I wanted to think out loud a bit and open discussion based on the current cost of becoming sustainable versus doing nothing. Although I dream of a day when codes mandate that just 10% of a building’s power is supplied by that building, I wonder what the cost to the average homeowner would be.
I just got a newsletter from Northern Tool and in it they had a sale on PV panels. The array cost $380 and made a max 60 watts/hr (batteries not included). Realizing this is not a “real” pv solution for a home I still thought it would be interesting to look at some figures and comparison. {note: it is somewhat difficult to get a price on a PV system without going through a lengthy quote process}
http://tinyurl.com/60W-PV-Panels
So I figure $380/60W is about $6.33 per watt the first hour and $0.3796 after a thousand watts (1kW) is made, the price would decrease by the hour. Comparatively, my electric bill calculates out as $0.1134/kW after all the taxes and BS tacked on and the price will go up and down monthly.
Also, since 60W equals .06kW then that’s a savings of $0.006804/hr or almost $60 per year. If electric prices were stagnant then it would take a minimum of 6.33 years to come out equal on one 60W/hr array.
My average home usage is about 558kW/month so 10% would be 55.8kW/month or 77.5W/hr. This would mean I would need to buy either 2 of the Northern arrays, creating almost twice the power required by my code idea at a cost of $760 or a theoretical 1.3 systems at a cost of $491.
To look at it another way, my house is roughly 1500 sf. so that $491 would add $0.32 to the SF cost of building a home.
That seems fair, right? Assuming my math is correct. I think that especially seems fair considering my wife and I just got a stimulus check not long ago from Bush for $1200. Now, had the government instead simply bought PV systems in bulk (thus getting a much better price than the average consumer) and mailed a couple or few to each household…..
just some thoughts.
DC
Replies
Not sure if you've seen this, but BP has a pretty decent calculator on their website.
http://bpsolar.cleanpowerestimator.com/bpsolar.htm
I've been wanting to pull the trigger on one of these systems for years. With prices plunging and with $$ assistance still in place, now is a pretty good time.
I've got 12 square of south facing roofline.
What's stopping me is I have two mature oak trees on the south side of my house. Great shade in the summer, and just too damn pretty to cut down. When I cleared my lot and sited my house, those two trees played a role in siting my house.
I just can't bear to drop them. Save the environment, kill two trees!
I have never seen BP's calculator but have seen calculators at green building websites. No real reason why but I don't trust them. Like a home loan calculator...? That's why I based all my numbers on an actual product ad and my own actual power usage numbers. Another open discussion in my post concerns further governmental action to control the minimum amount of sustainable power in a building. I have long argued for a minimum code set at 10% but in looking at the numbers that might be too easy.DC
I ran numbers for my own proposed installation then used the BP site as a backup. I thought you might be interested in doing the same. Whenever I go on that site I have to keep fiddling with it, I have java enabled, etc, but it sometimes doesn't take my inputs on the first try; my energy cost, my usage, etc.Local (state) funding is drying up here in CT. When the money disappears, the costs to the homeowner go up. When the costs to the homeowner go up, being green ain't as trendy.I don't see my elected officials passing anything that drives up the cost of anything to the consumer. Except the national debt.I write/call my local/state/national boys on a regular basis, enough to get past the initial canned replies. Joe Lieberman even calls me "Mongo". Substance-wise, the conversations are pretty pathetic. They typically won't take a position, won't commit. They're neither leaders nor followers. They're simply siphons on our wallets.You best bet for leveraging your ideas might be by going through your own energy supplier. They're trying to do everything they can to not have to build new generation stations. With the drop in panel prices, and with federal and state rebates, carbon credits, etc, photovoltaic prices are looking pretty accessible. No batteries or storage, just an inverter with net metering. 6kW systems for $9k materials out of pocket (after rebates) and maybe a 6-7 year payback. Could be worse.If I still lived in Tucson I'd be there already. Here in CT, since they deregulated electricity a few years ago my bill has almost tripled.
