible to power the entire PV manufacturing and installation pipeline entirely with solar power.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no - the original numbers didn't factor in panel size, dealing instead in watt-normalized panel sizes: the 20-year output of one watt worth of solar panels is indeed ~37kWh. I wonder at their costs though - $7/watt would imply your average 200W panel costs $1400 installed. Considering that the panel itself costs in the neighborhood of $200 that's an awful lot of installation costs for one little panel...
Came for this (Score:2)
Whenever there's even a tangential mention of electricity production / consumption, I know there will be a furious sub-thread about units!
/Grabs popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
A different argument that could be made comes down to basic economics. If solar panels took substan
Re:It's not the materials, per se (Score:4, Insightful)
Down-and-dirty logic for doubters:
Solar panels are cost effective to install in most locales, even without subsidies
Manufacturers are making a profit selling them
Manufacturers have to pay for the energy to make them, plus materials, labor, rent, etc.
Therefore the cost of producing the panels MUST be substantially lower than the cost of buying grid energy. Given that basis, the only way to call energy effectiveness into question is to assume that manufacturers are paying so much less for energy that even the added costs of materials and labor are insignificant in comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
The sustainability of solar panels is tied to the end-user cost per kWh. Here's how I see it: every dollar spent at the consumer end is a dollar in non-renewable energy cost. Why? Every material in this world is free. What is not free is the energy it takes to extract, refine, and manufacture.
You're completely omitting labor costs. Your calculation would make somewhat more sense in a fully robotic economy, which we don't have. Not to mention that given how a solar panel generates much more energy in its lifetime than what is necessary to produce it, by your logic, the problem really is that we don't have nearly enough solar panels manufacturing themselves (or, generating energy to power the manufacturing process for their own replacements, and then some). So you're arguing in favor of more solar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious if panels produce more energy than it costs to make them.
Of course they do.
Re: (Score:2)
It only takes a moment of thought to conclude that anyone making the claim that solar panels are not energy-positive is an idiot or a shill:
Working backwards the key points are:
- buying a solar panel is cost effective in most climates: substantially more energy will be produced over it's lifetime than could be bought with the same amount of money, even without subsidies.
- solar panels are sold at above cost: manufacturing companies are not charities and will maintain a profit margin.
- manufacturers are payi
Re:Not more solar energy!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not the power source, it's how to store it. Plants do that pretty well, our problem is we're inneficient at extracting that power to produce electricty.
Luckily we're highly efficient at extracting it to produce body heat.
Re: (Score:2)
Not more solar energy!! (Score:3, Insightful)
" It's the worst source of power there is"
Funny, virtually all energy sources are based on it. Wind energy is simply temperature differentials in the atmosphere created by the sun, hydroelectric is only possible because the sun heated oceans evaporate and the resulting rainfall can be harnessed, even fossil fuels are the remnants of ancient plants (which use sunlight) compressed into a energy source over millions of years by heat & pressure. The only thing we need to make it a viable energy sources is
Re: (Score:2)
The 4 posters above you.
Re: (Score:2)
with an order of magnitude more to follow.
Nonetheless, Musk is a stock, and I'm buying.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually more along the lines of 1.21 gigawatts.
Jumping jigawatts Marty!
Re: (Score:2)
Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) of PV can be 3-4 in favorable cases but the rate of return is also important if you want to multiply the resource. If energy parity for the first panel takes 5 years then its output could produce a second panel in another 5 years. So for 10 years you get no net energy, after which you can tap some of the output for other uses while still continuing to add panels at an accelerating rate. Doesn't matter if you start with 10 or 10 billion, there is still no net energy f
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we should have started 20 years ago.
You mistyped "30". PV panels could bay back their energy investment in seven years in the seventies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Engineering win (Score:5, Insightful)
Once I heard that solar panels output more energy in their service lifespan than it takes to manufacture them. Is that true?
For all solar panels except those used on satellites, yes.
Then there is no reason to not make as many as possible. It's an epic win on the engineering/physical science level.
It would not be an epic win for our monied overlords so it's not so straightforward.
Re: (Score:3)
And how many above and below him on that list are in the business of extracting fossil fuels from the ground and burning them, or building the machines that do the burning, or the machines that do the killing to keep the extraction and burning going?
Re: (Score:2)
You know electricity is among those things in the category of "incredibly easily moved across state lines after production". Building the station in California won't keep it from supplying Arizona and vice versa.
Build the stations where pragmatism dictates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please please please, pretty please with a bow around it, do not build these plants in states voting for legislators who are hostile to climate science, hostile to green technology, hostile to EPA.
Alternatively, please please do build these plants in those states. Most of those legislators are hostile to renewable energy because their constituents (and backers) are from the fossil-fuel industry. If/when their constituents' livelihoods and/or campaign funds start coming from the solar power industry instead, that will likely 'evolve' their thinking more quickly than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Please please please, pretty please with a bow around it, do not build these plants in states voting for legislators who are hostile to climate science, hostile to green technology, hostile to EPA.
