What are the real economics of solar?
There’s a lot of talk out there about solar panels and the incentives for installing/using them. I was at a conference this past weekend where there were vendors set up selling all kinds of stuff, including solar installs. I spent just a few minutes talking to one who seemed to be a reasonable fellow, but he lost me quickly when he tried to answer my simple question of what does it cost?
It seems there is a base price of X per kilowatt, of which my state pays a small rebate of Y. I can then take a 30% federal tax credit, save the cost I would have spent for power, sell back the excess to poco, and sell credits on the open market to make the whole thing even sweeter, but I still have to come up with a big chunk of change that he claimed would essentially be yielding the equivalent of just under 20% interest for the next 20 years. Sounds great except for that big chunk of change initial investment.
My question is: what does it really cost if all the incentives and middlemen are stripped out?
Replies
From what I have seen so far it would be too much.
I know the therory behind the gov help, that of helping an industry with their developement cost, but I am beginning to wonder if it will take a new soar system before the actual cost can be born by the customer.
This is an interesting topic as a person with no taxable incom, disability, I have no use for tax credits as they are only good for those with tax liabilities.
Personally, I think one of the problems is that all of the costs are extra now. We need a solution that replaces some existing cost, like a solar panel that doubles as a shingle. Or roof panel, or whatever.That is, we need to take away some existing cost to help offset the cost of the solar panel. As long as all of the costs are additional, I think it will be a hard sell (unless electricity costs go up five fold or something).
I think that is a great point Bryan. I've heard of PV in windows being researched.John
There in lies the down side of active solar systems ... they are usually dupicative and single function technologies. Passive solar is a nice dual technology; I need/want windows ... point them south and have them help me out.
Ditto the roof integrated PV systems ... but there is usually a detriment w/ these systems as well. But roofing and power integrated into one can be potentially a nice option. Thin film roof PV material, I think is usually less efficient, so that bites into the economics again.
It would cost $X per kw.
I guess I'm surprised that you're confused. Most of the sales pitches I've heard will clearly state the "real" cost of the system, then launch into how much is saved due to the incentives, rebates, etc.
Rebates and tax credits mean that your friend the government is forcing other consumers to share your costs. They also force the power company to buy back your excess at retail which means other consumers have to pay the difference. If everyone put solar in on these terms the whole country would go bankrupt.
I agree about the rebates and credits but here they dont buy back at retail. It is the wholesale cost that they sell to other providers (retail provider cost) such as stream energy which is a selling company but not a generating one. So here they would stand to break even or perhaps even make money because they are allowed to sell over the set cost and often do. With no labor or maintenence costs its a no brainer.Where there's a will, there are 500 relatives
Back in the 'old' days of PURPA, your generating cost had to be purchased at the utility's avoided cost ... the cost it would take them to build a generation plant to meet the energy load that you contribute ... which for a homeowner would be small, but theoretically higher than what you would pay retail.
BUT ... now days ... most of the time, you simply run your meter backwards (or slow it down) ... therefore the utility pays you the same cost as what you buy it for ... i.e. retail. That may not be the case everywhere ... but I've not heard much different ... particularly out west here.
"BUT ... now days ... most of the time, you simply run your meter backwards (or slow it down) ."Some places the have separate goes init and goes outit meters. And you paid a whole value for any power that you generate.And that is the only right way to do it.Net metering is a fraud..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Bill ...
Why do you think net metering is a fraud? Never heard anyone say anything that negative about it. If I consume 10 KWH and generate 6, I pay for 4 ... what's wrong w/ that? If I'm gone all day, I generate excess, I come home I consume some. I get paid for anything I generate pretty much what I pay the utility. Please elaborate.
Because the power company has to build the system for the peak usage.And peak usage runs about 3-4 to 8-9 pm when solar is of no use.And the POCO can generate or buy power well below the retail sales prices. And not only do the greed POCO make a profit off that differenece, but it also pays for building and maintaining the lines.Why should they be forced to buy power at several times over what they can get it for.If you want to go off grid that I am all for it..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Because the power company has to build the system for the peak usage.
And peak usage runs about 3-4 to 8-9 pm when solar is of no use.
Bill that depends on what part of the country you are in and what time of year. In any hot part of the country peak PV corresponds perfectly with peak electricity usage.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
"Bill that depends on what part of the country you are in and what time of year. In any hot part of the country peak PV corresponds perfectly with peak electricity usage."Some some usage charts that show that.Sometimes earlier last year I posted a number of different ones that I found that showed peak usages in the time period that I said.And when does the temperature peak? Late afternoon.And when does internal building temperature peak? Late afternoon, early evening.And when do most people either turn on the AC or setback thermostats durn down. When people get home. Early evening.And when do most people cook Early evening..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Bill, you act like residential usage is the real driver.all those people that go out all day? Remember they don't disappear. They go to work, turn on vast amounts of computers, lights, printers, electric power tools, air conditioners, have their lunch cooked and served, turn on fans, etc.I haven't studied this but I do wager that the average american uses more power while at work than while at home, hour for hour. While I may be wrong, your explanations are easily counterbalanced.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
Two things.First, if solar panels are being used for residential application to have any cost effective reduction it has to match the energy consumption of that residence.What good does it do to pay 10 cents kWh for a residential solar panel and then ship it across town to a another user who pays 10 cents for it.Who is paying for the supplying and maintaining the transmission equipment and the energy losses?2ndly the numbers that I have seen show, for whole systems, peak usage in the late afternoon, early evening.Also OAT's peak in the mide afternoon and because of thermal mass and insulation the peak cooling time is late afternoon, early evening. That is for any kind of airconditioned building..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
If you are reducing grid demand at peak times, it's a cost effective reduction for the grid. so it is right to do net metering in that case... or at least pay a higher wholesale rate for "peak generation".Let's not forget bill, that it is largely our tax dollars that built this grid in the first place as well. Asking to get to use it shouldn't be too much to ask either.You say yourself you have seen numbers showing both a peak in more than one time period of the time as well, but those numbers are the ones that are interesting, not your justifications of those numbers, necessarily. If your analogy is right and we are NOT reducing peak usage, then you've got some good points. But it sounds like that is debatable, and I'm not finding your explanations very compelling.Air conditioning peak in commercial buildings is not only related to OAT, for instance, it's more importantly related to occupancy. People and computers generate lots of heat. I somehow doubt that most commercial buildings ramp up AC in the evening. Once you hit 5 PM I would think most AC systems in commercial situations turn off or set back significantly.
-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
I don't know why the peak.Maybe it is from everyone getting home and charging up their electric cars.Some challeged my statement of why the peaks are in the later afternoon/early evening and I made some guesses.So what the peak usage is still in the late afternoon/early evening.Show me usage charts that show otherwise."f you are reducing grid demand at peak times, it's a cost effective reduction for the grid. so it is right to do net metering in that case... or at least pay a higher wholesale rate for "peak generation"."The POCO still needs the be able to support peak loads sans solar so they still need to build the plant.And it needs to be available quickly. That means either having steam plants running ineffectantly or quick response gas turbines which are both expensive and not as eff.Now if someone wants to install solar and load shedding equipment so on a cloudy day that they don't draw any more power then on a sunny day I am all for it."Let's not forget bill, that it is largely our tax dollars that built this grid in the first place as well. Asking to get to use it shouldn't be too much to ask either."You mean because the POCO is allowed to deduct adn depreciate the cost on their taxes.So your neighbor shoudl be able to use the business tools that "where bought" with tax dollars.
.
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
You might be right. I'm seeing a variety of answers on the topic that indicate in the winter there is a morning and late afternoon/evening split... though in winter the net metering issue is a lesser one anyway because the solar is generating less to boot.In the summer though most of what I'm seeing via google shows peaks starting in the early afternoon, carrying on through the evening as you say. but I'm not seeing any nice graphs or studies freely available, just a variety of numbers from a variety of sources. It may well be that even optimally the solar only displaces the first half of the peak generation load.-------------------------------------
-=Northeast Radiant Technology=-
Radiant Design, Consultation, Parts Supply
http://www.NRTradiant.com
different systems will benefit under various setups
First, if solar panels are being used for residential application to have any cost effective reduction it has to match the energy consumption of that residence.
depends. if they pay you to generate it would pay to create 200% or more of your consumption. If you get a system only 50% of consumption the system will still be cost effective for that part of consumption
What good does it do to pay 10 cents kWh for a residential solar panel and then ship it across town to a another user who pays 10 cents for it.
if your system is sized for 100% of your yearly usage, it will 1 create 60% more juice during the summer months and 2 create juice during the day only. These 2 facts add up to the fact that you end up creating lets say 5x your instant consumption during a summer day. Your meter spins backwards and the 'grid' becomes your battery. The utility 'sells' your juice to your neighbor. win win Otherwise you need a large battery backup.
Who is paying for the supplying and maintaining the transmission equipment and the energy losses?
the poco
2ndly the numbers that I have seen show, for whole systems, peak usage in the late afternoon, early evening.
and?
Also OAT's peak in the mide afternoon and because of thermal mass and insulation the peak cooling time is late afternoon, early evening. That is for any kind of airconditioned building.
so?