Mongo,I agree that the appeal gets lost (at least among us common poor folk) when governmental subsidies get thinner. But I don't agree that elected officials hesitate so much when it comes to driving up costs for the general population. When it comes to highly publicized and politicized matters, yes. Gas prices and taxes always seem to high to the public and make for great media stories. But not many people openly revolt when it comes to requiring higher insulation standards, better vehicle emissions, better coal plant emissions, and infrastructure upgrades. A $0.32/SF raise in construction cost doesn't seem unfair. Especially when the client/homeowner sees they are getting something back for their investment. Now if the government added costs such as extra ADA compliance or wasted energy tax, people would be outraged (IMO).I am also weary about asking the energy companies to make any changes. As far as I can see, they would be happy to do nothing and make more money. I never heard of them actually wanting or not to build more plant or give assistance to build sustainably. I could be wrong.Where are you finding 6000W/hr systems for $9000? BP? According to my calculations, I would still need 3 of those systems to fully power my home...that's $27000. If going with my recommended 10% that's still $2700 or roughly $1.80/SF. Not horrible but maybe enough to outrage a homeowner.DCDC
I had priced out a couple of 5 and 6kW systems earlier this year. I could get a 6kW system for about $35k. No, not through BP. And that's materials, I'd have to do the installation.I'd get a tax credit of about $4k and a rebate of about $22k. Eventual cost to me would have been around $9k for materials only.
Also, since 60W equals .06kW then that's a savings of $0.006804/hr or almost $60 per year. If electric prices were stagnant then it would take a minimum of 6.33 years to come out equal on one 60W/hr array.
But what will you run with these watts? Does it include the cost of an inverter and loss, or batteries? If you stay low voltage (12v) then if camper trailer lighting is used, it's pretty costly.
Several years back, I bought two Siemens' PV panels to scrap out each one's thirty-six 5x5" older silicone solar cells. I haven't tried to find out what each is rated, but I might be able to make them work again. I paid $22.50 each. Even at that price, I'm having a hard time trying to see how they could be used. Where and how they could offset much utility KWH at .12 cents, I couldn't get wire, inverters, deepcycle batteries, and the nuts and bolts, without laying out $200-$1,200 more.
Bill
Added: Texas said their "Net Metering policy didn't fit the Federal level"....so a few months ago, They KILLED IT... no backwards spinning electric in Texas. What a bunch of MORONS!! Now, the electric companies can tell you what they will pay for your KWHours, in addition to liability insurance, charges for record keeping, and the selling you their buy-back meter.... I do understand the need for clean power going back into the grid, and the need for safety and quality, but the rest of the blocking moves of the majority of electric companies just make me puke....
Edited 1/30/2009 12:34 pm ET by BilljustBill
Bill,The setup for sale at Northern seems to include an inverter. I assume that means it would be good for running at least a light bulb or two direct and maybe more if added to with a battery storage system. I don't propose selling back to the power company through any normal household, but if it were your weekend cottage then I suppose why not try to sell back unused electricity. Also since the actual price of power from the electric co. is not stagnant but generally on the rise, that would make the system pay for itself at a faster rate. Note: I currently don't have plans to install a PV system, I just wanted to look at some calculations with some peers and maybe get a little more intelligent in the process. Eventually I would like to know and be able to pass along information regarding the cost effectiveness of installing PV as well as other sustainable systems. Who is it really right for at this point in time? DC
Note: I currently don't have plans to install a PV system, I just wanted to look at some calculations with some peers and maybe get a little more intelligent in the process.
Hello DC,
I understand where you are coming from. What you are trying to learn, share, and maybe one day, put the info to work is where everyone of us starts.
I just get frustrated at seeing how levels of state government can sometimes hog-up the road with clutter that slows what may be a way for a homeowner like me to keep control of expenses and stay in my home with the possibility of earning some money that's my money and not taxed....Spinning the electric meter backwards would do just that, or dumping all or some the electricity generated into hot water would help daily and monthly.
