I guess if you're a moron you might actually believe that a company who's primary product is metal elephants is capable of building a transformative system.

Like the thorium laser car.

> 8 x 250 x 0.80 = $1600
> 27 x 75 x 0.25 = $506.25

You are space limited, it's a roof. If you have room for 27 panels you have room for 27 panels, so you install 27 of the 250's:

27 x 250 x 0.80 = $5400
+ $2200 for inverter
+ 27 x 4 x 3.37 = $363.96 for pressure treated 2x4 racking
+ $15 for permitting
+ $50 + (27 x $10 = $320 for wiring
+ $50 for wiring final inspection
+ $0 for install
= $8078, or 1.19 per Watt.

I win again.

" Because one only needs to look at Ontario(once the primary GDP producer of Canada) to see what high energy prices, and poor government decision making do."

Indeed, everyone should try that. Some of the best test scores on the planet, one of the highest percentages of post-secondary education, billions and billions in biomed research every year, and a long, healthy life span.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe if you took off the crap coloured glasses you might not thing everything stinks so much.

Well, there is the winter...

> And the performance degrades over time. These calculators don't seem to take that into account.

Depends on the calculator. But it's a small effect anyway, about 10% over 25 years. BTW, the panels are expected to last 50 years, I don't know where you got 20 from.

http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/green-apples/

> Upstate NY has access to power from Hydro Quebec

You know who else does? Quebec. And a idled factory economy that looks much like NYs. And a 10% exchange rate in his favour.

There's a reason phinergy chose Quebec for their battery show-and-tell, and I'm surprised they've been so passive attracting similar endeavours. Simply put, anyone with a product where the energy input cost isn't a rounding error should be there. They generate at 1.1 cents/kWh.

"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."

A solar panel is essentially a single-pane skylight, or screen door. Wholesale prices should on on par with them, and you shouldn't expect it to depress much below that. Shingles are unlikely to ever be on par.

> The cost of construction of PV panels is going up

No it's not. Raw material usage is going down continually. Intermediate steps and input chemicals is likewise decreasing, and being replaced by lower cost substitutes. The total material content and input stream in both materials and energy continues to decrease, and shows no sign of stopping.

> When that levels out, the cost of PVs will continue to increase.

Unless any one of the kerfless systems comes into production, at which point material use on the cell side goes down another 25 to 40%.

And yes, I've actually worked in a solar panel factory. I don't think you have done the same or I don't think you'd be making these statements.

"That said, I think the big manufacturers have really missed an opportunity in exactly the opposite direction of that you suggest - I don't give a damn about efficiency or how much space it takes up, I care about price per watt."

Which is all they concentrate on. Panel prices from the factory gate have fallen from $2 to 50 cents/W in the last four years. Efficiency has crept up from 14 to maybe 16 to 17%. They are doing precisely what you ask, and you're complaining?

"Sell me 10-20KW of 5% efficient panels for 25 cents per watt, and you'd have a very happy customer."

You are forgetting that panels aren't the only things in the system. If you care to run the numbers, I think you'll find that you're almost certainly wrong.

For instance, let's say you have enough room for 8 panels, like my new garage.. To be *able* to install the panels, I'll need to run DC wire from the roof to a point near the 240V pony panel (assuming you have one, if not...), put an inverter at that point, add a 30A breaker to the panel and connect the inverter to it, get a building permit, and then put the racking on the roof.

Racking is normally about 25 cents a watt, when measured against a typical 250 watt panel. So for a 2kW system we might expect to pay $500 for that kit. Inverters scale downward very poorly - a 2500W inverter is around 60 cents/W, while a 5000W one is around 40 cents/watt. That's because most of the parts are the same (the case, displays, controller, wiring, etc). An SMA 2500 is about $1500, while a 5k is 2200. The cabling and wiring needs to be done by an electrician and might take 1/2 a day, so let's say $750. The building permit, if you need engineering, is about $750 total. Total install time is about 2 man-days, so let's add $500 flat. Ok with that?

