Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 5:18:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 13:44:09 GMT -5
I don't know anything about solar, but I wish I would have pulled the trigger on a wind turbine back when they were handing out all the incentives in our state. At the time the cost seemed really high (I think 17K?), but here I am 15 years later still paying $120-$200/month electric while my neighbor is getting a check from the co-op every month for the extra he is producing.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 25, 2019 14:43:57 GMT -5
except my husband was pissed
Awww ………. poor baby My thoughts exactly. I think he was just mad that I (mistakenly) asked if we should get a hotel, and he said no. And then I corrected my statement to be that I was getting a hotel, and did he want to come with me. He felt bait and switch.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jun 25, 2019 15:27:24 GMT -5
Sorry, can't resist ……… you go girl ………….
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Jun 25, 2019 18:03:02 GMT -5
In the analysis that I have done, you have to include tax rebates and subsidies to reach a 30 year payback. If you consider Carl’s $4K initial investment in a solar installation. Reducing the investment by a 30% tax rebate would make the net investment $2,800. Assume that Carl could invest that $2,800 and generate a return of about 10% on his investment, or $280 a year. If you take Carl’s $20 a month savings on electricity, you’d have $240 a year. While the numbers are close, it looks like over 30 years, Carl would be $1,200 ahead if he invested his $2,800 instead of buying solar panels. If Carl’s potential solar panel purchase was at that $7K end of the range, not buying solar panels would net him about $6,700 over the next 30 years. Where is Carl getting the $20/mo energy savings? We have several friends who have solar panels and even in the PNW, their savings on electric are running $100-150/mo. Last month, one told us he had a $6 electric bill.....and April up here is overcast most of the time. This was in a 2500 sq ft, mostly electric house. See the opening posting. It looks like Carl has done some math. If I’m not mistaken, Carl lives in the Northeast. Due to the large amount of hydro power, parts of the Northeast have some of the lowest electric rates in the country. When I worked in Buffalo, NY, I remember our business electric rates being less than two cents a kilowatt hour. At the same time, electric rates for our plant in central CA were about 12 cents a kilowatt hour.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 5:18:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 18:29:40 GMT -5
I’ve analyzed several public solar projects. So, large scale, much more cost effective than a typical residential installation. None of the solar projects that I analyzed were financially justified. If you assumed 100% efficiency for the life of the solar equipment (even though we know the performance of solar panels and batteries degrade over time), the payback period for the initial investment was 30 years. Thirty years for an installation that has a service life of about 25 or 30 years. (For the projects I analyzed, it seemed like the folks selling and installing solar systems structured their pricing to generate a 30 year payback.) As several other posters have pointed out, you don’t do a solar installation because it will deliver financial benefits. You do it because you believe solar provides environmental benefits and because you get a warm fuzzy feeling. Please don't share that analysis with any of the schools, office buildings and businesses around here. They are putting in covered parking with solar panels in a lot of places. I don't know if it pans out or not, but I love the abundance of covered parking. I hope they keep making progress on solar panels. It may never give us 100% or even 50% of what we collectively use, but, we all have roofs, and they usually aren't doing much else, so if we can get to a point where the panels and equipment are cheap enough, even a 20% reduction in fossil and nuclear would make a difference. Yep, another false analysis, if those panel were made in China you actually cost more carbon emissions than if you used nuclear power to just make electricity (hard to find articles that list all the real items required to install them): "An example of how a solar panel would pay back its energy and carbon production cost extremely quickly, would be a French or German made panel (being manufactured with electricity generated from Nuclear power - low carbon) being installed in China, where the vast majority of energy is generated via coal or gas, which is high carbon. This would offset the carbon and energy cost taken to manufacture the panel initially, in a very short period of time. The opposite applies when a China made unit is installed in France." Source: www.renewableenergyhub.us/solar-panels/solar-panel-cradle-to-grave-analysis-and-environmental-cost.htmlIt is all marketing and subsidies. All about profit. Take that cheap China made panel and market selling it to people that want to feel good. Also, notice the article "forgets" about all the shipping, installation and other parts needed for a solar installation (the mounting brackets, etc.). They cite an article that only looks at the manufacture of the crystal to get that nice 2.5 year point where it would be a net positive energy producer (they also seem to forget about the batteries required for the system). Also remember you either needs lots of batteries or you are still grid connected.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,364
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 26, 2019 10:34:37 GMT -5
I think the peice that's missing is the currect cost of electricity. And WHERE one's electricity comes from.
