But will the result of their demand a) push more development of solar technologies that will trickle down to the consumer over time, or b) soak up all remaining supply of PV panels, and make home PV unaffordable?
I'd rather PV supplies were going to people's homes, rather than to making sure that Walmart is running.
Good on them for such a drastic mantra of 100% renewable power - just thinking how about it's effects on someone like me considering solar for my home at the end of next year.
I'm optimistic about this. It seems to me the big-box retail industry is well suited, simply based on land reqd, economies of scale, and steady sustained daytime elec demands.
If the economics work out and Wal-Mart jumps in headfirst, they are going to get massive amounts of good publicity from this. And it will be from a compltely different demographic than google. Like I said, I'm optimistic.
balogh brings up some good points about photovoltaic economics. Will a large-scale Wal-Mart acquisition drive up or drive down prices? Or will Wal-Mart set the price like they do with their other suppliers?
Personally, I was wondering what makes PV panels so expensive in the first place. Are the constituent components that expensive to produce? Is the production of said components (conventional) energy intensive, which has been identified as one of the drawbacks of the hydrogen economy? There is some information regarding EROI (energy return on investment) on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pho...ki/
Photovoltaic
Interestingly, there is no real discussion on the economic return on investment. Since the pocketbook tends to be the limiting factor for businesses and individuals alike, why is this avoided? We have seen similar stories in which the economic payback is 30 to 40 years, which ironically is also the expected lifespan of the equipment. I would submit that Wal-Mart could take a loss or a break even on this project if it provided good green advertising to grow their retail market further, but that would be pure speculation (and a bit conspiratorial) on my part.
Lastly, I did stumble on a PV producer that claims to have developed a way to lower production costs (by how much, I don’t know):
http://www.nanosolar.com/
Stay cautious…
At this point (and I'm no economist), I believe the high cost of PV stems from production on a relatively small scale. I tend to think that Wal-Mart's entry into the market (if it happens) would drive prices down (eventually), as it would force a scaling up of production. The kicker right now, though, is a shortage of silicon (which should improve in 2008, I hear).
I'll see what I can dig up on ROI -- off the top of my head, I know that 30-40 years isn't the case. Much of that depends on where you live because of tax incentives, net metering, etc. One of the coolest developments out there, in my opinion, is the "power purchase agreement" model. You wouldn't buy the system; rather, you'd enter into a long-term agreement with a company to purchase power from a system they install on your roof, and continue to own. Generally, you get either a flat rate, or a rate tied to conventional rates -- from what I've seen, they're always lower than traditional power. This is happening on the commercial level; there's only one player that I'm aware of on the residential level, and their not yet producing their solar systems.
There have also been ideas for collectors made from plastic. They're not very efficient, but they're much, much cheaper to produce. There's also the holographic solar module, which isn't being produced commercially yet, but likely will be soon.
Just out of curiosity, what is covered in the flat rate for the "power purchase agreement model"? Are all of the hardware, installation, maintenance and repair costs included in the fee? On the commercial model should excess power result on low-demand days and get put into the grid, does the owner or the leasor reap the avoided costs from the public utility? Avoided costs would not be enough for a home user to worry about, but a large warehouse or store that's closed on weekends and holidays could make a little income off such a system.
Anyway, maybe some of the newer developments will prove more cost effective than the old standards.
In the plans I've seen, the owner of the system takes responsibility for "hardware, installation, maintenance and repair costs" -- the building/home owner is only responsible for buying the power for which s/he has contracted. As far as who benefits from net metering regulations (which you describe), the only model I have right now is Citizenre, the one company (of which I'm aware) moving into the residential market. In that case, they get the benefit of the excess power sold back (in fact, they only plan to offer the service in states with net metering -- all but 11 -- Missouri being one of the 11). I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case with most of these... SunEdison and 3 Phases Energy are both doing this in the commercial market.
It's great to see that Wal*Mart is continuing to expand its environmental initiatives, but don't mistake their greenwashing for honest concern. Their much publicized environmental programs are intended to obscure their actual business practices: specifically, labor violations at home and sweatshop produced products made abroad. And don't forget the fact that little or no concern is given to the environmental devastation wrought by manufacturing processes in these foreign countries--which lack proper oversight or regulation. It takes a lot of toxins and waste and water to fill Wal*Mart's big boxes with plastic gewgaws and chemical laden clothing. The only sustainability that Wal*Mart really cares about is the sustainability of their bottom line.
Jeff, I'm a Missouri resident too, on the KC side. I'm curious how does a state start w/ net metering? Is it a state-wide legislature thing? Or a state agency?
It's legislative. One of the biggest proponents for a real net metering law in Missouri is the Rev. Larry Rice.
I'm been watching Wal-Mart's greening with both interest and trepidation. I can't help but wonder, since Wal-Mart basically requires suppliers to meet their pricing demands or suffer being dropped all together (per this Frontline episode), what that approach will have on their "greener" suppliers. If current suppliers are forced overseas etc. just to be able to compete for Wal-Mart's business, what does that mean for suppliers whose livelihood depends on green and/or sustainable technology? Will shortcuts be taken to remain competitive?
I hate to be a naysayer, but I can't help my skepticism.
From what I've read, Wal-Mart's control over suppliers should work in favor of bringing greener products to market...
I think the skepticism that you and Satya express is warranted -- they haven't been a corporate angel by any means (and I still don't shop there). At the same time, I think we've got to encourage these moves, because if they stick to their goals and commitments, the ripple effect will be enormous. I'm of the mind that we've demanded change, and they're moving towards it -- we've got to praise that.
As far as shortcuts, etc., I guess we've just got to wait and see. If the products don't meet the necessary standards, or do more harm than good, we'll definitely have to call them on it -- loudly. But, right now, I like what I'm seeing...
Nice blog. My best wishes are with you so that you can fulfill your long term objectives.
Best Wishes,
www.tradeweblinks.com
A few observations:
SunEdison is a relatively new player in the PV industry (finance/install model) offering a solution that should be irresistible to corp. beancounters.
They offer to "simplfy the process" with an agreement that enables the customer to buy kW at current or below market pricing for (Power Purchase Agreement) the contract term. (20-30 yrs). BP Solar warranties its panels for 10/20 years.
The customer does not have to outlay any capital. (With deregulation, here in MD, energy costs (especially for business) have skyrocketed.)
Tom
Commenting by HaloScan