OK, so using 250W panels at 80 cents:

8 x 250 x 80 = $1600
+ $1500 for inverter
+ $500 for racking
+ $750 for permitting etc
+ $750 for wiring
+ $750 for install
= $5400

So that's $2.70 a watt. Ok, now let's do the same with your cheap panel:

8 x 75 x 25 = $150
+ $1500 for inverter
+ $500 for racking
+ $750 for permitting etc
+ $750 for wiring
+ $750 for install
= $2950

But now you only have 600W, so that's $6.60 a Watt. What a deal!

Yes, you can save some on the inverter, yes, you can DIY it and get rid of X and Y and Z. But I absolutely 100% assure you, the numbers end up in the same place every time, for small installs, higher wattage panels are almost *always* the way to go. If you don't believe me DO THE MATH YOURSELF.

> solar is not viable in terms of cost and this is unlikely to change anytime soon

You can do the math yourself:

http://wp.me/py8qF-4i

If you're paying more than 15 cents, PV is at least worth looking at.

> PV panels are also far less efficient than parabolic reflectors.

That is a non-sequitur.

Are you talking about using parabolic reflectors to heat a working fluid? If so, your statement is only true for very well lit, cloudless areas.

Further, in terms of *cost effectiveness* it's definitely *not* true. That's why PV is the fastest growing power source in the world and parabolics aren't.

Finally, you can't mount a parabolic system on your roof (easily anyway!).

Yes, they have their roles, but they are relatively limited.

> Right now a typical installation (complete, by a contractor, not DIY) is $7/watt for residential

I was doing residential installs three years ago for $5/W in Toronto. When I left the industry last year the going price for a 10k system was $26,000, fully installed and spinning the meter. It's even lower than that in Europe.

http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/german-us-pv-price-ppt.pdf

Look for the graph. It's based on 2011 numbers. Note the factory-gate price for panels at the bottom. They fell from 1.80 to 1.35 during a single year from 2010 to 2011. I know that they are down around 50 cents today, and you can easily buy a skid of panels at 80 to 90 cents. So if you just follow that red line three years into the future, you come to today's pricing at around $2/W.

> Most (if not all) solar panels depend on other rare earth materials that may be in short supply tho.

Not even remotely true. A very small subset of panels use some rare earths, and their percentage of the market is constantly falling. Those are, specifically, the CIGS and CdTe designs. The former was supposed to replace silicon by now, but got caught on the wrong side of the investment curve. Now it is a niche player, used where flexibility is required. The later was a major player for a very short period, and represented as much as 45% of the market in the late 2000's, but the main player, FirstSolar, is also a niche player today.

A normal solar panel consists of, approximately by weight:

glass (which includes the cells)
aluminum (frame and back-side cell contacts)
copper (wiring)
plastic (wire insulation, junction box, backsheet)
silver (solder and frontside wiring)
sili*cone* (glue on the frame)
more glue (special clear heat-spreading stuff)

> A bit like Tesla's batteries are depending on Lithium.

There's plenty of lithium for all our cars too. Supply is a problem, however, but that's political, not mechanical. In fact, almost all of what we need is sitting in a salt pan in Bolivia where you can just scoop it up with a bulldozer. But they won't let you.

Also, note that all of these materials, with the exception of the plastic, are HIGHLY recyclable. Panels and batteries can be something like 99% recycled with ease and at low cost.

There is essentially an infinite supply of all of these materials. That is, we could power EVERYTHING on the planet using these panels and still not make a dent in the existing markets for them.

Did you actually READ the article you linked to? It's a lithium battery. Look at the diagram. Sheesh,

There are, however, interesting side-solutions:

http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/phinergys-battery-energy-storage-problem-solved/

"If the actual numbers work out when their quota sales guy arrives? Then you buy their SolarCity system, which you cannot modify or upgrade."