"First, if solar panels are being used for residential application to have any cost effective reduction it has to match the energy consumption of that residence.depends. if they pay you to generate it would pay to create 200% or more of your consumption. If you get a system only 50% of consumption the system will still be cost effective for that part of consumption"That wording does not make any sense.I am not sure what you mean.But in my statement about matching energy consumption I was talking about instanteous usage. That is the peak of the solar needs to be at the peak usage times."2ndly the numbers that I have seen show, for whole systems, peak usage in the late afternoon, early evening.and?"Because to have any overall effect that solar power has to remove the peak usage. And including cloudy days. The POCO has to have still have generation equipment ready to supply the peak."The utility 'sells' your juice to your neighbor. win win "The only win is for the person that uses the law to get paid retail for wholesale value. And the person selling the solar equipment."Who is paying for the supplying and maintaining the transmission equipment and the energy losses?the poco"So out the kindness of their heart they POCO is just going to install all of this equipment. And they are going to buy power at retail to resell when you could be buying it at wholesale?No the POCO is not paying for this.It is the rate payers that will pay for this.And people that can afford to install the solar or don't have a place for it will take it in the shorts..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Can anyone tell me why some POCO's have time of day rates of different types. Including some that sell power at 2-3 cents per kWh for deep off peak times. Power that some people use for storage heat systems.And some POCO's have reduced rates in the winter (maybe reduced in the summer for some more northern areas)..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
the grid is like water in pipes.
even if you can increase production the size of pipes will limit the juice.
hence brownouts
this happens during peak times so if you increase cost then and decrease cost off peak, you can spread the use to the night. If its cheaper to wash dishes at night you will do i thereby shifting the demand
"even if you can increase production the size of pipes will limit the juice."But also without the production you don't have anything to put in the pipe.Thus you need to size both distribution and production to meet peak demands."his happens during peak times so if you increase cost then and decrease cost off peak, you can spread the use to the night."Exactly.And how does solar affect his?.
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
say there is a 12 inch pipe to your block, and lets say each house needs 2 inches
thats 6 houses. lets say I have a solar that instead of needing 2 inches it produces 2 inches. Now I can have 7 houses on the 12 inch line.
solar helps with brownouts (not enough inches)
say there is a 12 inch pipe to your block, and lets say each house needs 2 inches
thats 6 houses.
I sure hope your electrical skills at calculating are at least a 'little' better than your hydraulic knowledge. Fleec'em while you can with that type numerical wisdom.
I am simplifying how water works
But thats why I say "lets say"
just an illustration
sorry junk
That's what he said 6 houses ... unless one has a system providing 100% of the peak needs ... then the pipe serves 7 houses (although it really still only serves 6, but the conversation gets more complicated suddenly doesn't it?).
You are an engineer? .. please ask Plumbill to explain to you how many 2" feeds a 12" main could supply.
junk...... you're being argumentative... but.. you knew thathe was using a simple illustration...Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
There probably are somne young folks reading this stuff. When somebody throws out totally inaccurate numbers as illustrations it can lead some young guys off down the wrong track in how they think.
Dont know what Plumbill will answer, but just doing RN in my head, I'd say over 40 huge houses with 2" supplies could easily be serviced by a 12" main vs. just 6! Probably over 440 houses if demand factors are considered.
To me that is not being just argumentative, it is correcting gross factual errors that those learning the ropes should be aware of.
here's how he phrased his example....
<<<<
116189.87 in reply to 116189.86
say there is a 12 inch pipe to your block, and lets say each house needs 2 inches
thats 6 houses. lets say I have a solar that instead of needing 2 inches it produces 2 inches. Now I can have 7 houses on the 12 inch line.
solar helps with brownouts (not enough inches)>>>>>>
now .... how are you going to improve on that so it conveys his meaning AND conforms to the rules of piping hydraulics ?
Mike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
how are you going to improve on that so it conveys his meaning AND conforms to the rules of piping hydraulics
Well, at least he could have used the pipe area, e.g.
say there is a 12 inch pipe to your block, and lets say each house needs 2 inches,
thus, very simplistically, using the area of the pipe,
thats 36 houses. ...... etc. etc.
oh, wow.....
you used the pi defense.....
pretty fast on your feet there, grampa....good comebackMike Hussein Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Even though the point was made simply and clearly ... and without pi, let's talk about everything but the point that was being made.
OK, you are right. That doesn't make the other guy wrong, though. Geez louise. Don't pull a Riversong on us, now.
It was just an example that had no basis in reality used to simply illustrate a concept. Maybe it was a hypothetical rectangular main 2 inches by 12 inches. Concepts used for illustrative purposes only. ... but you knew that didn't you? And even the 'young' (whatever that refers to) technicians reading that understood the illustration he was trying to make. Don't take things so literally.
Oh that's right maybe you can't avoid that being a scientist type and all. ;) Lighten up, dude.
I would think one who quotes their age as "three score or so" would not be so literal.
Edited 2/6/2009 8:00 pm ET by Clewless1
When I had a 1.8kw wind generator in 1980, the Co-op required me to have a way to disengage it if their grid went down, so it would not backfeed the grid. The generator relied on the grid for start-up and if the grid went down, the generator fields collapsed with seconds... but they required 1/million dollars of additional liability insurance...
My question has to to do with the same problem, but using PV systems that sell back. If the power company's grid fails,(like when a truck took out a power pole about a mile from here) but the sun is out and the PV system is generating watts, 1. how do you disengage it? 2. where does the power go if the grid is down?
Thanks for your insight,
Bill
I talked to a utility in North Idaho that gave me the same story. Then I talked to a guy that had been in the PV/wind business for a while. He explained that is logically rediculous. Any lineman that goes to repair a line isn't going to touch a line (either side) before checking for current. You don't know who's out there using a generator, etc. People don't necessarily know about what to do ... they just buy a generator and 'plug it in'. Any lineman worth his salt wouldn't touch a line without assuming that at any point, there could be current coming from either direction.
I can usually tell a sales job ... the requirement to carry liability insurance is BS ... IMO. They say stuff like that to simply scare you into not doing a system, I think. They want to sell you their power.
There have been documented cases where lineman have been killed from backfeed generators.That is a very serious issue with power companys.And service will be terminated very quickly when they are found..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
any grid tied installation uses inverters thats 'sense the grid' and either shuts down, or 'seperates' the house from the grid
as far as economics, the bottom line is that in states with incentives solar returns a profit after like 6-8 years, AND a case could be made that even without incentives if you factor escalating cost of electric (10 cents now will be like 35 cents in 25 years) a system should return a profit over its life.
many Companies offer little or no money down financing
"as far as economics, the bottom line is that in states with incentives solar returns a profit after like 6-8 years, AND a case could be made that even without incentives if you factor escalating cost of electric (10 cents now will be like 35 cents in 25 years) a system should return a profit over its life."That is only because you are making the other rate payers pay an excessive amount for the power that they use."any grid tied installation uses inverters thats 'sense the grid' and either shuts down, or 'seperates' the house from the grid"Yes, that is the DISCONNECT that is needed to make them safe..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
That is only because you are making the other rate payers pay an excessive amount for the power that they use.
But the rate payers share in the cost of any power generation by the utility. Can't we assume that every KW of distributed power that is available, that the utility will pay less for that than they would central power? And they aren't buying the whole thing since, like you say they still need to provide power if you aren't generating.
No different really than getting a rebate for an energy efficient A-C unit (that you might not even need), or a CFL light bulb. To get the market to shift significantly, it is common to use incentives to nudge the the market in the right direction.
Just like paying insurance ... we pay the rates to share the cost of your loss.
I go to the hassle of buying expensive equipment to help the power company manage its load and be a little more responsible in that fashion in terms of my energy use. Why shouldn't the utility (and the rate payers) reward me? Why shouldn't the government reward me?
Frankly I'd rather see subsidies to me to install e.g. PV than to have the government subsidize the oil and auto industries through business incentive programs and military programs that get people killed and consume huge amounts of energy and resources to secure our interests in the foreign oil industries.
This is notwisthsanding that we could have some pretty lengthy discussions on which technologies we all felt are 'right' for rebates, etc. Right now, the government and the people that support the government (in this regard) feels that 'oil is right[eous] and they heavily subsidize that private market with public monies.
"I go to the hassle of buying expensive equipment to help the power company manage its load and be a little more responsible in that fashion in terms of my energy use. Why shouldn't the utility (and the rate payers) reward me? Why shouldn't the government reward me?"BUT YOU ARE NOT HELPING THEM MANAGE THERE LOAD.YOU ARE MAKING LOAD MANAGEMENT WORSE.Now if are you are serious about managing load you can do two things. One is to really manage load. Have an interruptable service so that you disconnect from the POCO during THEIR peak usage periods.And during the rest of the time have load sheding equipment so that when you loose solar power your consumption from the POCO drops the same amount.Or install a battery or hydro pump back system or similar storage system so that you can supply power over a 2 week period that matches with the rate that you are using it..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
"But the rate payers share in the cost of any power generation by the utility."Yes, that is the reason that pick the LOWEST cost sources available depend on their loads. You are forcing them buy it at the highest cost."Can't we assume that every KW of distributed power that is available, that the utility will pay less for that than they would central power?"ABSOLUTLETLY NO!How on earth can you say that?With net metering you are forcing them to buy power at RETAIL while they generator or buy it at WHOLESALE..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
in NJ they only pay retail for your consumption meaning if you generate more than your consumption they pay wholesale
"In NJ they only pay retail for your consumption meaning if you generate more than your consumption they pay wholesale"Then it can't be net metering.Need a separate goes in and goes out meters..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Easy Bill, don't get frustrated. Just having a conversation, here. Can't understand some of your language (literally, the words are not coming through your fingers quite right, so it's difficult to understand you).
Re: distributed power ... I'm saying that if the utility's customers provide at their expense, distributed power, the utility will have avoided cost of a new plant. I'm not comparing to their current wholesale cost, but to their future avoided cost. ... Which was the basis for the PURPA regs back in the 80's/90's. They had to pay you the rate that it would have cost them to build generation systems to offset your generation.
