This analysis expands the photovoltaic (PV) life cycle cost (LCC) results presented at ASES 2004. That paper presented the model and concept used to develop PV LCC, and it showed the results of the analysis of over one hundred systems monitored by the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC). FSEC began tracking cost, performance and reliability data for systems installed in Florida in 1998, with data now available through a web-accessible database. For the majority of the 124 systems, installed cost information was collected as part of the state’s PV rebate and PV for schools programs. Results presented previously [1] indicated that over an assumed 20–30 system life time a PV system will have a positive life cycle cost. That is, a negative total return on investment. These results were based on actual cost, performance, maintenance, and reliability data. In the baseline case, average total system costs over the lifetime were 32.4¢/kWh while electricity savings totaled 3.7¢/kWh netting a life cycle cost of 28.7¢/kWh. While based on actual data from over 100 installed systems — some installed for over 6 years — a number of conservative assumptions also drove the analysis, such as the exclusion of the state’s rebate programs (varying from $2 to $5 per DC Watt) which impacted nearly all of the systems in the analysis. Since the first presentation of these results the PV LCC model has been further developed to incorporate additional performance information and expands the sample of systems incorporated. This paper will thus provide further insight into the relative importance of various up-front and on-going costs to the overall lifetime economics of a system. The paper will also address additional sensitivity analysis performed. Particular attention is paid to inverter mean time between failure (MTBF), the impact of incentives, and basic financial assumptions used in the model such as the discount rate and electricity rates. Various scenarios are considered in asking the question of what is necessary for the system LCC to break-even.
Skip Nav Destination
ASME 2005 International Solar Energy Conference
August 6–12, 2005
Orlando, Florida, USA
Conference Sponsors:
- Solar Energy Division
ISBN:
0-7918-4737-3
PROCEEDINGS PAPER
An Alternative Approach to PV System Life Cycle Cost Analysis (PV LCC): Phase II
Chris Larsen,
Chris Larsen
ABB Advanced Power Electronics, Raleigh, NC
Search for other works by this author on:
Jennifer Szaro,
Jennifer Szaro
Florida Solar Energy Center, Cocoa, FL
Search for other works by this author on:
William Wilson,
William Wilson
Florida Solar Energy Center, Cocoa, FL
Search for other works by this author on:
Kevin Lynn
Kevin Lynn
Florida Solar Energy Center, Cocoa, FL
Search for other works by this author on:
Chris Larsen
ABB Advanced Power Electronics, Raleigh, NC
Jennifer Szaro
Florida Solar Energy Center, Cocoa, FL
William Wilson
Florida Solar Energy Center, Cocoa, FL
Kevin Lynn
Florida Solar Energy Center, Cocoa, FL
Paper No:
ISEC2005-76079, pp. 447-452; 6 pages
Published Online:
October 15, 2008
Citation
Larsen, C, Szaro, J, Wilson, W, & Lynn, K. "An Alternative Approach to PV System Life Cycle Cost Analysis (PV LCC): Phase II." Proceedings of the ASME 2005 International Solar Energy Conference. Solar Energy. Orlando, Florida, USA. August 6–12, 2005. pp. 447-452. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/ISEC2005-76079
Download citation file:
6
Views
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Articles
A Feasibility Study of the Use of Solar Photovoltaic Energy in Saudi Arabia: A Case Study Assessment in a Factory in Zulfi City
J. Sol. Energy Eng (August,2018)
Design for Lifecycle Cost Using Time-Dependent Reliability
J. Mech. Des (September,2010)
Examining the Influence of Solar Panel Installers on Design Innovation and Market Penetration
J. Mech. Des (April,2019)
Related Chapters
DYNAMIC GEOHAZARD MANAGEMENT IN CHALLENGING ENVIRONMENT
Pipeline Integrity Management Under Geohazard Conditions (PIMG)
Development and Structure of the German Common Cause Failure Data Pool (PSAM-0020)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)
Reasons for Lay-Up
Consensus for the Lay-up of Boilers, Turbines, Turbine Condensors, and Auxiliary Equipment (CRTD-66)