I'm retired, so making money by saving money is a good thing. I just get the feeling that our economy is slowing down so much, that what you've got at home may be all you've got to work with... Little money to buy things, shortages of things and repair parts, and the high prices for the things you can find make a big difference in your personal world and the world around you. In an economy that's based on "Services" rather than "Goods", when there's little money to give toward building or finishing construction projects, a lot of people are going to either do it themselves, screw-it-up themselves, or mostly do without...
Fighting over the steering wheel while going down the road is dangerous no matter what speed, but that's what I see the Senators, Repersentives, the special interest groups, and CEO's with bonus money from some big companies are doing with our country... Nobody wins, some may die (peanut butter), and when it crashes everybody is standing around looking at the wreck and blaming each other.
Solar PV seems like a solid fix to help the average homeowner.
Bill
Bill,"What you are trying to learn, share, and maybe one day, put the info to work is where everyone of us starts"This primarily what I am try to get across to myself and others. We are collectively trying to learn how to be a more sustainable society. Some aspects are a struggle. Those aspects that are difficult to change habitually and those that are technically too advanced are not in societies true interest. Most (myself included) only recycle because they pick it up at the end of the driveway. Energystar appliances are the norm now and make the choice easy. But PV technology is thus far technically beyond the scope of common knowledge. If I were in charge, construction would be a college accredited profession and sustainability would be part of the learning process. If PV (or other energy systems) were to be mandated on every building, the technological knowhow would be nearly as common as installing a new light circuit or (hopefully) even as easy as plugging in a new refrigerator. Imagine running to Homedepot and buying a PV system that just plugs in. Replace a 6kWh system with a 25kWh system in less than a weekend. It is also bugging me that many examples of PV usage don't diverge the necessary information...cost to be forward. FHB, TOH, etc. like to show fancy systems in use but rarely tell the cost to do so. As a professional remodeler and designer, I can look at pretty houses and accurately guess the cost for a kitchen remod. The average homeowner cannot. I hate to think of the misconceptions derived by the common homeowner as to the cost of a PV system. I digress a bit as some of my other pet peeves come out.Do my calculations seem correct? Is PV possible for the average (fairly poor) homeowner? Would governmental intervention make it so?DC
If PV (or other energy systems) were to be mandated on every building, the technological know how would be nearly as common as installing a new light circuit or (hopefully) even as easy as plugging in a new refrigerator.
High technology has to start up high where Research, Development, and Costs can be tested and paid for by governmental programs like NASA.... Fewer problems with new ideas mean things trickle down to civilian business and buyers and design concepts like "Plug and Play" can make it easier. Heck, isn't through those kinds of programs where we got America's drink: "Tang", and now roof solar panels?
Is PV possible for the average (fairly poor) homeowner?
If it's cheap enough and it makes a difference in the cost and/or quality of daily lives, the ability to use PV's is a jump they could make. In the 1920's, Wincharger made a 6v wind generator so the rural poor could have more than coal-oil lamps or carbide gas lighting and for sure, their nightly newcasts and entertaining radio programs. Then, new fangled electronic companies like "Zenith", and mailorder catalogues like "Montgomery Wards" sold those big cabinet 6v battery powered radios along with their name boldly stamped on the tail of Wincharger's design... So, yes I think poor could make the technology jump.
We are collectively trying to learn how to be a more sustainable society.
We is a word that works with all present have something to give to a common cause... but it still comes down to ONE to do it when all things are ready. I like this quote that oddly comes from the comedian, Lilly Tomlin:
"We're in this together, all by ourselves."
