Residential solar is (unfortunately) one of the absolute least efficient ways to generate electricity (in terms of cost/MWh). The average cost of residential solar (US$184/MWh) is even higher than nuclear (US$168/MWh) (Lazard - Levelized Cost of Energy 2021).
By contrast, utility-scale solar is one of the most efficient ways to generate electricity (~US$35/MWh). Utility-scale solar and wind are the best bang-for-your-buck options currently, even without government subsidies.
If we’re going to have any chance of slowing climate change, we have to use resources efficiently. Residential solar is the wrong direction. We have to address our energy need collectively, not individually.
LCOE as of 2020 is $69 USD/MWh in Australia, which is the country the article is referring to.
That might be more expensive than large scale solar, but it’s arguably offset by less of a reliance on transmission infrastructure and, combined with batteries, helps individuals have more resilience in the case of blackouts or other grid issues (which may be more common due to the effects of climate change).
Hmm, that is significantly lower cost which definitely makes residential solar look more attractive compared to nuclear &etc, but it still doesn’t outcompete utility-scale solar or wind. Speaking of which, this source seems completely one-sided as no comparisons are made with any other methods of electricity generation.
If residential solar cost is falling, what about other solar systems?
Does that US$35/MWh include corporate profits and executive salaries, or is it just the cost of the energy generation itself? Because somewhere along the line the price the end user is charged gets inflated high enough that residential solar becomes the cheaper option.
Well, of course there’s going to be overhead costs at the point of delivery, but saving money for individual households is not the point.
The $ amount in this report is representative of the raw materials, manufacturing, logistics, installation and long-term maintenance required by each method. The point is to do a direct comparison between them (hence “levelized”) so that we can judge which is the most effective.
Because material use and manufacturing are included, the $ amount represents environmental impact (at least in part). Based on this report, residential solar is a terrible use of resources. We could put the same resources to better use building more efficient large-scale systems.
So again, we have to solve these problems collectively, not individually.
In this report, everything is reduced to a $ amount so that a direct comparison can be made between methods. The amount is a representation of raw material/manufacturing/logistics/installation/etc, possibly reductive but intended to be all-encompassing. So, we can use that amount to judge where resources can be used most effectively - and the conclusion has to be that residential solar is a misuse of those resources.
The same materials and labor could be put to better use building large-scale systems, which would produce more electricity with less environmental impact from inneficiency.
The concept of self-sufficiency will doom us all. It’s part of the individualist approach to solving climate problems that I was talking about. It’s not even possible anyway.
But those projects are not happening on a scale quick enough to fight climate change so individuals doing what they can is important.
Only because there isn’t enough public will to force the issue. The best thing individuals can do is support politicians and policies in favor of cleaner energy production and environmental protection.
We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.
Residential solar is (unfortunately) one of the absolute least efficient ways to generate electricity (in terms of cost/MWh). The average cost of residential solar (US$184/MWh) is even higher than nuclear (US$168/MWh) (Lazard - Levelized Cost of Energy 2021).
By contrast, utility-scale solar is one of the most efficient ways to generate electricity (~US$35/MWh). Utility-scale solar and wind are the best bang-for-your-buck options currently, even without government subsidies.
If we’re going to have any chance of slowing climate change, we have to use resources efficiently. Residential solar is the wrong direction. We have to address our energy need collectively, not individually.
LCOE as of 2020 is $69 USD/MWh in Australia, which is the country the article is referring to.
That might be more expensive than large scale solar, but it’s arguably offset by less of a reliance on transmission infrastructure and, combined with batteries, helps individuals have more resilience in the case of blackouts or other grid issues (which may be more common due to the effects of climate change).
Hmm, that is significantly lower cost which definitely makes residential solar look more attractive compared to nuclear &etc, but it still doesn’t outcompete utility-scale solar or wind. Speaking of which, this source seems completely one-sided as no comparisons are made with any other methods of electricity generation.
If residential solar cost is falling, what about other solar systems?
Does that US$35/MWh include corporate profits and executive salaries, or is it just the cost of the energy generation itself? Because somewhere along the line the price the end user is charged gets inflated high enough that residential solar becomes the cheaper option.
Well, of course there’s going to be overhead costs at the point of delivery, but saving money for individual households is not the point.
The $ amount in this report is representative of the raw materials, manufacturing, logistics, installation and long-term maintenance required by each method. The point is to do a direct comparison between them (hence “levelized”) so that we can judge which is the most effective.
Because material use and manufacturing are included, the $ amount represents environmental impact (at least in part). Based on this report, residential solar is a terrible use of resources. We could put the same resources to better use building more efficient large-scale systems.
So again, we have to solve these problems collectively, not individually.
But that’s cost, it is better for the environment and that’s the point. It will also provide stability to household bills.
In this report, everything is reduced to a $ amount so that a direct comparison can be made between methods. The amount is a representation of raw material/manufacturing/logistics/installation/etc, possibly reductive but intended to be all-encompassing. So, we can use that amount to judge where resources can be used most effectively - and the conclusion has to be that residential solar is a misuse of those resources.
The same materials and labor could be put to better use building large-scale systems, which would produce more electricity with less environmental impact from inneficiency.
But those projects are not happening on a scale quick enough to fight climate change so individuals doing what they can is important.
There are more aspects also like people having control of their money and being self sufficient.
The concept of self-sufficiency will doom us all. It’s part of the individualist approach to solving climate problems that I was talking about. It’s not even possible anyway.
Only because there isn’t enough public will to force the issue. The best thing individuals can do is support politicians and policies in favor of cleaner energy production and environmental protection.
We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately.
Yeah I’d much rather have it that individuals would get easy access to directly invest into larger scale solar parks or wind turbines near them.