Solar electricity for your house

I disagree it's a fad, this is a long term trend. The early adopters today will create a better market for tomorrow.

Big houses = fad. Green = trend.

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

Also keep in mind that your solar system's performance will deteriorate as time progresses.

Solar water heaters are the way to go. Photovoltic cells are still pretty inefficient.

Moving out of the house isn't a problem, because the next buyers will pay for the remaining life of the equipment. The real issue is the decrease of efficiency and unknown maintenance cost. Even the drop of efficiency shouldn't be a real problem since the service life of the solar panels should be higher than 25 years, or twice as the breakeven period.

subieaggie said: nycll said: Moving out of the house isn't a problem, because the next buyers will pay for the remaining life of the equipment. The real issue is the decrease of efficiency and unknown maintenance cost. Even the drop of efficiency shouldn't be a real problem since the service life of the solar panels should be higher than 25 years, or twice as the breakeven period.

Would prospective buyers pay a premium for seller's solar system in today's market?Why not? The long term trend for energy price is up.

subieaggie said: nycll said: subieaggie said: nycll said: Moving out of the house isn't a problem, because the next buyers will pay for the remaining life of the equipment. The real issue is the decrease of efficiency and unknown maintenance cost. Even the drop of efficiency shouldn't be a real problem since the service life of the solar panels should be higher than 25 years, or twice as the breakeven period.

Would prospective buyers pay a premium for seller's solar system in today's market?Why not? The long term trend for energy price is up.

I wouldn't. Solar panels deteriorate in performance over time. I'm not sure what the exact formula is, I'm sure the firms who sell these know, but let's say at 12 years (breakeven period) the performance decreased 30% (and will progressively get worse), I probably wouldn't pay a premium for a system that is bound to deteriorate and lose efficiency.

But most buyers probably don't know how to do cost/benefit analyses.

But if your panels make it past the breakeven point, you're then playing with house money even if they've deteriorated in efficiency. I've read that panels can last 40+ years -- so even if they're working at only 50% efficiency, they're earning you money at that point.

subieaggie said: nycll said: subieaggie said: nycll said: Moving out of the house isn't a problem, because the next buyers will pay for the remaining life of the equipment. The real issue is the decrease of efficiency and unknown maintenance cost. Even the drop of efficiency shouldn't be a real problem since the service life of the solar panels should be higher than 25 years, or twice as the breakeven period.

Would prospective buyers pay a premium for seller's solar system in today's market?Why not? The long term trend for energy price is up.

I wouldn't. Solar panels deteriorate in performance over time. I'm not sure what the exact formula is, I'm sure the firms who sell these know, but let's say at 12 years (breakeven period) the performance decreased 30% (and will progressively get worse), I probably wouldn't pay a premium for a system that is bound to deteriorate and lose efficiency.

But most buyers probably don't know how to do cost/benefit analyses.So you are not willing to pay anything extra for a house with a 7 year old panel? So to you a lower electric bill doesn't mean anything? Tell me about not knowing how to do cost benefit analysis.

Mithrin said: If you install a system that has a break-even point when including interest on your installation costs, then by definition, it's a long-term investment. At the break-even point, it has netted you the same amount as a financial vehicle at the assumed interest rate to calculate the break-even. If it continues to provide energy savings past that point, it is now outperforming the assumed interest rate.

The risks in the case of solar are that you move out of the house earlier than planned, you encounter higher-than expected maintenance costs, or that energy rates fall (or grow more slowly than planned). The biggest risk is a catastrophic failure of the system (tree falling on it, lightning strike, etc) that is not covered by insurance.

For some parts of the country (like SoCal), where there is year-round sunlight, little risk of severe weather to damage a system, and high electric rates, current solar technology can be a good investment. Other parts of the country with less sun and cheaper electric might not make sense. A fully honest evaluation of solar would compare investment at a given rate of the installation and maintenance costs vs. the savings from a solar system (assuming the monthly savings were invested as well). The biggest unknown would be the amount of savings achieved due to future rate increases that are difficult to predict.

Excellent summary! Hopefully the risk of moving out will turn into an investment when in the future, buyers will want solar power and pay a fair price for the used, but installed system. That's assuming the cost of the installation doesn't change, and if that is the case, if a new installation costs the same and ROI calculations haven't changed, you may potentially recoup the full installation cost and benefit from free power generation (like buying a high residual value car). On the other hand, extreme increases in efficiency could lead to accelerated depreciation on the investment. If you expect a significant drop in price or increased efficiency in these systems in the next few years, factoring in those may alter the ROI. It's a bit like the buy versus rent equation on a home when cost is comparable, but expected to change (i.e. those who rented the last couple of years and are timing when to buy in).

Another complicating factor is the change in behavior by having paid up front for a cheap (free?) power supply. Like the more efficient lightbulbs supposedly saving 75% power usage, but assuming no change in lighting needs/wants. I'm guilty of thinking, I'm saving power with compact flourescent bulbs, so I'll get brighter bulbs (higher power, but still much less than old incandescent bulbs) and run them longer. I've also bought more lighting for the outside (automatic, dusk-dawn, path lighting, etc.) because they're inexpensive and lower cost to operate than past equivalents. If I had solar power, my air condition is probably going to be running longer "knowing" that the power is free or reduced. It's a psychological fallacy, but many people may wind up using more power and not saving as much as planned, pushing out ROI, but benefitting from the immediate increase in power usage.