My local electricity prices don't fluctuate much (I think they are back in the .06 to .07 cents per kilowatt range.) The rates are slowly creeping up... but my electricity usage has been dropping (for the last couple of years - due to new appliances and light bulbs). My electric bills are at the lowest they've ever been - and at this point my usage cost is less than the total cost of the fees/taxes/delivery most months out of the year.
I'm using about $30 of "electricity" 9 months out of the year. I'm using between $60 and $90 of electricity the other 3 summer months. That's approximately $500 for electricity (and then another $500 in fees/taxes/delivery charges). I might consider adding solar - it would come down to how much I'd get paid for the excess power.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,364
|
Post by Tiny on Jun 26, 2019 10:40:03 GMT -5
Please don't share that analysis with any of the schools, office buildings and businesses around here. They are putting in covered parking with solar panels in a lot of places. I don't know if it pans out or not, but I love the abundance of covered parking.
It doesn't pan out as 'lower energy costs '. It is mostly "look at us, we are doing our part to save the planet". And schools and businesses get tax write-offs in addition to the subsidies that residences get. Plus the shaded parking and the good will in the community.
There's also the thing where - say during summer days - when everyone is running their A/C and businesses are humming along and electricity demand is at it's highest... the electric companies may need to bring a generator on-line to meet demand. I suspect they can't do this by just flipping a switch - they have to plan (and spend money/time/energy) to do it. And then they MIGHT be wrong and NOT need the extra energy. Or they might have misjudged and NOT prepared so they have to scramble to get enough power to the masses. Businesses, houses, public places with solar are theoretically producing power during those high demand times... maybe taking some of the load off the nuclear power plants and the back up natural gas/coal powered plants. Maybe helping to keep the power steady and even (no blackouts or brown outs). Maybe even helping to keep the cost of electricity from fluctuating dramatically FOR EVERYONE. It could work that way... in the Big Picture. (I really like electricity and what it does for me and others. I think reliable, inexpensive electricity creates a foundation for a good standard of living for everyone. I don't think it should be free... but I also don't think only the wealthy should be able to afford it/use it) and having to rely solely on nuclear or fossil fuels - means ever growing expense AND possibly reliability. )
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,040
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jun 26, 2019 11:53:18 GMT -5
Where is Carl getting the $20/mo energy savings? We have several friends who have solar panels and even in the PNW, their savings on electric are running $100-150/mo. Last month, one told us he had a $6 electric bill.....and April up here is overcast most of the time. This was in a 2500 sq ft, mostly electric house. See the opening posting. It looks like Carl has done some math. If I’m not mistaken, Carl lives in the Northeast. Due to the large amount of hydro power, parts of the Northeast have some of the lowest electric rates in the country. When I worked in Buffalo, NY, I remember our business electric rates being less than two cents a kilowatt hour. At the same time, electric rates for our plant in central CA were about 12 cents a kilowatt hour. Not the residents - all our cheap hydro power gets allocated to businesses as a perk to get them to relocate in the state. Every time a business loses its allocation of that cheap hydro power, it gets reallocated to another business, usually downstate. I've looked at the rebates for installing solar, years ago. The fact that the state tax credits were nonrefundable made them useless to us (little state tax to offset). Now I think the state credits are expiring. Right now, our electric bills are ridiculously low, like $35/month, of which $17 is base fee before any kWh, because we heat with oil and use propane for cooking. To use the solar credits properly, we should first convert everything we can to electric (geothermal heating, stove, water heating, plug in electric cars), because the size of the array has to be based on our regular electric load, for credit purposes. Starting with our small regular electric usage would only give us a small credit, and later upgrades get no further credits - it's first time only.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Jun 26, 2019 13:23:33 GMT -5