Solar PV helps load management in that solar works good through late afternoon ... through the peak of the utility load. Some wind does the same thing ... SoCal has wind patterns that perfectly match peak loads on the utility.
This is a very complex topic. It is difficult at best to discuss in the hands full of paragraphs we exchange here. Please be patient, OK? thanks
"Re: distributed power ... I'm saying that if the utility's customers provide at their expense, distributed power, the utility will have avoided cost of a new plant. I'm not comparing to their current wholesale cost, but to their future avoided cost. ... Which was the basis for the PURPA regs back in the 80's/90's. They had to pay you the rate that it would have cost them to build generation systems to offset your generation.Solar PV helps load management in that solar works good through late afternoon ... through the peak of the utility load. Some wind does the same thing ... SoCal has wind patterns that perfectly match peak loads on the utility. "The problem that you are completely ignoring is that the solar will produce very minimal if any power during the peak usage peroid.And none during clouding weather.So how does the POCO avoid not having capacity to support their customer during peak usage times and solar can't help?.
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
In the summer solar will produce fairly good power during the peak periods. I track the solar output of some PV carports at work and they produce fine until 6:00 in the summer. Yeah not 100%, but still some good values. When it's cloudy, the peak falls off anyway as does it after 6:00. I'm not ignoring it. If it's cloudy the peak is substantially lower anyway. The peak time of day load wise is 2:00 to 5:00 6:00 max.
I'm not defending the utility and I totally respect your point of view. I have a point of view ... and it isn't totally out to lunch like you might be implying. Again a very complex topic ... so ... we all have opinions, points of view (that are valid), and experiences that affect both.
I've no strong feelings one way or the other on this topic. Just presenting a different point of view. Hope you don't mind.
"The peak time of day load wise is 2:00 to 5:00 6:00 max."Is that system wide?Show me charts or tables showing that..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
I'll try to find some ... I've got a pretty good rapoir w/ the utility and access to information. Part of this is based on my knowledge of our own organization's own profile ... very large group of facilities (20MW) AND the utilities rate structure that I would tend to assume is structured around their peak load. Our cost (demand and Kwh) drop significantly at 6:00 pm. If their peak was later than 6:00, I would surmise that our rate schedule would reflect that.
I dunno, Bill. I've no doubt that people have been killed ... probably many times.
Can't imagine the utility company's attitude ... "well if one of our linemen get killed from an unknown generator running because of a broken power line ... we'll just cut that guys power off". Can't imagine a lineman that would take that risk, either. Knowing what people do and how things work ... why wouldn't a lineman assume that a line may be energized?
I ain't no lineman or expert, but this seems logical that they would take some simple steps to ensure their safety. Even if a lineman checked a line and it was dead, he might have to assume that it become energized at any moment and work accordingly.
In this day and age where lots of people may have grid connected panels that would be feeding back into the grid during the day or wind generators at night, linemen have to assume that a line is energized on both ends. Isn't there a lineman in the house that can get us straight on this topic?
Oy can we have some sort of agreement where its obvious what's a response and what's but and pasted from an earlier message? Like maybe how I use italicized text?
It is the rate payers that will pay for this.
And people that can afford to install the solar or don't have a place for it will take it in the shorts.
Yes as I said earlier it is a dirty secret that only reasonably wealthly folks can afford solar. This is how all trends start. Remember when big-screen plasma TV's were new and cost like $20,000 for the same TV you can get now for $1,200? The wealthy, the early adopters who will pay the higher prices are nessessary so that the producers can scale up production and eventually bring the prices down.
The price of solar will eventually get cheap enough for regular joes to afford. The short term imbalance created in the market has driven prices up in '07, '08 but most industry watchers are saying the we are headed into a fundamental over supply where prices are falling as much as 30%.
One popular thin-film makers sells their panels at $2.50/Watt and has already built a solar farm that all-in produces electricity at the going rate.
Just because the entire PV industry is too early in the curve for you does not mean the industry is bunk.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Italics are too hard to do as I would have to do everything in HTML code."Just because the entire PV industry is too early in the curve for you does not mean the industry is bunk."I never said that.What is bunk is Net metering and lack of storage.The problem is not the cost of the PV equipment. It is that is does not produce reliable power when and as needed.Now based on one bill I am making a rough guestimate that I use an average of 8400 kWh over a years time.Lets say that cost get down , real down. Down to a DVD player cost from the orginal thousand or two.So for a few hundred dollars anyone can buy a whole setup at Wally World. And it all comes with connectors and it is plug and play.And for the really poor social service agency will buy and install it like they do window ac units now.So every one has a unit that is designed to produce all of their power ON THE AVERAGE.Now what happens to the system?You tell me..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
"First, if solar panels are being used for residential application to have any cost effective reduction it has to match the energy consumption of that residence.
depends. if they pay you to generate it would pay to create 200% or more of your consumption. If you get a system only 50% of consumption the system will still be cost effective for that part of consumption"
That wording does not make any sense.
I am not sure what you mean.
you do not have to match for peak load only average consumption when you are on grid. You use the grid as battery
But in my statement about matching energy consumption I was talking about instanteous usage. That is the peak of the solar needs to be at the peak usage times.
"2ndly the numbers that I have seen show, for whole systems, peak usage in the late afternoon, early evening.
and?"
Because to have any overall effect that solar power has to remove the peak usage. And including cloudy days.
Wrong it need to remove average usage to eliminate your bill
The POCO has to have still have generation equipment ready to supply the peak.
"The utility 'sells' your juice to your neighbor. win win "
The only win is for the person that uses the law to get paid retail for wholesale value. And the person selling the solar equipment.
WRONG the utility sells what it did not generate Additionally, in NJ you only get retail rate on what you use meaning that generating anything over 100% of your consumption in a year is sold to utility at wholesale. It does not pay in NJ to size a system over 100%
"Who is paying for the supplying and maintaining the transmission equipment and the energy losses?
the poco"
So out the kindness of their heart they POCO is just going to install all of this equipment. And they are going to buy power at retail to resell when you could be buying it at wholesale?
Existing infrastructure is what transmits. no increased Infra costs. They dont buy retail the transaction is seperate I generate my power and can use the grid as a battery. they sell all power via the meter. any excess during the day gets sold to neighbor. This isnt the same as a fit.
No the POCO is not paying for this.
It is the rate payers that will pay for this.
YES obviously consumer pays
And people that can afford to install the solar or don't have a place for it will take it in the shorts.
.Life is not fair
"Because the power company has to build the system for the peak usage.And peak usage runs about 3-4 to 8-9 pm when solar is of no use.""Bill that depends on what part of the country you are in and what time of year. In any hot part of the country peak PV corresponds perfectly with peak electricity usage."Sure in the summer but what happens in the winter. Those same "hot part of the country" places will be heating their house in the winter with heat strips in the A/C air handler. It may not be that many nights a year but the PoCo still needs that capacity.
"Sure in the summer but what happens in the winter. Those same "hot part of the country" places will be heating their house in the winter with heat strips in the A/C air handler. It may not be that many nights a year but the PoCo still needs that capacity."No, because only a very small amount of heating is done by HP with resistive backup.Most POCO's have excess capacity in the winter. That is why the offer special deals for electric based (including HP) heating systems.Some are seperated metered. My offers a tiered systems where the tier drops from 9 cents to 4 on high usage during the 8 "winter" months and it increase to 10 during the 4 summer months..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Bill I thought the conversation was places where it is hot. Heat pumps are rare in S.Fla. It is hard to justify the extra cost for the limited use.
We just have toaster wire heat and on a cold winter night we are more likely to have a brown out than in the summer. My AC pulls about 20a, The heat strips are closer to 60.
There are lots of places in the country where it is not enough during the summer that AC is used very heavy, almost 100%. But still cold enough during the winter heating is still a vary large amount of the total energy used.That probably covers every place east of the rockies except for those that border the gulf on the south or Canada on the north..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
I guess I am just thinking about our unique situation. At the end of a 300 mile peninsula the word "grid" doesn't mean much. Although we have plenty of sun in the daytime there is not much backup at night or even on a cloudy day. FPL still needs the physical plant to handle a 30 degree night for a few weeks a year, even if they had half of the residents net metering the load to a very low level all day. Fuel is the only saving and in the grand scheme of things that is not the biggest cost. They certainly can't justify buying power from a homeowner at the same price they sell it since they are still maintaining their plant (distribution etc).
They certainly can't justify buying power from a homeowner at the same price they sell it since they are still maintaining their plant (distribution etc).
And that is the difference between the utility buying BIG power from a big generator vs. the small time guys like you and me. Even then there can be probs. Our utility has a 'departing load charge' if we generate big power for the same reason you are stating ... they still have to maintain capacity in the event we, the customer, for some reason don't generate power (e.g. clouds form, system fails, etc.) ... even though the system is built and maintained like a commercial power generation system.
?? First sentence doesn't make sense to me.
Still cold enough in the winter for high energy load? Yeah ... but hopefully not using electricity ... which was most common in the Northwest ... 'course in the winter we have plenty of excess hydropower here, so there doesn't tend to be that shortage of electricity ... but heat is a bad use of electricity.
Winter draw on utility capacity should be relatively low/small.
You have excess capacity in the winter because all the snowbirds are down here ;)
The thing I come away with after almost 150 notes on this thread is the folly of trying to come up with a "one size fits all" national energy policy. Things that may make perfect sense in Arizona and California are pretty silly in Florida or Maine.
who is promoting a one size fits all? NOBODY
"who is promoting a one size fits all? NOBODY"Huh? Any federal program is one size fits all and everyone is talking about federal energy policy these days.