Hard to think of a better way to modulate local political views than construction of large solar plants employing sufficient quantity of voting tax payers.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think the interpretation that gives you pause is the correct one. Growth of capacity is exactly what a solar manufacturer would be interested in.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He wants to produce 1GW of solar panels. If one solar panel is rated at 250W he wants to produce 4 million panels in a year.
How much energy each panel actually produces over a year depends on where and how they are installed. If you are in a very sunny climate like Phoenix you might get 375kWh out of each south facing installed 250W panel. If all 4 million panels were installed in a similar location they could generate 1500 GWh of power per year.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not talking about energy produced, they're talking about the total rating of the panels they produce in a year. So at 250w/panel they're aiming to produce 4 million solar panels/year.
wow that's about a metric fuck ton of solar panels too. I wish the system integration/install wasn't stupid expensive still.
Re: (Score:2)
well deserved if the efficiency is even 20 percent; however if not then yes it's just a free hummer
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone loves a rich visionary. Well, maybe not everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They SAY they are a solar panel company.
Really? They are a finance company - selling debt. The sales come-on is laid on pretty thick, by cold calling with a claim to having you pay negative energy bills.
If the actual numbers work out when their quota sales guy arrives? Then you buy their SolarCity system, which you cannot modify or upgrade. Do you want emergency off-grid capability? Sorry, no can do. Thiel has arrangements with the big, incumbent local monopolies. When they are down? You are down.
There
Re: (Score:3)
There are better options, and cells with better efficiency. Shop around if you want solar
Sure, there are better systems to be had, if you are willing to shell out cash up front. If that's something that you're unwilling or unable to do, however, it's hard to beat cutting your electric bill in half for free.
There's also something to be said for not having to maintain and support the system yourself. Non-technical people feel better knowing that if the system fails or performs poorly, it's SolarCity's problem, not theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not cut in half.
That's the come-on, to get the salesperson in your door. They call it a "net free solution" - "we'll run your meter backwards, it pays for itself!"
Too
Good
To
Be
True
Re:Tie this in with the battery tech from Tesla... (Score:5, Informative)
It is not cut in half.
Well, our electricity expenses (i.e. the sum of the money we send to the power company, plus the money we send to SolarCity) went from $1000/month to $650/month.
You're right, that's not quite "cut in half", but $350/month in savings is nothing to sneeze at either, especially since achieving it cost us nothing but some roof space we weren't using anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Retiring to Mars.... (Score:5, Funny)
SpaceX to get Musk to Mars.
Tesla to move him around on Mars.
Solar City to power everything on Mars.
Musk is sticking with his plans to retire on Mars and all his companies are helping him get there.
Re: (Score:3)
Lithium won't be a prime target for grid storage for quite some time (if ever). There are dozens of interesting energy storage techs actually coming to market that have much lower cost/KWh and longer lifetimes. Some are batteries like this [greencarreports.com] or flow batteries and some are not, like the 'icebear'. Even used lithium batteries taken from cars will probably get more of the storage business than new lithium batteries; for now, its just more cost effective and efficient.
The idea of using electric cars themselves as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
20% in 10 years? I'm a little skeptical about a lot of the claims for solar payback but this sounds a little low even to me. Most of what I've researched puts full payback at 8-10 years minus government incentives. I think with the attacks on coal resulting in higher prices it may move down to 5 year payback as energy prices go up. I think improvements in the next decade may make solar take off at long last.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, the main thing holding me back is deflation. If they keep getting cheaper, my payoff might be sooner if I wait a couple years to get them. But then the subsidies may well decrease, so maybe not...
Re: (Score:2)
You can always move to China is you don't like moving away from coal, or its byproducts.
Re: (Score:2)
Home solar installations are still not very cost effective. I installed one at home anyway because I thought it would be a neat thing to play with, but the payback estimates the vendor and government used to sell me on it were vastly aggressive, claiming a 3-5 year payback. So far it has been nearly 10 years and I've not yet made back 20% of the installation cost.
In any case, solar might become more viable as we move away from coal, which the EPA seems to want to force sooner rather than later.
I also question the "environmentalism" of solar given how utterly dirty and toxic the processes are for making the cells themselves.
This is an example of what Musk says "the lay of the land today, where there are indeed too many suppliers, most of whom are producing relatively low photonic efficiency solar cells at uncompelling costs"
So he's just betting that the case for solar gets better sometime soon so he's investing in a company that does solar stuff. He already knows that he will loose money in the short term. He's taking a risk with his money, I hope it pays off, but I don't think the chances are good.
Re: (Score:2)
I have found that the cost and quality of solar deployments can vary tremendously. For example, I can buy panels at 75 cents per watt. However, if I go for a kit, that cost jumps up significantly. If I let a "solar installer" do it, that might bump costs up a good amount too.
I have found that solar can be used in increments, so a starting investment can be relatively small. For example, having a 15 amp circuit or two in a house that runs off of batteries is a good way to keep the parasitic devices that
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, Next plant he'll build will most likely be in the southwest somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I don't have an infinitely-large roof, so space is a concern...a pretty major concern.