See the opening posting. It looks like Carl has done some math. If I’m not mistaken, Carl lives in the Northeast. Due to the large amount of hydro power, parts of the Northeast have some of the lowest electric rates in the country. When I worked in Buffalo, NY, I remember our business electric rates being less than two cents a kilowatt hour. At the same time, electric rates for our plant in central CA were about 12 cents a kilowatt hour. Not the residents - all our cheap hydro power gets allocated to businesses as a perk to get them to relocate in the state. Every time a business loses its allocation of that cheap hydro power, it gets reallocated to another business, usually downstate. I've looked at the rebates for installing solar, years ago. The fact that the state tax credits were nonrefundable made them useless to us (little state tax to offset). Now I think the state credits are expiring. Right now, our electric bills are ridiculously low, like $35/month, of which $17 is base fee before any kWh, because we heat with oil and use propane for cooking. To use the solar credits properly, we should first convert everything we can to electric (geothermal heating, stove, water heating, plug in electric cars), because the size of the array has to be based on our regular electric load, for credit purposes. Starting with our small regular electric usage would only give us a small credit, and later upgrades get no further credits - it's first time only. Teen, your statistics confirm my contention that electricity in the northeast is relatively cheap compared to some, maybe many, other parts of the country. And that Carl’s $20 a month savings estimate is probably in the ball park. You report that the cost of the electricity you consume each month is $18. In line with Carl’s savings estimate. Comparing our NV electric bill with yours, we appear to use electricity the same way. We use natural gas for heating and cooking. So electricity use is primarily lights and refrigerator (A/C was turned off until early this month). Your electric bill is $35 a month. Our electric bill for April was $117. While there may be some differences in consumption, that our electric bill is more than 330% of what your bill is suggests that your cost per kWh is significantly lower than what we pay.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,040
|
Post by teen persuasion on Jun 26, 2019 13:35:39 GMT -5
Just checked - last month's bill was for 151 kWh.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jun 26, 2019 22:35:29 GMT -5
The one thing I might consider is Batteries, Install the Batteries go on the rate plan that is much cheaper at night, Charge the batteries at night at the cheaper rate, use it during the day when the rate is much higher.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 5:18:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2019 8:23:35 GMT -5
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 27, 2019 9:10:20 GMT -5
The one thing I might consider is Batteries, Install the Batteries go on the rate plan that is much cheaper at night, Charge the batteries at night at the cheaper rate, use it during the day when the rate is much higher. That is a good idea. It would also help of the battery was charged when the power goes down. Can anyone tell that I am traumatized by not having power a few nights last summer? I am a sad, weak person.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,878
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 28, 2019 13:18:25 GMT -5
This chart shows that the USA energy production from solar was 1.6% of our total. Fossil is about 60%, nuclear is about 20%, wind is about 10%. Ie, solar is almost negligible as an energy source. Yet the love affair with the Public continues - and we spend over $30B every year to subsidize solar.
""Solar panels with enough capacity for my house would run @ $40,000. If my average bill is $200/month (pretty close), it will take 16 years to break even"""
If you invested that $40,000 instead of spending it, it would grow to over $160,000 in 16 years. (The rule of 72) That $160,000 would pay your $200/m electric bill for many years.
That's in the US. World wide, there are many other countries using more solar power than we are.
Solar water heaters are pretty common. I'm thinking, if we build a retirement house, we might use a solar water heater and a geothermal heat pump to heat and cool the house. Those are two of the biggest energy sucks in the house, if I can get some Green energy assistance, the rest of my power bill would be much smaller - and TVA gives incentives for both.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Jun 28, 2019 14:08:15 GMT -5
This chart shows that the USA energy production from solar was 1.6% of our total. Fossil is about 60%, nuclear is about 20%, wind is about 10%. Ie, solar is almost negligible as an energy source. Yet the love affair with the Public continues - and we spend over $30B every year to subsidize solar.
""Solar panels with enough capacity for my house would run @ $40,000. If my average bill is $200/month (pretty close), it will take 16 years to break even"""
If you invested that $40,000 instead of spending it, it would grow to over $160,000 in 16 years. (The rule of 72) That $160,000 would pay your $200/m electric bill for many years.
That's in the US. World wide, there are many other countries using more solar power than we are.