Sure in the summer but what happens in the winter. Those same "hot part of the country" places will be heating their house in the winter with heat strips in the A/C air handler. It may not be that many nights a year but the PoCo still needs that capacity.
How many people in CA do you think heat with electricity? How many in the colder parts of the U.S. heat with electricity? The vast majority of heating I belive is done with nat gas or propane so this isn't exactly a good argument.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Why would people buy a furnace for a 12 day heating season. Nope we have toaster strips in the A/C air handler and older houses just have 2.5kw wall heaters in the habitable rooms.
South Ft Myers to Naples is just starting to get natural gas, because of the power plant conversion but it is pretty expensive. They aren't getting a lot of takers.
Hmm your point of view is interesting and respected. Not sure I completely agree, but that's OK.
Out here, the peak load ends at 6pm where the utility co. changes their rates significantly for their commercial customers. You have to respect the fact that the utility has to maintain capacity to ensure services and doing that takes effort/money.
PV systems routinely shave off the peak at peak load periods which drop significantly after 6pm in the summer.
Commercial customers will enjoy the benefit of net metering as they get credit at the higher rate they pay during peak periods of the day.
As a residential generator, are you saying you would like to be paid a premium for your contribution during the late afternoon to the utility's peak load when you don't really need that power? (not trying to be sarcastic ... just trying to clarify part of your point of view).
BUT ... now days ... most of the time, you simply run your meter backwards (or slow it down) ... therefore the utility pays you the same cost as what you buy it for ... i.e. retail.
A few months back, the Great State of Texas....changed their ruling on "Net Metering", the ability to spin the electric meter backwards, and it's no more.... They cited the reason being that the "net Metering" rule they passed suddenly didn't meet the Federal guidelines.... Here's one comment from the "Interstate Renewable Energy Council".
"This issue has been one of the more prickly ones. Texas is clearly behind the curve on this one.There are a few places you can go for the most current information, like the DSIRE website. You can also check the TREIA website, or the Texas Solar Energy Society's website. Perhaps people at either TREIA or TxSES can offer suggestions and/or advice.Jane-- Jane Pulaski512.926.8472512.789.7885 (m)http://www.irecusa.org
If you want to get a free newsletter about Renewable Energy here is where I signed up,
The State & Stakeholder Newsletter is published electronically on a semi-monthly basis by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. To subscribe to this newsletter, click here and follow the instructions. There is no fee for this newsletter.
Bill
Thanks for the link, I signed up!
You are talking PV systems, right? (vs. solar thermal)
Like many things using higher technology ... costs can vary, but I've worked with these systems a bit and generally a rule of thumb (which I don't encourage anyone to necessarily make their decisions on) is that you will pay roughly $10K per KW of installed power. The payback? Simply ... if you have LOTS of sun and a HIGH electric cost (e.g. 15 cents) ... a cool 30 years ... which tends to be 10 years beyond the life of the panels. That is WITHOUT the incentives.
But that is why the incentives are in place. To help make it more affordable and encourage you to "do the right thing" (or the good thing ... or whatever). I'm all for incentives to encourage people to modify their behavior or to do things that are better for the collective good. Incentives have been a significant part of our lives since the government started working 'for the common good'.
Think of what you would pay cash for gas if our incentives were not in place for that commodity. I'm referring to your tax dollars that go into huge military activities whose major purpose is stabilizing (directly or indirectly) world oil trade and costs. I'm also referring to the huge incentives that the government provides oil entities.
Yes fellows,all too very true. And indeed although the "Just around the corner" breakthroughs to lower the per watt cost have been promised for years, there have been some true innovations in the last couple of years. For one in the thin flim area. We should see some positive downward trends in the upcoming year or two.
Mr. Clew has it so very right in many a way. Much might be learned in following his sage advice
I am old enough to have hopped on the Carter "solar bandwagon" and got thrown off in the dirt. That "cheap" PV array has been "a few years away" since I wore bell bottoms. I agree when they finally get something with a 20+ year lifespan and a reasonable cost, solar PV will be the next big thing but right now it is most attractive for people off the grid or rich people who just like the bragging rights.
That is much like the electric car. I want one of them too but I can't get the numbers to work. (again, using a car I own and parts I buy as cheaply as I can find). In the case of the car and any storage based PV system, the batteries are the killer. They end up being a consumable that jacks up the overall cost of the project.
As has been pointed out, the utilities are not really that keen on reverse metering (they still need the "plant" to live without solar input on cloudy days and at night) and the government still wants their tax.
In the case of the car, if they really catch on, the government will come looking for the road tax.
I've been applying 'thin film' on projects ... from what I understand ... their efficiency is lower ... but that is one tradeoff with being able to integrate them with e.g. roofing. So now you have two benefits instead of one ... in spite of the lower efficiency, you gain roofing. Pay your money, take your choice.
Edited 2/5/2009 3:30 am ET by Clewless1
1. PV payback is, indeed, very long. Most homeowners would be much better served by investing in air sealing work, added insulation, and more efficient appliances.
2. PV modules will, indeed, last longer than 20 years without maintenance. My oldest PV panel is now 29 years old, and still works just fine.
It's great to know that the 20 yr lifetime is maybe only theoretical. I suspected they would last longer, but most of what I've heard recently said otherwise.
Your point is very well taken and to some degree, I completely agree. Providing tax incentives for solar, however, I'm guessing is costing the taxpayers far less than what kinds of investments the government has made in foreign oil markets and other oil industry markets.
I'm willing to make an semi educated WAG that the kind of money each of us shells out to the oil industry directly or indirectly through government activities dwarfs the kind of money we have paid in subsidizing the solar industry ... which ultimately would be a better investment ... IMO.
I'm not an expert in economics, so that is simply my gut feeling based on my admitedly somewhat limited detail knowledge of the economics of both industries ... but I'd venture to say that not to many people would indeed truly know the ins and outs of both of those economics.
"Your point is very well taken and to some degree, I completely agree. Providing tax incentives for solar, however, I'm guessing is costing the taxpayers far less than what kinds of investments the government has made in foreign oil markets and other oil industry markets."What kind of investments do you think that the government has made in developing oil?And regardless what does solar have to do with oil?.
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
What kind of investments do you think that the government has made in developing oil?
The figure I keep hearing is that we spend about $10 billion per month in Iraq. If there were no middle east oil, we wouldn't be there, just like we aren't in Zimbabme.
>>If everyone put solar in on these terms the whole country would go bankrupt.<< Oh, that's what happened!
The Government has a web site that rates the value of the return to the home owner based upon wear you live. I checked it a wile back. If I spent $32,000 today I would save $8,000 over 20 years. Not a good idea wear I live.
I used to be able to read Home Power magazine. What I've picked up from that is this:
Solar power is a whole different ballgame. It is designed for off-grid use, that is, out of range of the utility grid.
It is a different lifestyle. Not only do you have the panels and batteries, but you also get DC refrigerators, DC lighting and so on. You do not waste electricity on such frivolous things such as Christmas lights although, out in the country who would see them anyway? A small inverter would be used for the TV set and converter box.
Small is beautiful. There is some lame, half-baked idea that we can solve our energy addiction to islamic oil by plastering every rooftop with solar panels. Maybe a McMansion sized roof on a cabin sized house might work. How much space do you really occupy?
Or compare the automobile. I can give you a vehicle, right now off the showroom floor that can get 80 mpg, can carry one person, a briefcase case and a bag lunch at 70 mph. What else does 80% of commuting amount to?
~Peter
>>get 80 mpg, can carry one person, a briefcase case and a bag lunch at 70 mph. What else does 80% of commuting amount to?
How about carry one person, a briefcase case (sic) and a bag lunch at 15 mph, since you're stuck in traffic most of the time.
Not 15 mph. 60 or 70 mph even in a traffic jam. Even in a traffic jam, there is a ~3~4 foot clearance between the rows of cars. This is the path!
Well, maybe 30 or 40 mph but at least you're moving.
~Peter
Add to my original post: Also no electric ranges or electric heaters. Probably not A/C.
Good notes, dude. You are thinking in the right ways. In my own words ...
PV or any other technology invention or application is only part of the energy equation. In addition to alternative 'sources' of energy, we do have to embrace some (significant) conservation.
If, in theory, we came up with some magical supercollosal fuel cell 'thingy' that provided us unlimited energy at a low cost ... it would still place us in dire straights ... as the environmental issues would be hot on the heels of such a wonderful 'solution'.
It doesn't matter if that energy source is clean or not, either. Environmental issues would ensue.
Plain and simple .... THERE IS NO, I REPEAT, NO FREE LUNCH. PERIOD. I DON'T CARE IF YOU BOUGHT ME LUNCH; IT WOULD NOT BE FREE.
While I agree, that changes in lifestyle are very important ... even inevitable. I also believe that we likely waste 50% of all the energy we use ... maybe even more. That is, we bust our butts to work for a wage, the utilities and energy companies bust theirs to provide the energy, we pay for that energy with our hard earned money and then as we walk out the door at the end of the day ... we simply through all of that effort straight into the trashcan without so much as blinking an eye and with an air of casualness that would astound most people if they really even thought about it.
The return on investment for PVs is *really* questionable without the incentives. Without incentives it may still be attractive for other reasons -- off-the-grid, instead of a generator for backup power, etc...
That said, the costs and efficiency may not be far from making PV cost competitive, especially with increasing conventional fuel costs.
