I searched the archives and found some older solar threads from 04-05. I think it's time for a new one. The cost of solar has come down and the cost of electricity has gone up.

Currently there is a 30% federal tax credit for solar systems.

I'm going to be buying a house in Southern California soon and it's looking like it may be a good investment (CA also has some rebates that appear to be based on how much electricity the system actually generates).

Any advice/ideas/anything to be aware of?

I will probably just try to get bids from a few installers and try to get them down as much as possible. I'm thinking not as many people are installing solar now because of the economy.

In some cities there are fantastic incentives.

I believe Berkeley has one of the following programs:

1) you get the solar panel fully paid for by the city. Let's say it costs $30k.
Then, over the next 30 years, you pay an extra $1000 every year in property tax.
Your benefit: loan at 0%, full tax deduction, when you sell the house, the next owner assumes the payment.

2) you get the solar panel (partially) paid for by the city and the city gets (a portion) of your electrical bill savings.

I believe Berkeley has #1. Not sure.

I know that other cities have thought about similar programs. It sure would generate jobs and a LOAN of $30k per household may not be insurmountable.

I myself am thinking of buying a system too.

Read this article recently, you might find it interesting: Going Solar: One Year Later

"you can see, the system generated 1,166KWh in July, but only 258KWh in December—down about 78%. By March, we were back up to 754KWh and May's power generation was 1,060KWh—the first month over 1,000KWh since last August."

Umm, I consume an average of 1600, as per my electricity provider. I would need more panels I assume?

"The eternal question of price/performance always crops up. Clearly, I'm saving money, but I also sank around $38,000 into the system. At $3,000 per year in savings (which assumes a constant rate for power cost and the same power usage pattern), that's a 12.5 year payback."

Ouch!!

Yeap, patience is a virtue.

Cheapoking said:"you can see, the system generated 1,166KWh in July, but only 258KWh in December—down about 78%. By March, we were back up to 754KWh and May's power generation was 1,060KWh—the first month over 1,000KWh since last August."

Umm, I consume an average of 1600, as per my electricity provider. I would need more panels I assume?

"The eternal question of price/performance always crops up. Clearly, I'm saving money, but I also sank around $38,000 into the system. At $3,000 per year in savings (which assumes a constant rate for power cost and the same power usage pattern), that's a 12.5 year payback."

Ouch!!

Yeap, patience is a virtue.I don't think 12.5 year payback is that bad, provided the system operates trouble free during the time.

dmlavigne1 said:In my area geothermal heat/cooling has a much faster payback and is pretty easy to do on new construction. By far the most cost effective thing you should do when building new is 2X6 exterior walls. Yes you lose 2 inches of floor plan but the energy savings will be far worth it.

You could do geothermal, 2X6, *and* solar panels. Throw in some low-e windows and the place would qualify as an energy star certified house.

OP, make sure that you understand what's physically required for solar, and keep that in mind as you house hunt. Off the top of my head, that's a south or southwest facing roof, a roof angle that's about the same as your lattitude for optimum efficiency, and an electric utility that accomodates net metering (probably all of them in SoCal). Any shade on the roof will kill your efficiency, so try to predict if there are any trees that'll need pruning in the next 30 years. If they're on your neighbor's property that's too bad. There might be some law that neighbors have to maintain a "right of way" for sunlight to hit your panels but that's no way to make friends. A solar hot water heater would go great next to your solar panels, especially if you've got a pool. They're much cheaper than solar electric panels too.

Here's a database of energy efficiency grants: http://www.dsireusa.org/

I read this a while back in Popular Mechanics. This was the part that was most interesting...

That means even the cheapest solar panels cost about $3 per watt of energy they go on to produce. To compete with coal, that figure has to shrink to just $1 per watt.

Nanosolar’s cells use no silicon, and the company’s manufacturing process allows it to create cells that are as efficient as most commercial cells for as little as 30 cents a watt.

So your post got me thinking again and I went to their website here and saw this....

Want to Buy Panels? We are presently already sold out for the next 12 months. We are working hard to scale our production capacity as fast as possible. Please sign up above to be notified of availability.

Sold out for the next 12 months?? 30 cents a watt?? Why are we not hearing more about this stuff??

For those in CA, try sungevity. They'll quote you a system for free online.

EDIT:
Sungevity

tripleB said:What I discovered is that anytime you have a system thats connected to the power grid, its illegal to have it produce power when theres a power failure. This is a safety precaution because if the power company techs are up in a line trying to fix it, and they have your juice flowing back at them, they will die.

So the point is that if you want to be self sufficient during a power outage, you either have to illegally wire your system up. Perhaps with a second set of lines such that your power really doesnt go back through the main city line. Or completely cut yourself off from the power company and rely solely on solar with a backup diesel generator.

You obviously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Just install a sensor that senses when there is no grid power. These are readily available. You'll still have the power you produce in your home.

Edit:
Crappy engrish.

bbr said:I read this a while back in Popular Mechanics. This was the part that was most interesting...

That means even the cheapest solar panels cost about $3 per watt of energy they go on to produce. To compete with coal, that figure has to shrink to just $1 per watt.

Nanosolar’s cells use no silicon, and the company’s manufacturing process allows it to create cells that are as efficient as most commercial cells for as little as 30 cents a watt.

So your post got me thinking again and I went to their website here and saw this....

Want to Buy Panels? We are presently already sold out for the next 12 months. We are working hard to scale our production capacity as fast as possible. Please sign up above to be notified of availability.

Sold out for the next 12 months?? 30 cents a watt?? Why are we not hearing more about this stuff??Good question. Nanosolar is not the only manufacturer undercutting the rest of the solar industry. First Solar is another example. IMO the industry has received a lot less press than it deserves, and with greater investment in production facilities these companies could achieve the perfect mix of both affordability and environmental friendliness.