Solar water heaters are pretty common. I'm thinking, if we build a retirement house, we might use a solar water heater and a geothermal heat pump to heat and cool the house. Those are two of the biggest energy sucks in the house, if I can get some Green energy assistance, the rest of my power bill would be much smaller - and TVA gives incentives for both.
I’d like to point out the Green energy assistance and utility company incentives do not really reduce the cost of solar or wind systems and make them more cost effective. They just mean that your neighbors, or the taxpayers in general, pay for part of the cost of the system you install. To do a real financial cost/benefit analysis of green energy systems, you must base your calculations on the cost before any assistance, incentives, or subsidies. If your utility cost goes down, but the incentive you receive drives your neighbor’s utility cost up, the incentive just shifts the cost to your neighbor. It doesn’t make the cost go away.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 28, 2019 14:23:12 GMT -5
That's in the US. World wide, there are many other countries using more solar power than we are.
Solar water heaters are pretty common. I'm thinking, if we build a retirement house, we might use a solar water heater and a geothermal heat pump to heat and cool the house. Those are two of the biggest energy sucks in the house, if I can get some Green energy assistance, the rest of my power bill would be much smaller - and TVA gives incentives for both.
I’d like to point out the Green energy assistance and utility company incentives do not really reduce the cost of solar or wind systems and make them more cost effective. They just mean that your neighbors, or the taxpayers in general, pay for part of the cost of the system you install. To do a real financial cost/benefit analysis of green energy systems, you must base your calculations on the cost before any assistance, incentives, or subsidies. If your utility cost goes down, but the incentive you receive drives your neighbor’s utility cost up, the incentive just shifts the cost to your neighbor. It doesn’t make the cost go away. Of the green energy "system"...yes. That's a semi-macroeconomic issue. I think most people looking at this really only care about the microeconomic impact (because 1. It's easier. 2. It's what directly impacts them). If you want to look at the system, then you've got to start considering all kinds of other things. How sustainable is the alternative, what negative impacts might be coming down the pipeline, does the alternate system cause other large-scale expenses (i.e. How likely is a nuclear plant to have a meltdown resulting in massive expenditure, etc). I'm not sure what this kind of semi-macro look would provide. It doesn't look at your best individual financial decision, and it's not broad enough (if you only consider the straightforward cost+subsidy/assistance) to provide a full macroeconomic look. For example, if we just say "today we burn coal", and look at that compared to solar. We might come away saying "oh, coal is cheaper even though solar looks better after subsidies". So we say "coal is actually cheaper if we back out the subsidies". But if in 5 years all our coal is gone and we have to go to something much more expensive, and our current alternate (solar) is slow to implement (say if, instead of solar, it was some other technology that requires lots of upfront investment and a long lead time), then at the macro level it might be more cost effective to take the solar/alternative cost, rather than a mixture of the coal+new more expensive option if we can't quickly and easily switch it to the solar/alternative cost once coal is gone. I think the "more expensive now and has a long lead time" is pretty common with new energy sources. New energy sources don't just "pop up" one day fully developed and easy to implement. I'm just not sure how useful that kind of semi-macro look is. I can see why a micro look matters to individuals, and why a macro look matters to the population as a whole, but that semi-macro cost+subsidies look seems lot more useful to combat people saying stupid stuff like "look it's cheaper because I ignored the subsidies" than anything people should make decisions on. It's a good way to refute people saying things, but it's not a good decision-making tool.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 28, 2019 14:37:27 GMT -5
I liken the above (the idea of "it's cheaper because it's subsidized) a bit to the idea of 5 friends going out to dinner.
If your agreement is "we split the cost evenly" and you can't change the deal (because it's government controlled):
-If 4 people order $25 entrees, and one person orders a $50 entree...the total is $150...everyone pays $30. The person who orders the $50 entree got a $50 meal for $30 "oh look, I saved money". When it comes to energy, it seems like that's the person who tries to say "hey, everyone should do this, it's such a great deal"...but in reality if everyone did it and ordered a $50 entree, they'd all be paying $50 for the total $250 bill.
So what happens if we all just say "hey idiot, stop ordering the $50 entree, it's only cheaper for you because we're getting stuck with the bill!". So he stops ordering it, and it gets taken off the menu as everyone starts telling their friends to stop ordering that meal.