In the meantime there are the incentives. It appears my city is about to pass a $0.32/kWh feed-in tariff(!).
"It appears my city is about to pass a $0.32/kWh feed-in tariff(!)."What is that..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Sounds like they pay you .07 per KwH but charge you .32 for the privilege of selling it to them. Net gain = -.25 per KwH. They're the government, they're here to help.
Apparently they'll give you $0.32 for every kWh you generate. That's not net, that's gross. So, if you have a solar system that generates 100 kWh/month they'd credit you $32.00/month. Even if you're using 1000 kWh/month (total). IIRC, our local rate is about $0.12/kWh, so they're basically providing a $0.20/kWh subsidy for residential solar power.
I understand that the offer is also open to businesses, so if somebody was to setup a solar power array as a business investment they'd get $0.32/kWh for that generated power. That said, they said there's supposed to be a $1.5M annual cap on the program, which they say will only cost me about $1.30/month on my bill. Gee, thanks.
You said "in your city they pay".Is this a city own electric company?Who is the the They that pays..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
Every time I try to make the numbers come out, installing the equipment myself, it ends up being a 15-20 year payback.
That is only the collectors, inverter and other electrical equipment. It doesn't take into account the roof leaks or additional roofing costs when you get it fixed.
The only way you get the incentives is to use a government approved contractor and I can't believe they can cover the difference in price.
I like solar but I think the only "active" system that makes any sense is heating water, either domestic water or a pool. That is low tech and has a fairly high efficiency.
I've been 'in the business' for years. I've no stock in any particular technology.
Your statement is exactly correct. Solar thermal over PV is MUCH better economically. Your calcs are not particularly far off (re: the payback).
Solar thermal is low tech, efficient, and effective.
PV is still changing, but don't expect a 'silver bullet'. PV has a good place; lots of applications. But for the average casual user, it's not ... uh what do I want to say here ... not probably the best choice.
I DON"T want to badmouth PV systems, just trying to encourage decisions that are well informed. With the hype of the sales pitches and the incentives, etc. it is easy to jump on the bandwagon. PV is still better than lots of other ills, though.
The best ENERGY system is better building/house design; IMO. Avoid the need for energy in the first place. Simple. Low tech. The design does triple duty: 1) energy 2) aesthetics and 3) a functional place to live. It is astounding that people insist on cookie cutter designs plopped down willy nilly where and how ever. They build houses much bigger than they really need or want. They insulate them well and call themselves/their houses ... energy efficient.
I'm the first to admit there are lots of bad architects out there who don't have a clue and their ego is the only thing important. But ... many people think architects are 'too expensive' ... in other words ... they don't see value in their work. A good (emphasize, good) architect could pay for his fee in 1) reduced energy 2) reduced/optimized floor area and/or 3) better overall design (functionally and aesthetically). It's hard to put a value on item #3, but you can pocket the savings in the first two in cash.
I routinely see design that is arbitrarily oversized or so poorly oriented ... such irrational behavior ... We need to change our mindsets.
Ok ... I'm off my soapbox ... time to go to sleep ...
Hello Zippy, others,
Here's a link to a page at Real Goods Solar that has a pretty good explanation of the costs and payback and what not.
http://www.realgoodssolar.com/solar/ecs/main/Economics.html
Here's what they claim in a nutshell
What Solar Can Do for Your Pocketbook
Here's an interesting chart for CA.
California
$7.50*
$37,500
$7,520
$29,980
$8,994
$20,986
But check out the costs for CO
Colorado
$7.50*
$37,500
$17,500
$20,000
$6,000
$14,000
Now remember I am just cutting and pasting from a website I can't verify these numbers for there honesty. But I mean dang $14,000 that brings the break even point up a lot I'd imagine.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
I am in Colorado, but we only have a local co-op electric company. Not enough volume for rebates. They also want to charge for net metering. Xcel is in Denver area. At one time they were required to provide a limited number of rebates for areas such as mine but that program expired before I moved here.Too bad as we are in a perfect area for solar. John
Those numbers are fine, but it still brings up the point of actual cost!
Those numbers are fine, but it still brings up the point of actual cost!
What do you mean they say on average the costs for the systems would be
$21,000 in CA and $14,000 in CO. Okay actually that is the total cost but not what the intial upfront cost is because you have to wait to get the tax credit so in CA its.
After Rebate Subtotal:
$29,980
In CA the panels are warrentied for 25yrs and the inverters for 10yrs. The big deal is, is that this pushes simple payback to within the average time frame people own houses so the person who buys the system will actually see payback.
But really, I think that this is a mindset problem. What's the payback on the last passenger car you bought? Or the last motorcycle? $30,000 won't even buy you a very fancy car now-a-days.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Not a mindset. I as a disabled person does not pay taxes, because of that, the actual costs is the higher number. The point is that using these numbers it is highly unlikely that I will install.
Not a mindset. I as a disabled person does not pay taxes, because of that, the actual costs is the higher number. The point is that using these numbers it is highly unlikely that I will install.
Well then yep you are kinda screwed until prices drop dramatically...but honestly most people pay federal income taxes and the credit can be taken against them until its all used up-years if you need to.
I've talked to a lot of local residential installers and the the dirty litte secret is that only higher class (economically speaking) households are installing PV. With this new tax credit it should make it more affordable for upper-middle class two income familes.
Besides the hype some manf are making it cheaper. I was just reading where First Solar installed a huge array-acres for $3.17 a watt!! in Nevada. Thats the installed price compared to $7.04 /watt for a similar SunPower array.
Most early adopter types go with Solar Hot Water as that generally has a much smaller cash outlay and a quicker pay back.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
but honestly most people pay federal income taxes
By only a little.
This tax credit is more for the well off anyways as they are the ones that pay enough to have this credit mean anything. That is why I am constantly looking for lower costs!
I live in sunny south Florida which should be a solar paradise and yet in the last 35 years I've never seen a house with solar panels that still had them 10 years later.
I am in Florida too. When I was looking for cheap pool collectors I got a tip to ask roofers for leads. I got 8 collectors for $100 from a roofer's customer. When the leak that destroyed the ceiling in his house was traced to the collector mounts he didn't want them anymore.
I have mine on a 2 layer pan roof with nothing I really care about under it.
he is confusing net metering with feed in tariff.
$ 7.50/watt seems reasonable. We've been paying like $ 8-10/watt for small commercial systems in gov't applications using e.g. the thin film technology. $ 7.50 doesn't surprise me really at all.
Actually I was just reading where First Solar installed a huge solar farm in Nevada for ~$3.15 a watt!!! That's cheap man and that works out to be at grid parity.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
With the right conditions, incentives, etc., $ 3+ per peak watt is certainly doable. We're probably talking systems in the 10MW + range. If located near a power line, the costs drop. The shear scale of many panels drops the price dramatically. It's easy to design a very large system as it is multiples of very small systems in many respects ... structural design, layout, mounting etc. is relatively speaking a piece of cake. Combine those factors in with other incentives (e.g. state, utility, and/or feds) and you may see a company just about give it away to get it installed.
what does it really cost if all the incentives and middlemen are stripped out
Ideal location, like on a mountain top in HI or the tropics? Maybe - ---
No attempt for modesty, but it may be I'm the only one on this board who has actually literally built a high power PV system from the cells up (see attached reference).
Without net metering and without subsidies, it just don't pay, even assuming inflation will get back to 20% with all the 'bailout' spending.
Say a FULLY DIY system using surplus cells is $10K, producing 45K kW-hrs per year. Interest at 5% (5 yr note today) is $500 per year. Since system described cranks out about 45,000 kW per year, the interest lost cost alone equates 1.1 cents per kW-hr, which is about what most utilities would pay for non-net-metering power. Remember ZERO labor included in that, which is a few man months.
Maintenance and System costs push kW-hr costs (most salesmen talk PEAK watts, what a farce) to compare what is simply interest costs of capital.. Now if you are in Germany, and the gov. mandates that you get paid 50 cents per kW-hr, it is a great deal, I'd even do that although I'd consider I was kinda 'stealing' form normal rate payers. Also, remember the mountain top HI real estate did not even come into the $$ equations yet!.
If you be searching public records, you will find the contract cost to build the system was WAY WAY over $10K! My part of a subsidy??
In PNW, if i needed to be self sufficient without gasoline or diesel, would do micro hydro or wood burning steam. Ever try to get permits to build a private dam DIY/ - damn near impossible.
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-213361.pdf
BTW, solar THERMAL in a desert location would work great - if I lived in Tuscon, I'd have a vapor compression cycle system built and operating to make a few bucks on a small scale, would be a great A/C system. Why don't I move there and become 'rich'?, too lazy I guess<G>, plus prefer green to sand and rock and cactus.
Really am surprised there are not HVAC folk in that area designing and selling solar powered AC systems, pretty simple, but not aware of any commercial ventures along that line.
Edited 2/5/2009 2:05 pm ET by junkhound
Do you think those numbers I pulled from the Real Goods Solar website our B.S?
If I understand it correctly a pre-tax IRR of 10-15% sounds pretty good yes?
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Do you think those numbers I pulled from the Real Goods Solar website our B.S? And yes, I did look at the web site. Since you asked....
Yes, absolutely, PURE marketing BS.
A flat latitude tilted panel rated 5 kW peak will produce about 16 kW-hrs per day when the sun shines, after inverter losses and cosine losses. I'll say it shines close to 100% of the time in southern Utah or Nevada or even the Co. esxample say. Ya really only get about 3.2 kW average for a little under 6 hrs a day average over the year from a 5 kW peak array.