As someone that worked in the industry, not SC, I can't tell you that they do this for VERY good reasons. We found that offering any sort of option simply confused people, and led to drawn discussions that always ended up close to the original array anyway. Customers have all sorts of ideas about hanging panels over their windows or under the eaves and so forth. If someone wants to serve that market, go for it, but there's no money it in, least of all for the customer.

"There are better options, and cells with better efficiency"

Which is why he's buying this company. An average good panel today has cells in the 18 to 20% efficiency range, giving you total areal efficiency around 16% (wires, reflection from the glass, whitespace, etc). These guys make cells in the 22% range. For large arrays this has no real effect, but for small systems the costs are dominated by installation, so if you want the numbers to work out you have to get every watt you can. Given the small and fixed area of your roof, that means using the highest power panels you can find. In spite of any higher costs, this always wins in the end.

That said...

"Silevo claims that its panels have achieved a 22 percent efficiency and are well on their way to achieving 24 percent efficiency."

No, it claims their *cells* have done this. Their web page clearly states their panels are around 18%.

"It suggests that 10 cents per watt is saved for every point of efficiency gained."

That is a vague statement, 10 cents on the panel, or ten cents on the total system? You do get a bit of savings downstream because you're installing less panels, but racking is about20 to 25 cents/W, so improving the panel by 1% might get you a penny or two (maybe), not 10 cents. I am skeptical of this number.

Still, I wish I could buy them. I have a hole on my new garage that's just right for an eight panel array.

Hmmm, edit appears to have disappeared. Forgive me if this shows up twice.

> [[Citation needed]] - "all the time" is not a mathematical statement and therefore cannot be included in your (pseudo) mathematical reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riggatron - was about 50%
http://books.google.ca/books?id=KSA_AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA203 - calls for 80%, gives no reasons (maybe dup)
aries.ucsd.edu/HAPL/MEETINGS/0511.../SheffieldApproachFusion.ppt - 20% first year, 50% after
http://books.google.ca/books?id=5A51AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA139 - "70 to 80% [...] These values cannot be achieved today..."
http://hifweb.lbl.gov/public/Sharp/HIF_documents/Perkins-future%20fusion.pdf - makes fun of IFE predicted cap factors, says ICF would be 80% in order to work but doesn't really argue for that number

> [[Citation needed]] - not to mention that since the system is not under significant pressure,
> the containment building (if actually needed) will be far simpler and far cheaper than that needed by a nuclear power plant.

The magnets are under significant pressure, and represent a serious physical risk. A failure of the blanket releases tritium. To ensure that one doesn't lead to the other getting into the environment, you need a very strong containment vessel and building on the same level of size and strength as a fission version. You *have* seen the ITER containment building, right?

http://fire.pppl.gov/fusion_science_parkins_031006.pdf - breaks it down in detail
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/a-veteran-of-fusion-science-proposes-narrowing-the-field - Hirsch says "it is virtually certain that the regulators will demand a containment building for a commercial tokamak reactor that will likely resemble what is currently required for fission reactors"
http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/7117740 - this is a very old study, but you can get a feel for the buildings as part of the overall system costs. They flatline it at 10% of the overall project cost, but they estimate that to be as low as 35 cents/kWt.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=iuC3IFwk5ZsC&pg=PA342 - no dollar figures, but this shows you why you need a big expensive building

That last one is pretty good overall if you're interested in this stuff. It's based on the UWMAK-1, which was a study carried out by Bechtel and WISC. Using current figures you get CAPEX numbers like $1.8 for the blanket, which you can scale using the second-last ref to suggest building costs on the order of $6/W. If you want to understand why all of this starts adding up, go to the UWMAK home page and look at the image. See the *little person* at the bottom? Now scale that thing out to a complete torus:

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/studies/UWMAK-I

For comparison, wind turbines are currently going in at $1.50 to $2.00, and NG combined-cycle plants around $1 to $1.50.

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf

> but then substitute FUD for actual numbers

Which you could have shown me up by posting some numbers to show why I'm full of FUD. But you didn't. So first, pto, meet kettle. Secondly, now you have some reading to do.