-Now 3 years later the $25 entree no longer exists, it was made with an animal and that animal is now extinct or endangered...now the only things on the menu are $75, and now we all order $75 items and pay $75 on a $375 bill amongst the 3 of us. We can't just order the $50 item anymore, it's off the menu. Maybe we can get it back on the menu, but that will take time.
It could be the case, that at a high level, the best thing our group could ever have done would have been to order the $50 meal if those ingredients were sustainable and wouldn't go away. By not ordering it, it left the menu and now we can't have it when the $25 meal isn't available anymore. Now going forward we're stuck with $75 because we ate the $25 meal ingredient to extinction, and ignored a more sustainable but more expensive-at-the-time option.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2019 17:32:46 GMT -5
Our electricity system is not very modern. Most utilities are looking to diversify sources. Subsidies aren't necessarily to save the consumer money, as it is to build a new source. I'm not saying it is panning out, but that is the reason they are subsidized.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jun 28, 2019 17:45:17 GMT -5
I just installed a solar system on my travel trailer. It was a fun installation, and it will extend our dry camping trip capabilities. Don't think it'll ever pay back, even though we do save about $5 per night with non-hookup sites. Cost of the system was about $800. We had two solar panels installed when we hought our travel trailer. As long as there is SOME sun, we could dry camp indefinitely (limited only by the water and blackwater tanks). We often boondock, saving around $30/night. 10 nights boondocking saves us $300. Yes, we boondocked 10 nights in April. More than that last year. I like the fact that, even as we are driving down the road, the battery is being charged by the sun.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jun 29, 2019 11:03:18 GMT -5
If your utility cost goes down, but the incentive you receive drives your neighbor’s utility cost up, the incentive just shifts the cost to your neighbor.
Don't dare cut into the CEO compensation
Article in today's Phoenix paper on the compensations of top CEOs and guess what. The winner in this group is the CEO of Arizona Public Service …….. a large electric company in AZ
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Jun 29, 2019 12:38:28 GMT -5
""Article in today's Phoenix paper on the compensations of top CEOs and guess what. The winner in this group is the CEO of Arizona Public Service …….. a large electric company in AZ""
The CEO gets less than 2% of the payroll, the other 98% goes to the employees. So his $10M/year is mostly in the 'rounding error' category. But yeah, it still seems too high.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Jun 29, 2019 14:14:44 GMT -5
If your utility cost goes down, but the incentive you receive drives your neighbor’s utility cost up, the incentive just shifts the cost to your neighbor.
Don't dare cut into the CEO compensation Article in today's Phoenix paper on the compensations of top CEOs and guess what. The winner in this group is the CEO of Arizona Public Service …….. a large electric company in AZ Hmm - wonder how Az Public Service compares to the others in revenue, number of employees, size of customer base, and other metrics? The fact that this CEO’s compensation is the highest in the state doesn’t automatically mean it is out of line. And what the paper is calling compensation? Often, these types of outlets report gains on stock options as compensation. Since people have to pay for their stock options, I don’t think gains on stock options are compensation. After all, if the CEO bought shares of Walmart, you wouldn’t include the gains on their Walmart stock as compensation. You’d consider it an investment gain.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 7, 2019 15:13:03 GMT -5
Solar panels with enough capacity for my house would run @ $40,000. If my average bill is $200/month (pretty close), it will take 16 years to break even before any savings would kick in. And that’s assuming there are sufficient storage options for nighttime use. There is no "storage". Solar panels do NOT power your house. Solar panels are wired into your meter and you get "credit" against what you use for what you generate. There are different kinds of panels as well- and the installation makes a difference. Some companies will run all the panels through a single inverter, though it's better if each individual panel has its own inverter. But THE difference of differences is how you get them- GET THEM ON YOUR OWN. That $40,000 quote was probably from one of those companies that came out and ran a presentation? If so, 50% of that is going in the marketing company's pocket. I know- a solar company with a "one call close" presentation policy is one of my marketing clients. Rather, you should find a contractor with a good reputation that will install the system and buy directly from them. Get US made panels with individual inverters-- and mind your warranties. The average homeowner should be able to get solar for roughly $20,000 to $25,000 depending. If you're going to do it-- set aside another $10,000 for energy efficient windows, radiant barrier and upgraded insulation (maybe even climate controlled space) in the attic. Combined with the solar savings- and assuming you finance (which you should) the solar panels, you'll break even on monthly payments via energy savings. Break-even should be 5 to 7 years-- not 10 to 15.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 7, 2019 15:29:26 GMT -5