Net metering is not a valid engineering comparison, but if you want to transfer wealth, that is another story and can be included if one wants.
16 kW-hrs even at net metering and 10 cents kWhr is $1.60 per day, say $580 per year.
Assuming zero maintenance (you WILL have to clean the panels monthly to maintain efficiency) 580/real cost of 37000 = a whopping 1.56% interest on investment. So numbers are BS from a pure ecology or engineering viewpoint. What about CO hailstorms once every 10 years - subtract insurance premiums or partial replacement? The nearby trees on the 'oh so nice home' on the webside will shade the array shown there and reduce output even more, and cause windstorm damage from blown branches.
Including the rebates and such (basically stealing from other ratepayers IMO) increases ROI to all of 580/14000 = 4.14%. Better off with compounded CD interest on 5 year CD. Even the Colorado example NEVER pays for itself.
If you take away net metering and the government giveaways, you are literally throwing money at some marketing guru.
a pre-tax IRR of 10-15% sounds pretty good yes - Well, I have shares of some bridges I'd like to sell you also if you beleive those numbers.
One can always factor in the 'feel good' factor as worth something.
Then there is this marketing BS in the web pitch, where they rely on numerical illiteracy to sell their product.
$100,000 on electric bills over 25 years- probably the biggest PS of all. Besides compaing the average joe to being a profligate algore electric user, do the math on that, that is 4.73 kW average use 24/7, even when the sun does not shine - talk about comparing apples and oranges. At that level of usage, even with net metering, etc., the electric bill would still be $86,000 over 25 years. Guess what, even with all the rebates, you tied up $14K in capital in the best case for a break even at best, you be behind the 8 ball if anything breaks or needs non - DIY repair over 25 years.
Totally different story for passive hot water heat however, or even as a passive booster for a wshp or gshp heating system. Photovoltaics when the grid is available at anything under 15 cents kW-hr is a losing proposition, but thermal solar is a winner about all the time, esp for something llike a pool heater in SoCal.
Thank you Mr. Junk, for that explanation. It is kind of what I figured.
mr junk is wrong, but the rebates and incentives drive this industry. I install in NJ and we REGULARLY eliminate electric bills. There is a 6-8 year ROI. the panels are warrantied for 25 years. Where there are no incentives, it makes sense if you have to pay to bring in power lines.
I have power to my house, and don't pay taxes or much anyways, how is this a buy for me?
Our gov has gone overboard, the only people that can get a payback are those with a large enough tax liability to make it worthwhile.Eliminate the tax benefot and allow the free market to rule. The price would be cut in half shortly in that case. The gov, with the subsidy is keeping this industry very healthy!!!!
you have no clue
oil gas coal and nukes do not operate under the free market. You remove the subsidies for those industries, and we can talk about free market and true costs of energy.
remember 1-3 trillion spent on 1 oilfield (iraq)
Its funny when conservative types fight over tax cuts when they compel you to do something good for the country
In NY, NJ, PA, CA, CT, you make money buy getting solar. Ask Home Depot, Macys, Kohls, and the 1000s of other people/cos who purchase solar because of the economics.
BTW if you cant use the tax breaks, the financing co can. you can lease the system..... lots of ways. You can even get it installed no money down(least profit to you) you want solar in any state with an incentive email me at [email protected]
oil gas coal and nukes do not operate under the free market. You remove the subsidies for those industries, and we can talk about free market and true costs of energy
Could you provide links to back this up, please.
Its funny when conservative types fight over tax cuts when they compel you to do something good for the country
HUH?
oil gas coal and nukes do not operate under the free market. You remove the subsidies for those industries, and we can talk about free market and true costs of energy
Dem definition of "Subsidy" is if they only seize 50% of a company's profits instead of the 80% they would like to take.
That 30% is a "subsidy" by their thinking.
Joe H
I still would like to know what the subsidies are for these industries, that they are referencing. I understand your comments.
I always thought subsidies were a direct investment or favorable tax treatment. I guess I have to wait for their answer.
http://cleantech.com/news/node/554
Title is not meant to offend
I think they have a definition problem What one person considers subsidy is another mans tax break!
the driver to the solar industry is the tax credit
the driver to the solar industry is the tax credit
Just what I said in an earlier post.
you can cry politic all you want, but thats not the point of this is it?
republicans spent 1 tril so far on a oilfield
You can blame the war in Iraq if you like, but these "credits" have been around for a long time, long before 9/11, long before you were born maybe ( you haven't filled out your profile ) and it's all environmental feel good politics.
Solar electric is a joke, it's useful for off grid only at this time.
you can cry politic all you want, but thats not the point of this is it?
If not for the tax credits, you wouldn't have a job.
No rational person would make these "green choices" if they had to pay the true costs.
Joe H
Now, now, Joe and Bill! Who are we to snort at anyone who is smart enough to get their snout in the pig trough first?
Heck, all these here givaways going to happen soon and I'm likely to have to throw away self respect and do the same out of self defense or starve??
Oh my, maybe should delete this post, sounds too much like liberal self-righteousness??<G> WTF, maybe just a few more beers.....
Edited 2/7/2009 8:15 pm ET by junkhound
Got a Corona going down here in High Rolls NM.
Thinking solar water on this next project, but since there's power to this next one already I'll wait on the PV for now. Lots of sunshine, more than Southern Utah.
76F down in Alamogordo today, 65 up here on the mountain.
The Obamas are likely to have us reading by candle light if they have their way, might be best to have a backup plan?
Need a newer backhoe too, this new place has way too much grade for my almost imaginary brakes on the old one.
Joe H
"Need a newer backhoe too, this new place has way too much grade for my almost imaginary brakes on the old one."Now be green and get a solar powered one..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
go green and use biodiesel better yet grease
Have not been thru Cedar City or to Bryce (one of my favorite places) for probably 8 years. In '79 and '80 was in the area a lot on site surveys, pyroheliometer in hand. I ever get back to that area I'll drop you an e-mail first.
Recall the old Carter racetrack MX basing system? It was going to be based in your backyard.
That was a 'real' solar system study. Comparative study for everything from concentrating solar arrays for 4600 40 kW sites with regenerative hydrogen-bromine fuel cell storage all the way to building a hardened dedicated nuke plant with thousands of miles of underground HV distribution, stretching across sothern Utah and Nevada. Actually, for that scenario, solar did win by a good margin, even with just 12% efficient single junction 21:1 liquid cooled concentrators being about the best we could do at that time.
Did you know there are a few spots in S. Utah that have had 50 years stretches with ONLY 3 days straight with no solar potential? Wow.
Quite the place for solar where you are, but with a grid nearby, still dont pay unless ya 'steal' from other ratepayers.
If I lived where your do, I'd take an acre and build a solar furnace with steam or propane as the working fluid for a vapor cycle generating plant. Some Aussies are doing that now on a much bigger scale.
Our company sucked off a few million from Jimmy Carter (guess I had my snout in the trough then too<G>) trying to do a MW steam generator, the thermal gurus could not keep the boiler from cracking due to inadequate control systems in the late 70's, computer controls make that possible now. Think frying an ant with a whole quarter section of mirrors.
BTW, did you move? Going to ABQ Monday, but too far to drive south farther in the time I have.
Edited 2/7/2009 10:31 pm ET by junkhound
Could have hidden a couple MX missiles on my place, but there's a bunch of snow there right now and more in the next few days. Been a lot of no solar days there since October, got tired of clearing it. 1000' driveway of snow gets old, broken axle on hoe still waiting for fixing when I get back.
BTW, did you move? Going to ABQ Monday, but too far to drive south farther in the time I have.
Didn't move, but we left Utah before Christmas to see the grandkids. Still here in the land of no snow, probably head back at the end of the month. Snowing in Cedar again today and more expected.
About 8 hour RT from ABQ, radar trap on 54 S from Corrizo, add another 100 if you go 25 to Las Cruces.
I can see White Sands looking west from the new next site, new SIL hopes for NASA job there when he finishes his engineering degree.
Joe H
You can make up for it by having brewed the beer yourself!
Yep, any more tax on it in this state gonna hafta brew myself fer sure. Pretty sure I will if or when I retire and have time.
I drink too much on business trips 'cause I cant pass up a deal!, what costs $16 in WSLCB stores is only $6 to $9 in a lot of states (and free if you take a a tour daily in Lynchburg and just sniff the vats<G>), but all of those have state income tax, cant win, huh?
Taxes are way low up here. My house here is assessed very close to what my house in CA was.... taxes are less than half what I paid there. No state income tax, it's 5% there. Car tabs for a late model car might run you $700. Sales tax is a little lower here. From a contractor's perspective, things like work comp and UI are very reasonable and the systems are well run. Works for me.
the driver to the solar industry is the tax credit
Just what I said in an earlier post.
you can cry politic all you want, but thats not the point of this is it?
republicans spent 1 tril so far on a oilfield
You can blame the war in Iraq if you like, but these "credits" have been around for a long time, long before 9/11, long before you were born maybe ( you haven't filled out your profile ) and it's all environmental feel good politics.
Solar electric is a joke, it's useful for off grid only at this time.
OK mr know it all. You tell me what do you think a nuke plant is charged to dump waste. Better yet, are you aware that like 60% if the price of constructing a plant is PAID by the government. How about the offshore drilling I say they do an open bid for the mining rights instead of giving away public assets to their friends.
mr antisolar will you stand on your soapbox and complain about the nuke subsidies or oil or coal or natgas?
It is not about feeling good its about doing good
You are no expert, and people who made the incentives are elected officials so the people have spoken.
as far as the usefulness of solar, I could show you many people who have firsthand knowledge of how wrong you are.