Keep'er going,
Bill
Bill,Very interesting to hear about the Wincharger system and such, that does give me quite a bit of hope. It sounds like all that is necessary is for some company to copy an existing design and start producing some cheaper versions. Getting through the patent laws will be their most difficult task, I have read before that BP is the worlds largest patent holder of solar technology. Go figure.As for your take on the "trickle down theory"...aren't we well past that point. That's been part of my gripe and curiosity; why after all this time is the price so high? Why is solar tech still out of reach to so many Americans?Look at it like this: the first true "computer" resembling what we now know as a computer was invented in 1944 (for the military of course). Thirty years later, the computer started showing up in homes. Twenty years after that, a high majority of homes have computers and they are common knowledge to use and easier than a refrigerator to change out.On the other hand; the first solar cell was made in 1883...sixty years before the computer!!! In the late fifties, the US government took up using them in space (for the military of course). In the seventies, they were beginning to show up on homes. Then, nothing. They began to show up less for the next twenty years. Now its as if we are starting all over in 1978. Same course as the electric car (invented in 1835)...a new and better version built every 10yrs...close to perfected in 1992 by GM...then everyone quit trying. Now 2009 and we are starting over from 1992. I realize just as well as you do why this is and I am just as angry. But what can we do as Americans...consumers...homeowners...poor people...carpenters?DC (still trying to learn a bit)
If PV (or other energy systems) were to be mandated on every building, the technological knowhow would be nearly as common as installing a new light circuit or (hopefully) even as easy as plugging in a new refrigerator.
You're kidding, right?
How long have shingles and flashing techniqes been "common knowledge"? Heck, around here, 90% of the ROOFERS don't know how to install an FG shingle roof correctly.
I'd hate to see the results of "common knowledge" when adding PV penetrations to the roof.A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Your first mistake is: The government NEVER EVER even tries to get a good price. They are happier paying 10x more than blow-out retail. THEY are our worst enemy.
Pelipeth,Not sure that is true anymore. I know a machine shop owner who is just getting into bidding defense projects in the past year. According to him, the defense bids have caps that are sometimes below what he would charge a walk-in customer or automotive company. I am hoping that with the new administration, that becomes more true and in more sectors of government.DC
Let's all pray for that, but look back, and not very far and see what they agreed to pay for drugs. Plus $400 toilet seats etc. Whenever there is gov. money involved WATCHOUT. And cost overruns are seemingly expected, into the millions and sometimes billions. I'm a libertarian at heart and the gov. scares me.
A couple of things to add (or subtract):
-What is the "year-round" output?
-What are the installation costs for the avg homeowner?
-What is the life span of the PV's (replacement)?
-What is the extra maintenance/repair of the roofing going to cost the avg homeowner that can't/won't get on the roof and do effective water management?
A La Carte Government funding... the real democracy.
Hi all,
A few things I'd like to add to this discussion:
First, no such thing as W/hr. It's either W (watts, a measure of POWER, the rate at which energy is transferred), or Wh or kWh (watt-hours, kilowatt hours, a finite amount of ENERGY). Not trying to nitpick, but...okay, yeah I'm nitpicking. Moving right along...
Second, if you don't trust the website calculators, do it yourself:
1. go to http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg and figure out your annual solar radiation - multiply the value from the map by 365 to get your total solar kWh per square meter (yeah sorry) per year. Divide this by 10.76 to get kWh per square foot.
2. take a guess as what size array you want (in square feet)
3. multiply your numbers from step 1 and 2, then also multiply by 0.1 (the typical efficiency of a PV system converting solar radiation to 120 VAC).
4. the answer is how many kilowatt hours per year you could expect from that system. multiply that number by your cost of electricity, that's how much you can save per year, assuming you have a grid-tie system. Battery systems are less efficient, and if you're going for sustainable, how sustainable is 500 pounds of a lead-acid batteries leaking away in your basement?
It ain't as fancy as the websites or what a solar installer might figure, but it's close enough to get you started, to see if you want to go into more detail.
There is a serious mistake in your calculations.
The sun does not shine 24x7.
And without expensive tracking system the units will only be fully illuminated sun for a fraction of the day.
And I don't know where you are located by some parts of the country number of hours where the sun is obscured by clouds.
Off the top of my head maybe 5 to 6 times more panels.
And unless you can generate that power when it is needed during the peak usage period (3 to 8 pm) then it is not helping anyhting.
