tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413935813892441553.post4050121832690725088..comments2024-03-28T22:12:21.695-05:00Comments on real economics: Solar has definitely arrivedJonathan Larsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05217670446743983955noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413935813892441553.post-61955363111933924322013-05-16T11:07:41.056-05:002013-05-16T11:07:41.056-05:00You paper is probably right. The delay between a ...You paper is probably right. The delay between a big burst in learning and a price drop in production should be about ten years if historical trends hold. Moreover, the cost of solar cells these days has a lot to do with Chinese "dumping" which is not sustainable.<br /><br />I still think it is quite wonderful that we can even have a conversation about cost parity that isn't completely insane. And while Bloomberg may be jumping the gun here, my guess is that we will see most of these assumptions come true in the next decade.<br /><br />Good luck with your paper!Jonathan Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05217670446743983955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413935813892441553.post-5113633433817129482013-05-16T10:53:21.218-05:002013-05-16T10:53:21.218-05:00Hmm... I may have some bad news on this:
"Th...Hmm... I may have some bad news on this:<br /><br />"The biggest surprise in recent years has been the speed at which the price of solar panels has reduced, resulting in cost parity being achieved in certain areas much more quickly than was ever expected; the key point about the future is that these fast ‘learning rates’ are likely to continue, meaning that the technology just keeps getting cheaper."<br /><br />I'm actually publishing a paper that, among other things, looks at the learning rate of multicrystalline solar PV over time. The calculated learning rate was very high from late-90s to late-00s, but it's been plummeting since then. The most recent years (2010-11) had learning rates equivalent to those found back in 1994 and 1995. It might go back up, but I think the quote above is quite optimistic. <br /><br />Additionally, my LCOE calculations have solar prices about 5 - 7 cents/kWh higher in 2012 than Bloomberg's. This is going off a complete historical cost/production dataset running back to 1976 and accounting for a rough estimate of minimum possible cost due to material and thermodynamic limits. Its likely that Bloomberg followed the common practice of economists and used $0.00 per Watt of capacity as their minimum cost level--mine is $0.30 per Watt, since you can't make a panel for free.<br /><br />I hope I'm wrong though! (And this all reminds me, I really need to work on my next draft!)RJMeyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148496665487999948noreply@blogger.com