Yeah solar is a joke, but the joke is on you. You get it you make out you dont you miss out. PERIOD
you can cry politic all you want, but thats not the point of this is it?
If not for the tax credits, you wouldn't have a job.
Well I spray foam, do energy audits, infrared analysis, blow cellulose, renovate homes, and own a 2-family apt so I will be OK either way but thanks for the concern
No rational person would make these "green choices" if they had to pay the true costs.
You are sooooooooo wrong. People pay like 50% more for recycled glass tile. But if you really remove all the govt influence propping up big oil etc. renewable will still be price competitive.
you can cry politic all you want, but thats not the point of this is it?
republicans spent 1 tril so far on a oilfield
Welcome to BT, I see this is your first post. Consider this post a little 'baptism by fire' some in good fun, some serious as I very much dislike charlatans. ..
if you cannot reply with specific, will consider your comment just more marketing BS>
I DO totally agree that rebates and 'incentives' drive the residential solar industry, otherwise it could not exist even with inventive marketing ploys as presented in the website that madscientist posted earlier.
Care to give any SPECIFIC examples of totally eliminating electric bills (well ok, you do just say 'regularly' rather than totally, maybe that just meant once in a while when the HO is off on vacation with everything but one refrigerator turned off?) other than for very low montly kW-hr users?
an you provide a link to an 'solarbuildersgroup' website.........so <grin> I can trash your website also here if it is as assumptive of a naive clientele as the original website reviewed.
What is the efficiency and cost per kW of the inverters you install? What is their MTBF? What is their PF? What power electronic topology do you use for the converters?
What type cells are in your panels, hail resistance of covers, cleaning schedule, etc. Silicon or GaAs?? Flat panel, trough, concentrator?
What is the net billing setup in NJ, or is it a reverse extortion setup e.g. HO gets paid xx cent kW-hr above retail rate?
Do you install 2 axis tracking arrays, one axis tracing, or fixed? If so, what angle setting have you found most beneficial.
Please post the appropriate link to Noaa and RREDC data for the local you serve, that should be right at your fingertips.
etc.
Well, I'm just as confused as before. It seems that I need to do a lot of research about the specific programs in my locale (and where we are in the fiscal year, as they seem to get used up before the year ends around here), my current usage, etc., then do a calculation that I don't yet know how to do on what my ROI will be, then get a good bottle of Tennessee whiskey and consider how much I really care. Its fascinating how deeply held the opinions on this subject are. It seems like it should be a simple math problem to get my cost, but just like politics it seems everyone uses different factors.Hmmmm.=====Zippy=====
lots of questions for a cold lead dont you think? do you live in the tri-state area? Or a state with incentives?
Welcome to BT, I see this is your first post. Consider this post a little 'baptism by fire' some in good fun, some serious as I very much dislike charlatans. ..
it is the net
if you cannot reply with specific, will consider your comment just more marketing BS>
I will try to serve your needs (info)
I DO totally agree that rebates and 'incentives' drive the residential solar industry, otherwise it could not exist even with inventive marketing ploys as presented in the website that madscientist posted earlier.
Point of agreement thats a start. Please also understand that all oil gas nuke coal is subsidized, and it is my theory that removing those "REBATES AND INCENTIVES" would make solar/wind far cheaper
Care to give any SPECIFIC examples of totally eliminating electric bills (well ok, you do just say 'regularly' rather than totally, maybe that just meant once in a while when the HO is off on vacation with everything but one refrigerator turned off?) other than for very low montly kW-hr users?
In NJ, I mostly install mostly residential systems (small) A 10kw(dc rated) consists of 50-60 panels and costing 80000-90000 (before the gov help) that will eliminate a 200-250 a month bill in my state.
an you provide a link to an 'solarbuildersgroup' website.........so <grin> I can trash your website also here if it is as assumptive of a naive clientele as the original website reviewed.
I am working on it, but here is 1 company I work with http://www.ecologicalsystems.biz
another http://www.njhsec.com/ info about the jersey program is at http://www.njcep.com
What is the efficiency and cost per kW of the inverters you install? I have installed many inverters mostly based on price system size and string size SMA, Xantrex, outback ....What is their MTBF? Their warranty is between 5-10 years I rarely had to replace one What is their PF?0.99 @ nominal power for sma What power electronic topology do you use for the converters?Low frequency transformer, true sinewave for the INVERTERS I have never installed off grid and you MUST use pure sine to be grid-tied
What type cells are in your panels, silicone hail resistance of covers golf ball sized, cleaning schedule most prefer when it rains, but 4 times a year or so might get you an extra 5-7%
, etc. Silicon or GaAs?? silicon so far, but I want to get into thin film sharp sanyo kyocera, bp, GE, suntech...... I have used many brands based on avail price and spec Flat panel, trough, concentrator? flat but if you got a job I will do it
What is the net billing setup in NJ, or is it a reverse extortion setup e.g. HO gets paid xx cent kW-hr above retail rate? they give about a 22% rebate, then you get 15 years of 'green tags' (think carbon credits) it all works out to about 6-8 year ROI I would prefer the Feed-in-Tarriff style(you call it extortion)
Do you install 2 axis tracking arrays, one axis tracing, or fixed? Fixed mostly, and at whatever the roof Angle is As far as trackers I hear the wattsuns are cool. If so, what angle setting have you found most beneficial.
Please post the appropriate link to Noaa and RREDC data for the local you serve, that should be right at your fingertips. The data ends up saying that in NJ you get about a 5 hour 'solar' day average throughout the year
etc.
I am not a total expert, but I have been in charge of over 60 projects totaling about a megawatt, and 70% of them did it for the money not the environmental aspects
Oh yeah I also spray foam do energy Audits, and have worked on windmills, and geothermal a regular jack of all (green) trades
In NJ, I mostly install mostly residential systems (small) A 10kw(dc rated) consists of 50-60 panels and costing 80000-90000 (before the gov help) that will eliminate a 200-250 a month bill in my state.
That will buy a house in a lot of states.
Can't imagine spending $90,000 for a PV system unless it was gonna run a small town.
Joe H
6-8 year ROI?What if you're like me and have a house that is built efficiently and you only spend ~$1,200/yr. on EL bills?Can you give me a system that will only cost $9,600 and be able to supply all of my electrical needs?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
in nj, it would cost 40000 roughly, you get a 9000 rebate, and they pay you about 2000 a year in cash in addition to the 1200 in electrical savings plus the 30% tax credit
roughly
"in nj, it would cost 40000 roughly, you get a 9000 rebate, and they pay you about 2000 a year in cash in addition to the 1200 in electrical savings plus the 30% tax credit"What would it be in VA? $40k, is that a 4kw system?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Edited 2/5/2009 10:54 pm ET by JonBlakemore
Junk Buddy how can someone who works at SpectraLab be so anti PV??
But seriously I think you are leaving out some important things that can not be set aside because you don't appear to like the politics...
Net metering is not a valid engineering comparison, but if you want to transfer wealth, that is another story and can be included if one wants.
16 kW-hrs even at net metering and 10 cents kWhr is $1.60 per day, say $580 per year.
Net metering is a very important thing. And here in CA the cheapest you can get juice from PG&E is 12 cents/ kWhr. But that only tells half the story. PG&E has a tiered rating system and it goes up fast. My two person house hold plus a medium sized koi pond and we were up into the 4th tier paying uh ~45 cents/ kWhr. With solar you pay off the higher tiers first so you can see that changes the economics greatly. It also makes the calcs a huger PITA.
I don't understand why you are against net-metering? It just makes sense you only pay the utility for the net energy you use. In CA its actually averaged over the entire year so you make more than you need in the summer and bank it for when you are making less than you need in the winter.
If you take away net metering and the government giveaways, you are literally throwing money at some marketing guru.
But that's not the point. The tax rebates and incentives do exist and there are more every day it seems like. You might not agree with them but you can't discount them in your ROI calcs.
I don't want to sound like a nut but it is true that the oil-gass-coal industries have a vast amount of subsidies from the gov't. They are just much much more clever about it- they get a production credit, advanced depreciation, I've tried to study it but there are so damn many givebacks in so many ways that its impossible to know exactly how much big oil gets back and that's the way they want it.
What about the nuclear power industry? None of those plants ever would of been built with out a serious hand-out from the gov't.
I'm not sure also why you think that over-the-course of a year average houses with PV can't have net zero electricity usage? When I was thinking about getting PV I checked a bunch of references and many of these people had net elec bills of a couple of dollars for the entire year. This is in the SF bay area in CA.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
Edited 2/5/2009 9:32 pm by madmadscientist
Mr. Mad, all those wacky tiered pricing schemes are pure politics.
The politics of Green, we won't allow new plants so this is how we will make it possible to keep the lights on.
Those Oil and gas and nuke subsidies aren't really subsidies, they (the government) just aren't seizing as much from those companies as they could.
Some day all this nonsense is going to arrive at the "tipping point" as the Warmists say, and you'll flip the switch and nothing will come out.
Then what?
I have nothing against PV, but the price isn't right unless you're off grid.
Rocky Mountain power quoted me $2,500 pole to run some to me a couple years back + unknown dynamite costs to set some of them. PV looked real nice compared to that.
Grid tied makes no sense, the amount of "Green" in the deal does not compute.