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
BillHartmann,24 hrs of daylight...I caught that myself late last night while thinking about it. So that, along with reduced efficiency (are they really only 10% efficient?), and lessened output depending on weather. Weather in Michigan is about THE WORST you can get for solar input. On the other hand, I did help build a solar house for the University of Michigan and learned a little in doing so. The design was championed by my friend and professor "Moji" who figured out that to take advantage of the seasonal lighting it is necessary to curve the array vertically. By doing so, at least one array is always at peak efficiency. Matching the angle and the azimuth are of the utmost importance in Michigans climate. Also, some self sustainable friends in the UP (Michigan's other country) designed a system that was mounted on a post and could be manually pivoted and rotated to match the season. A well executed idea on the cheap. DC
I didn't read the whole thread, so I may have missed something. But I think you left an awful lot out of your calcs.For instance - You only used the $380 selling price of the thing in your figuresd. There would obviously be shipping costs. And there would be costs to install it and tie it into your house wiring. If you needed an inverter, batteries, or a new meter, the total cost could concievably double or triple. With roughly double or triple up front cost, your 6.33 year payback time could be 12 to 20 years.I'm all for solar energy. But I don't see it as being anywhere near viable yet.
If you only knew the power of the Dark Side. [Darth Vader]
Bosshog,You're absolutely right! How in the heck do you wire it into your home electrical? Is there some sort of magical component? What is the "quick and dirty" instruction for installation?The system did claim to come with a 200 volt inverter. Don't ask me why it said volts. This is exactly why I wanted to start this thread. In both of my direct experiences with PV the houses were off the grid...that seems to make it a lot simpler. I totally forgot about the difficulties that would be added by pairing it with a common electrical system.Enlighten me (don't forget to ballpark some costs).DC
Ballpark some costs ???Heck, I'm not even sure I can get in the same TOWN as the ballpark. (-:Seriously - That's completely over my head. I was just thinking about that stuff as I was reading your post.
Al Gore is the kind of fellow who follows you into a revolving door and comes out in front -- while picking your pockets in the process. [Tony Blankley]
In jersey the average solar time is like 4.5 hours per day average and we still eliminate electric bills
Michigan has enough sun given state incentives
SBG,"In jersey the average solar time is like 4.5 hours per day average and we still eliminate electric bills...Michigan has enough sun given state incentives"You left that a little open ended, didn't you?
What panels of what size are you using?
What is your storage system like?
How much does it cost?
When you say you "eliminate electric bills" do you mean you provide all necessary power to a home via solar energy?
My house is 1500 sf and uses about 18kWh per day, I am in the middle of the state and well below the 45th parallel, most days here are overcast....what options am I looking at? How do the up front costs compare to what the state will pitch in/not charge me compared to how long it would take to make back my initial investment (thus actually making it worthwhile to do)?These are all questions I have been trying to raise and get answered here. With a name like "Solar Builders Group" I imagine you may have an upper-hand knowledge of the necessary equipment, the cost of that equipment, the cost for the labor to install said equipment, methods of optimal performance, and advice on how to get the maximum governmental or electric co. assistance.....am I correct?If so, then fill us in.DC
Dreamcatcher, I've mentioned it earlier in the thread, and I know it's not the end-all to your questions, but have you gone on the BP website?http://bpsolar.cleanpowerestimator.com/bpsolar.htmYou enter your zip code. You enter the size of your proposed installation. You enter the estimated cost per watt of your system. You enter the elevation or pitch of the panels, the exposure (south, southwest).Enter your current monthly electric bill and how much you think your bill will increase each year.Press the magic button.It'll reference state and federal rebates based on your zip code and give you all sorts of information broken down into however you want to break it down. Annual, monthly, panel generation per month, system payback, yadda yadda.
There are already plenty of government energy subsidies — some obvious and some not so obvious. Many of these subsidies benefit oil companies and nuclear power producers.
I think there's nothing wrong with government regulations and incentives to encourage energy efficiency and the transition to renewable energy sources. (I'd also like to see the subsidies to oil companies and nuclear power producers fade away.) PV incentives are one tool to help make the transition to renewable energy.
What bothers me (a little) is that most government programs ignore the low-hanging fruit — for example, air sealing existing houses to reduce their energy consumption. That's an example of work that could be subsidized by the government (taxpayers) that would have a much quicker payback (and a much greater benefit to society) than PV subsidies.