Solar panels with enough capacity for my house would run @ $40,000. If my average bill is $200/month (pretty close), it will take 16 years to break even before any savings would kick in. And that’s assuming there are sufficient storage options for nighttime use. There is no "storage". Solar panels do NOT power your house. Solar panels are wired into your meter and you get "credit" against what you use for what you generate. There are different kinds of panels as well- and the installation makes a difference. Some companies will run all the panels through a single inverter, though it's better if each individual panel has its own inverter. But THE difference of differences is how you get them- GET THEM ON YOUR OWN. That $40,000 quote was probably from one of those companies that came out and ran a presentation? If so, 50% of that is going in the marketing company's pocket. I know- a solar company with a "one call close" presentation policy is one of my marketing clients. Rather, you should find a contractor with a good reputation that will install the system and buy directly from them. Get US made panels with individual inverters-- and mind your warranties. The average homeowner should be able to get solar for roughly $20,000 to $25,000 depending. If you're going to do it-- set aside another $10,000 for energy efficient windows, radiant barrier and upgraded insulation (maybe even climate controlled space) in the attic. Combined with the solar savings- and assuming you finance (which you should) the solar panels, you'll break even on monthly payments via energy savings. Break-even should be 5 to 7 years-- not 10 to 15. You can get a battery, have solar fill the battery and power your house first. Most people stay connected to the grid, and give excess power to the grid, and receive power when their battery is depleted. But, there are multiple ways to utilize solar.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 11, 2019 19:58:42 GMT -5
There is no "storage". Solar panels do NOT power your house. Solar panels are wired into your meter and you get "credit" against what you use for what you generate. There are different kinds of panels as well- and the installation makes a difference. Some companies will run all the panels through a single inverter, though it's better if each individual panel has its own inverter. But THE difference of differences is how you get them- GET THEM ON YOUR OWN. That $40,000 quote was probably from one of those companies that came out and ran a presentation? If so, 50% of that is going in the marketing company's pocket. I know- a solar company with a "one call close" presentation policy is one of my marketing clients. Rather, you should find a contractor with a good reputation that will install the system and buy directly from them. Get US made panels with individual inverters-- and mind your warranties. The average homeowner should be able to get solar for roughly $20,000 to $25,000 depending. If you're going to do it-- set aside another $10,000 for energy efficient windows, radiant barrier and upgraded insulation (maybe even climate controlled space) in the attic. Combined with the solar savings- and assuming you finance (which you should) the solar panels, you'll break even on monthly payments via energy savings. Break-even should be 5 to 7 years-- not 10 to 15. You can get a battery, have solar fill the battery and power your house first. Most people stay connected to the grid, and give excess power to the grid, and receive power when their battery is depleted. But, there are multiple ways to utilize solar. Yes, but then you lose the state (not federal) subsidies-- like in SC where you buy them for 3 cents a kilowatt hour and you get it back at 9 cents.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 11, 2019 19:59:27 GMT -5
By the way- I could be wrong, but I understand federal subsidies are going to be greatly reduced at the end of this year-- and eventually they phase out?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 11, 2019 22:06:23 GMT -5
By the way- I could be wrong, but I understand federal subsidies are going to be greatly reduced at the end of this year-- and eventually they phase out? They were originally written the phase out. But I can't remember the details. I recall when Trump was elected a lot of people said if you were going to buy, hurry, as Trump wouldn't renew the subsidies. So, they were supposed to be gone or greatly reduced by 2020.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 5:18:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 18:45:59 GMT -5
Okay, urban dweller here with just a few thoughts based on some local experiences. #1 make sure your HOA approves your solar array; in many areas an HOA can't ban solar but can restrict location, visibility, etc.. #2 make sure you add the solar array to your homeowner's insurance, including liability. A poorly installed panel can go airborne during storms and wipe out your neighbors' property. And hail does a number on solar too.
|
|