Joe H
"I don't understand why you are against net-metering?"Ok you have a taxi service. The state says that you have to be open 24x7 and available to anyone that comes along.So you find out that you biggest business is 12 am bar closing. So you buy enough cars and staff for the 12 am closing.Then some of the clients want to buy their own cars.You say fine, you will cut back your business.But the states while they want their own cars they are still drunk and you will have to drive than at 12 am.But you won't get their business during the day. But you do have some other day business.But then the states, but since they have their own car they should have to pay for the taxi cab at midnight.So while you can charge them for that trip during the day the client will drive one of your other client and you have to pay them back what you charged them for the 12 am trick during your peak business time..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
My posts were menat to highlight the technical aspects, showing that in a strict technical analysis residential PV makes no sense at all.
The rest of the discussion becomes the politics of redistribution of wealth, misguided incentives, etc.
I try not to participate in political discussions here. If a politician want to rob Peter to Pay Paul, so be it, wont get my vote next time. Google what has happened in Germany with 50 cent kW-hr payout to PV residential installs, a gold mine for some, but created a silicon wafer shortage and INCREASED electric bill for the average family who cold not take advantage of the political largesse.
Have to admit, if WA state mandated that the POCO paid me $0.32 or $0.50 per kW-hr generated by wind or solar, I'd probably buy a few hundred acres and build a thermal solar generator in retirement.
All of this is akin to legislating the value of pi, sooner or later folks will find out it just does not calculate.
Uh ... I thought it wasn't strict TECHNICAL aspects that you inquired about. I thought it was the economics ... you asked about payback, system cost, etc. For people to digress a bit into the political economics seems reasonably fitting. In the PV world much of the economics are related to economic stimulators like utility buy back rates, gov't incentives, etc. With all due respect, I would have to disagree (although see my note below).
Technically PV is very sound. Durable. Reliable. Provides energy 'easily'. Technically, it works very well ... but you didn't ask about the technical aspects at all (e.g. how they work, the components of a system, how to design, etc.).
As for costs with incentives stripped out ... we provided responses several times. On the practical side ... roughly $7+ to $10 per watt. This depends widely on the site circumstances and what you want to be doing with it, etc. So like many building systems, there can tend to be a fairly wide range of costs. I think that topic, we did digress a bit. ... Nature of Break Time, though. People get to talking and go off on tangents.
Edited 2/6/2009 8:27 am ET by Clewless1
Art, there's a concentrating solar array in CA just off Hwy 15 near Yermo.
Large field of mirrors (acres) and a focal tower looks to be 200' (as I recall) using molten (???) salts to generate steam.
Looks like a whole bunch of tax dollars doing nothing anymore, but interesting.
Probably not something that woud fit in my backyard though.
Joe H
Junkhound,
You mentioned"In PNW, if i needed to be self sufficient without gasoline or diesel, would do micro hydro or wood burning steam. Ever try to get permits to build a private dam DIY/ - damn near impossible."I have done a few google searches on micro hydro and haven't come up with a good grasp of the requirements for micro hydro or how much power one can generate with a given flow rate and drop.I have a small creek that runs year round and has a waterfall of roughly 10ft. In the summer time it may only flow 5 to 10 gallons a minute. In wintertime storms the flow is huge for brief periods.I could tap into the water source a few hundred feet upstream to increase the amount of fall but I think it could attract neighbors attention and I would need to start worrying about permits to alter the watercourse.I realize it wouldn't generate much power but I am curious what type of hydroelectric generator you would envision for such a setting?I have the same electric utility as the madscientist and deal with the same rate structure where much of our electricity ends up being billed at 36cents/kwh. Given this it is tempting to jump on the bandwagon of generating a small amount of electricity that can be sold back to the utility when not needed for household consumption.
Thanks for any input.Karl
At 100% efficiency for everything,
roughly 10ft. In the summer time it may only flow ...10 gallons a minute gives you 830 ft pounds per minute, or all of 13 ft-# per second. That is only about 18 watts.
Figure about 60% efficiency for 'back to the grid' power, and you get about 12 watts - watts, not kW.
Even 'micro hydro' flow are in the cubic feet per second, not gallons.
You likely can generate enough power during the high flow rates during winter storms, but you would need to be able to build it all from scratch and surplus DIY to make it pay, not counting your time.
For just the small normal flow, yu could try building a miniature pelton wheel or francis turbine powering an old Makita drill motor, would be an interesting small project, then if successful, you can build somethig bigger using a car alternator for winter flows.
Hmm. 18 watts. I suppose I could keep a CFL porchlight going for an eternity off my ultra micro hydro site.Your calculations were helpful, I won't plan any major lifestyle changes around this potential energy source but I like the idea of making a mini wheel/turbine generator once the kids reach an age where they would want to get involved.Thanks,
karl
Should add a good use for your stream flow that will likely save you $$
There is one way you can 'boost' the value of your 10 gpm flow and that is to build a wshp/ac (water source heat pump). Now the efficiency hit goes in reverse for saving the efficiency losses - instead of pump and motor losses for pushing water thru your evaporator, you get that for 'free'.
My wshp gets >5 COP vs. 3.5 (or lower) for air-air HP at temp below 50F, with measured pump power for running the water used is nearly 400W. 400W savings beats selling 13W!
I've been involved in three 'alternative energy' jobs, and one thing has been a constant: costs presented were wildly optomistic, and output expectations unrealistic.
Not only was the initial installation far more involved - and thus more expensive - than projected ... maintenance expenses were completely ignored. Trust me, there WILL be maintenance issues. Things do break, or wear out.
None of these engineered systems - either wind or solar - generated anything near the anticipated power.Even the one that came reasonably close will need at least 30 years to actually 'pay for itself.' You may assume that the slaesman had more optomistic figures.
There may be other reasons you would want to have one of these systems ... but saving money ought not be the primary one.
Yes, you're right to be wary. It is no accident that the 'solar industry' seems to vanish when there are no rebates - only to suddenly pop up everywhere, with blazing ads, the moment there is a rebate available. These businesses exist for one reason only: to get their hands on your rebate. Pre-rebate prices suddenly jump, and myriad unknown manufacturers sprout like mushrooms after a rain. Good luck getting warranty service!
Hi,
Just to take a cut at Zippys orginal question:
What does it cost if you take incentives and the middle man out?
Grid tied PV systems cost about $8 per peak watt installed.
Off grid PV systems cost about $10 per peak watt installed.
(a 1000 peak watt system delivers 1000 watts under full sun).
Lets say you buy a 3KW peak watt system.
Grid tied this would cost you about (3000 W)($8/peak watt) = $24000
Off grid it would be (3000 W)($10/peak watt) = $30000
So, you have invested $24K to $30K up front before any rebates.
So, how much would these systems save on your electric bill?
You can use the very simple NREL PVWatts calculator to make a good estimate for you location. Lets say you live in Denver (a good solar location). PVWatts says that a 3KW peak watt array that does not track the sun will generate about 4376 KWH per year.
If you pay the sort of national average of around 10 cents a KWH, then 4376 KWH is worth $43.76.
So, without rebates or maintenance costs, your return on investment for the grid tie system is: (43.76/$24000)(100) = 0.3% (less than 1%).
For off grid systems its worse in that the system costs more, and battery replacement costs are about enough to eat up your total saving.
For the average family that uses about 12000 KWH a year, the 3KW, $24,000 system in the example above would only offset about 1/3rd of their electric bill.
The best way (by far) to save money on electricity is to use less of it. Most people can easily cut their electric bills in half by spending less than $1000 (we did). Efficient lighting, efficient appliances, controlling power to PCs, getting rid of phantom loads, turning stuff off when you not in use -- common sense, easy stuff. All this costs almost nothing to do and saves a lot more than a $24K PV system saves -- its just not as sexy.
http://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/ProjectsConservation.htm
The link for the PVWatts calculator is:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/
Gary
"For off grid systems its worse in that the system costs more, and battery replacement costs are about enough to eat up your total saving."With one HUGE EXCEPTION.Many places where off grid is used it would take tens of thousand to connect to the grid..
William the Geezer, the sequel to Billy the Kid - Shoe
"If you pay the sort of national average of around 10 cents a KWH, then 4376 KWH is worth $43.76."
Wouldn't that be $437.60?
"So, without rebates or maintenance costs, your return on investment for the grid tie system is: (43.76/$24000)(100) = 0.3% (less than 1%)."
Even accounting the decimal place error, how does 437.6/24,000=.003? Would it not be .018 (or 1.8%)?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Yikes! -- my goof -- sorry.As you say, it should have been $438 and 1.8%.Gary
Dude ... you better do a little reality check on your math ... honest ... but deadly mistake. Glad you aren't my banker or broker.
I've lived, and worked, off grid for over 30 years. I am currently about 99% solar electric at my cabin (a small system), and about 95% solar at my shop, where I build furniture and cabinets. If I were to take my equipment costs and maintenance, over 20 years, my electricity would cost about 8 times the power company rate (about $.08/kwh here). I built my system over many years, profiting from those who bought solar equipment for Y2K, which I bought, nearly new, a few years later for 50 cents on the dollar. Solar is great for me, because I live miles from the power lines, and it allows me to make a living doing what I like. I am very conservative in use of power. It is not the answer to our country's energy problems, just a solution for a few people's problems.
What I don't like is that from their sales pitch it is all or nothing.
I'm working on landscape lighting and few other things being run by solar.
Just a small installation. It may not be big but it is a start.
I'm buying 12V lights so there is no converter.
I am going to set it up so they come on automatically (motion) and are on timers in some cases.
I just bought 2 of these. I've wanted to but lights on a tree in the back yard. It is self contained and automatic. And the price is right.
http://solarilluminations.com/acatalog/info_206.html
I just don't see why it has to be all or nothing. Primarily the lighting I will do it convenience lighting. It's a nice touch and is easy.