I've posted this before. http://www.ncgreenpower.org/More folks here have been installing pv with no intention of using it, directly. Everything goes into the grid... no "messy" battery storage.http://www.tvwsolar.com
I went down to the lobby
To make a small call out.
A pretty dancing girl was there,
And she began to shout,
"Go on back to see the gypsy.
He can move you from the rear,
Drive you from your fear,
Bring you through the mirror.
He did it in Las Vegas,
And he can do it here."
"What bothers me (a little) is that most government programs ignore the low-hanging fruit — for example, air sealing existing houses to reduce their energy consumption. That's an example of work that could be subsidized by the government (taxpayers) that would have a much quicker payback (and a much greater benefit to society) than PV subsidies."Actually there are a lot of weatherization programs.But usually run by local or state governments, or utilities..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Bill,
I'm well aware of existing the federal Weatherization Assistance Program for low-income families, and I think it's great. It's an example of an appropriate program. In contrast, PV incentive programs most benefit middle-class and upper-class Americans — and result in a much lower return on investment. The example proves my point: investments in weatherization make much more sense than investments in PV. Fortunately, the Obama administration appears ready to vastly increase government weatherization programs.
"What bothers me (a little) is that most government programs ignore the low-hanging fruit — for example, air sealing existing houses to reduce their energy consumption. That's an example of work that could be subsidized by the government (taxpayers) that would have a much quicker payback (and a much greater benefit to society) than PV subsidies."I look at it as investment in the future. While conservation is important and has more immediate payback the investment in these alternative technologies has spin-off potential. I think of investment in military technology as an example. The internet is possible in large part because the department of defense played a large role in its precursor the Arapanet. GPS is part of the GNSS also developed by the department of Defense.
I think developing the technology for PV's could be bolstered by federal assistance and the payback substantial if research could unlock the secrets to making the technology more accesible and cost effective for the homeowner.
I had a system sized and quoted by three installers. They all claimed similar amounts of "payback" for my "investment". In fact, the quotes of roughly $37k after rebates for a ground mounted 6kW system could not compete with money invested in a good bond or CD. The interest at 4% would pay my electric bill and I'd still have the principle after 25 years, the claimed life of the solar cells. Hopefully, new technology will make them more efficient and longer lasting where it becomes economically feasible for an "investor". Dave
I doubt you are doing the math correctly. What state are you in ?
"I doubt you are doing the math correctly."It's pretty easy to check. He was quoted 37k. At 4% he would make $1480 annually. That gives him $123 for his electric bill each month. So while there are valid reasons to install solar, at its present cost there is not a realistic payback period for it.
let me say this again. IN STATES WITH GOOD INCENTIVES SOLAR MAKES $$$
why I think the math is wrong
Have you considered that utility rates rise every year. that 123 dollar bill will be like 250 in 15 years even with conservative utility increases?
there is a 30% federal tax cred on what you pay (even if you cant take the credit, the financier can)
so the 37000 is like 26000
26000 on a 30year loan is like 139 a month at 5%. in jersey a 6kw will basically eliminate a 145 a month(we pay like .14kw) AT TODAYS RATES. If you think utility costs are ever going to go down I got a bridge for u to buy
The panels have a 25 year Warranty. I think in most cases they will last in excess of 30 years. (there will be future costs but minor)
If anybody lives in a state with incentives, the payback is like 6-8 years PERIOD. That means you can finance over like 15 years and save money from DAY 1.
you can argue that incentives arent fair I say 1 so what if you get them you make money maybe they are being slightly supported but so is dumping nuke waste (or did you think they do that at "market prices")
in NJ 6kw = 48 grand, they will pay 10,500 upon completion= 37,500
someone gets a 30% fed tax cred (11250) = 26250
you take a 15 year loan you are paying like 220 a month.
you generate 145 a month in electricity, and 145 a month in green tags(like carbon credits you get them for 15 YEARS but their value goes down over time)
YOU PAY 220 A MONTH, YOU GET 290 A MONTH
now these # arent exact and each persons ROI is different depending on things like financing but that is the simplified math. Did I mention utilities rise like 6% a year at least?
you can email me at [email protected] for more info
"you generate 145 a month in electricity, and 145 a month in green tags(like carbon credits you get them for 15 YEARS but their value goes down over time)"
You had me up until the "green tag" point. What are these?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
"renewable energy credits" 'rec's or 'green tags' are the incentive that NJ uses.
