It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
In 2011, residential solar system installers paid a little over $1.80 per watt for solar panels in both Germany and the United States. In Germany, installers added $1.20 to the cost of the solar panel to complete an installation. But in the U.S., they tacked on $4.36 per watt, more than three times as much.
German installers spend seven cents per watt of installed capacity on things like marketing and designing systems for specific customers. U.S. installers spend 10 times that amount.
Costs for permitting, connecting the systems to the grid, and having them inspected are also far higher in the United States. The Germans spent only three cents a watt on these things, while U.S. installers spend 20 cents, in part because of larger amounts of paperwork and the fact that U.S. installers have to pay permitting fees.
U.S. installers also spend more on labor during actual installation (in some cases, higher winds force more expensive installations). They pay more in sales tax (German installers are exempt). And they pay more for overhead (which is closely related to economies of scale).
The U.S. Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative is funding projects aimed at reducing the non-hardware costs of an installed solar system. One part of SunShot is a $12 million program is aimed at cutting red tape. Earlier this year it announced a $10 million prize to be given to companies that can lower total non-hardware costs of an installation to below $1 per watt. And this month it announced $21 million for the development of a “plug-and-play” system for solar panels that could reduce installation costs (see “Redesigning Solar Power”).
The Renewable Energy Act (EEG) is the biggest cost factor in Germany's energy reorientation. The rules for the subsidies are quite simple: Operators of wind farms, solar arrays and biogas plants get a guaranteed, fixed feed-in price for all electricity they generate over a period of many years. Power companies are required to purchase this energy, but at a price much higher than what they get for it on the market. The difference is paid for by consumers through their electricity bill.
The EEG both guarantees big profits to anyone who invests in renewable-energy plants and makes the construction of such plants attractive. More than a fifth of the electricity produced in Germany already comes from renewable sources. Not surprisingly, this has led 65 countries worldwide to try to copy the German model.
Winners and Losers of the Nuclear Phase-Out
There's only one problem with the EEG: It's been too effective. Green electricity plants aren't being built gradually but, rather, as quickly as possible. Consequently, the costs are rising at a faster-than-expected rate. The average household in Germany currently pays €144 ($181) a year for these subsidies, and that figure looks set to rise to more than €200 in 2013. In all, it has been estimated that the operators of green power plants have been promised more than €200 million.
Originally posted by deadeyedick
The biggest problem that i see is converting the dc power from the panels to ac power that most appliances require involves much loss of electricity and could be avoided all together by making dc appliances more common.
During the initial years of electricity distribution, Edison's direct current was the standard for the United States, and Edison did not want to lose all his patent royalties. Direct current worked well with incandescent lamps, which were the principal load of the day, and with motors. Direct-current systems could be directly used with storage batteries, providing valuable load-leveling and backup power during interruptions of generator operation. Direct-current generators could be easily paralleled, allowing economical operation by using smaller machines during periods of light load and improving reliability. At the introduction of Edison's system, no practical AC motor was available. Edison had invented a meter to allow customers to be billed for energy proportional to consumption, but this meter worked only with direct current. The transformation efficiency of the early open-core bipolar transformers was very low. Early AC systems used series-connected power distribution systems, with the inherent flaw that turning off a single lamp (or the disconnection of other electric device) affected the voltage supplied to all others on the same circuit. The direct current system did not have these drawbacks as of 1882, giving it significant advantages.
Originally posted by DarkSecret
[...] DC solar systems are much more dangerous/deadly if they aren't set up properly than regular AC - so the workers they use have to actually be trained - not the usual illegals that build our houses.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Maxmars
USA is much more cautious how it does these things. It's not rushing. I think Germany needs to be more careful. I think overall quality and freedom in the german energy industry will suffer.
You see greed in the US, I see irresponsible behavior by the german industry. I also think they're taking a big kick in the ***** just to say that they have X amount of solar capacity.
edit on 26-12-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)