It is essentially carbon trading. I sell the rec to the poco.
NJ has what is known a a "renewable portfolio standard" mandating the utilities have a % of generation be renewable (wind solar biomass) every year it increases and in 2025 we should have at least 25%. POCO either meets its obligation or buys green tags or pay a fine. You generate REC s for a 15 year mandated period from the date of installation. Each kw of installed solar generates about 1.2 recs a year. They are sold and traded like a commodity, and are worth like 450 each now, and each year they go down (lets say at year 15 they are like 100)
That is and interesting incentive plan over there. I will have to do some more research to see if anything like that is available in Michigan. I still don't understand how they are "traded like a commodity". If they are sure to lose value, wouldn't that just encourage the POCO to be less efficient? I guess I just don't understand the system.As far as costs...it is sad to say that most americans could care less about the environmental cost and the prosperity of another generation as mentioned by Ted. It's really all about the money in your own pocket. If you could make money doing it then everyone would be doing it. If it was free then everyone would have it. If it cost the exact same to live with solar as it does to live off the grid then everyone would be happy to switch over. I cannot believe that any of these things are or ever will be true. So, how about spreading the cost out farther yet by installing a system incrementally? Lets say I want one panel now and I will plan to install one more every year for the next 15 years. What are my mandatory components to just get started? What are the costs of the equipment? What kind of maintenance costs should I expect over the next 15 years? Could the average remodeler (me) feasibly do the installation or do I need to hire a specialist?One reason I am asking these questions is to look at the reality of the feasiblility of using solar. I have gone to BP's site and it seems like a nice calculator but it still leaves much to be desired in terms of putting the information on a realistic level. This is the norm of the information out there though. Websites trying to sell solar make broad statements of cost vs. value without addressing the secondary costs. Environmental group websites don't provide realistic cost data, instead they just make general statements about how good it could be if everyone switched. I am hunting for some real numbers here. How much does an inverter cost? How much is a panel? a battery? a fuse? What are my lowest, bare minimum costs to get this going? Is that cost low enough for the majority of homeowners to deal with? DC
Ok first of all, each solar system is different and each FINANCING is different. I have worked with many different companies. If anyone is interested I can help direct people to an installer in their state email- [email protected]
That is and interesting incentive plan over there. I will have to do some more research to see if anything like that is available in Michigan.
I think Michigan has developed a "feed in tariff" that is where they pay you to generate. It is very lucrative I think. I still don't understand how they are "traded like a commodity". If they are sure to lose value, wouldn't that just encourage the POCO to be less efficient? Ok lets say this year pse&g needs 2% renewable (by legislation) they either build RE or buy green tags or they have to pay a fine for not meeting the % . Every year the % goes up but the fine goes down. they I guess I just don't understand the system.
As far as costs...it is sad to say that most Americans could care less about the environmental cost and the prosperity of another generation as mentioned by Ted. It's really all about the money in your own pocket. If you could make money doing it then everyone would be doing it. If it was free then everyone would have it. If it cost the exact same to live with solar as it does to live off the grid then everyone would be happy to switch over. I cannot believe that any of these things are or ever will be true. In new jersey there is a waiting list. I just got approved for my rebate after a 1.5 year wait
So, how about spreading the cost out farther yet by installing a system incrementally? NOT Really. You could do like 2-3kw at a clip. I think its better to figure out the financing Lets say I want one panel now and I will plan to install one more every year for the next 15 years. What are my mandatory components to just Panels r get started? panels rack inverter wire What are the costs of the equipment? depends on size costs are like 8.50 a watt, if you self install you might get to 7 What kind of maintenance costs should I expect over the next 15 years? you should be pretty good first 10 years, then maybe an inverter will go I guess 1000-6000 over 25 years.Could the average remodeler (me) feasibly do the installation or do I need to hire a specialist? Maybe I would at least have an electrician and alot of research. you could help with install to save money or look for a sub to hold your hand (someone like me)
One reason I am asking these questions is to look at the reality of the feasibility of using solar. I have gone to BP's site and it seems like a nice calculator but it still leaves much to be desired in terms of putting the information on a realistic level. This is the norm of the information out there though. Websites trying to sell solar make broad statements of cost vs. value without addressing the secondary costs. Environmental group websites don't provide realistic cost data, instead they just make general statements about how good it could be if everyone switched. I am hunting for some real numbers here. email me a 12 month Kw usage and I will help you How much does an inverter cost? .60 a watt maybe How much is a panel?4.00 a watt a battery? the lowest battery backup I ever worked cost 4,000 most systems dont have backup a fuse? 10What are my lowest, bare minimum costs to get this going? Is that cost low enough for the majority of homeowners to deal with?
some things can happen squirrel chews a wire... you need to move temp to reroof... inverter goes but thats about it. it withstands like golfball sized hail but in major stuff (tornado) thats what insurance is for. In NJ we are mandated to warranty work for at least 5 years.
if you have incentives in your state you can probably finance for little or no money down. In NJ the more cash you lay out, the more you make
DC
SBG,Thanks for the reply. I am not looking to install a system right now (you really think a carpenter like me has that kind of cheese laying around in this economy?). I want to learn as much as I can about it though and find out if there is more that I can to get more people interested and invested.To be precise; I see the future of solar coming about and I don't want to miss the boat when that happens. As a carpenter, I feel part of my job is to be more informed than a homeowner so that I may guide the homeowner in making the right changes. I believe that solar (and other sustainables) is becoming more the proper choice for homeowners and want to see as many clients as possible be able to financially make that decision when I am contacted to build for them.To learn, I am basing numbers on my house....and I do hope to add solar to it someday.my house is 1500sf
uses propane
forced air heat
well insulated
uses 6500kWh per year (should drop this year since new appliances)
that's 18kWh per dayWhats your inference?DC
It is like a 5.5 kw system maybe like 46grand
but the key is the finance. You can in many states get it installed no money down
Interesting reply. Having just waded through the large thread in the Energy folder on this, the regional economics of installing solar are far beyond me and I shouldn't have been so trite in my post.
If you're looking at the purely immediate or short term costs in terms 0f $$ then it may or may not make sense to you. But sustainability has a lot more to do with the energy delivered to the socket. The environmental costs to the environment (such as coal burning), the costs of leaving a deteriorated planet to the next generations of citizens, and the energy expended to either harvest the resource to make the energy or the solar panels.
"But sustainability has a lot more to do with the energy delivered to the socket. The environmental costs to the environment (such as coal burning), the costs of leaving a deteriorated planet to the next generations of citizens, and the energy expended to either harvest the resource to make the energy or the solar panels."And explain to me EXACTLY how solar does this.Tell me WHEN the solar power is generated.Tell me WHEN the peak peak electrical power is used.Tell where the power comes from on cloudy days..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
That wasn't what the OP was asking. It was asking whether Solar was cost advantageous. I was simply saying that whether it is energy delivered to the socket via traditional means or through other alternative means there is more to it than the dollar value associated with purchase of the power or equipment. The hidden or embedded costs. whether it is coal or solar one cannot simply consider the the final product in it's cost unless one considers the energy and byproducts of producing that energy.
Then what are all of those other costs?If you can't specify them then you can't tell what advanatage, if any, in solar..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
other costs-- maybe a new inverter, and some fuses, and minor stuff. These systems have no moving parts. The panels have 25 year warranty inverters can have a 10 year one. I think at most 6 grand for the 30 year life
Thats what I'm trying to say. Without doing a life cycle cost of each product, monetarily and environmentally any cost benefit of one source over another is moot.