PV solar is a fad and a joke. The only effective use is to charge your vehicle battery when you are out camping. Other than that, it's simply a marketing gimmick. PV is "hands down" the worst conservation investment when compared to much simpler and more effective ways of using natural daylight, ambient air heating and cooling, and insulating practices. For example, next time the temperature falls to 70 in the summer at night, walk around your neighborhood and see how many people are running their AC rather than opening their windows. This is just one simple example of hundreds.

The same people who are buying PV systems are the same people who are buying a Toyota Pious when it never, ever, ever pencils for a typical driver. They do it for status and not for the environment or their own economy. Compare the battery disposal issue of the prius to the cadmium disposal of large PV panels. It's simply a self-serving boast that damages the environment and costs more while claiming the exact opposite.

Solar energy has its place in warming water and/or living space. A better investment would be a large insulated underground heat sink where heated liquid can be pumped to store energy for when its needed (like at night in colder climates). Why is it that none of you really know about these systems? Because they are the least profitable to sell you. Any fool can read a brochure and borrow $40k to reduce their $200/month electricity bill by 90%, but very few can figure out how to turn $3000 worth of lumber, tubing rock and dirtwork into $100 per month worth of hot water and heat.

What was it that PT Barnum used to say?

Cerdo said: I disagree it's a fad, this is a long term trend. The early adopters today will create a better market for tomorrow.

Big houses = fad. Green = trend.

I would say it is both a fad and a trend.

Many "green" products are not actually very green. They take more energy to produce than they will save in their lifespan. Such products are very FAD as the sheeple believe they are green and buy them solely for that purpose.

The trend is working together for a better more efficient tomorrow. The fad is all the gimmicks sold under the disguise of being green.

Unfortunately, many aspects of going green aren't feasible unless your neighbors are helping pay for you. Now, It might be a good idea to take advantage of your neighbors while you can. There will eventually be a time when these extreme discounts disappear if going green becomes popular enough.

delzy said: A better investment would be a large insulated underground heat sink where heated liquid can be pumped to store energy for when its needed (like at night in colder climates). Why is it that none of you really know about these systems? Because they are the least profitable to sell you. Any fool can read a brochure and borrow $40k to reduce their $200/month electricity bill by 90%, but very few can figure out how to turn $3000 worth of lumber, tubing rock and dirtwork into $100 per month worth of hot water and heat.

Actually, high rises use a similar principle for cooling by freezing large vats of water in the basement at night when energy costs and temperatures are lower, then using the energy from phase change to cool the building during the day.

The unfortunate thing about this (and the method you mentioned) is that it doesn't really scale down to individual residences with the same level of efficiency that you get from commercial systems.

That said, PV at the residential level isn't really efficient at all. It only ever "breaks even" because of government subsidies.

riznick said:

Many "green" products are not actually very green. They take more energy to produce than they will save in their lifespan. Such products are very FAD as the sheeple believe they are green and buy them solely for that purpose.

I hope that you're not lumping solar PV into this bucket. There is a myth out there that solar PV panels take more energy to make than they will ever produce in their lifetime. Unfortunately this myth is entirely false:Solar Energy Balance

riznick said: delzy said: For example, next time the temperature falls to 70 in the summer at night, walk around your neighborhood and see how many people are running their AC rather than opening their windows.
I do both In the NY climate with very high humidity, I suspect it costs more money to shut down the AC for only a short period of time (say couple of hours) to let the outside cool but damp air in.

If gasoline is over $4 per gallon, a hybrid becomes good investment.

TVA Offers a solar program - $1000 back for the system and they will buy the power back at an increased rate. I am not sure how good this is compared to some of the other areas, but I tried to get my inlaws to look into it when they were building a massive house but they didn't want those ugly things on the roof. Now they have $400 bills to heat/cool and gripe about that.

Here is the info - http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=AL03F&re=1&ee=1

TVA purchases the entire output of a qualifying system at $0.12 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) above the retail rate for solar and $0.03/kWh above the retail rate for all other eligible renewables. TVA retains sole rights to any renewable energy credits. The power is purchased through a participating power company and payment is made in the form of a credit issued by the local power company on the monthly power bill for the home or business where the generation system is located. If a system produces more electricity than it consumes, payment for the excess generation will be issued either monthly or annually, at the discretion of the power company. All new participants in the Generation Partners program will receive a $1000 incentive to offset the upfront cost of the system.

Don't have any personal experience with them, but here's another idea: http://renu.citizenre.com/index.php?p=edu_solution

I'm looking at solar now. If I can get all the federal, state and local incentives to line up, I might pull the trigger.

My main reason for going solar is for an inflation/tax hedge.

bigdaddycincinnati said: ^^Thanks. I probably should be sure, but I don't think we (Cincinnati) pay different rates for different times (peak/non-peak). And my electric rate is pretty cheap here, compared to Cali. As far as sizing, Ohio allows for net metering, so wouldn't I want the biggest feasible system since I will essentially "sell" unused electricity back to the power company?

Most of the states I have seen have "net metering" where the power company only offsets the charges, they do NOT pay you for any excess that you generate. We have been looking at wind-turbines, as places we are looking at are too far north to be all that effective for solar power.

dcg9381 said: longwood8 said: ....It is not a sound financial decision because the break even point is at or beyond the anticipated lifetime of the equipment. As technologies advance, it may be a sound financial decision one day, just not today.


Your statement is untrue.
A reasonable lifetime for a PV system is beyond 12 years, which is more than break even points cited above.
The break even point is subject to a tremendous amount of variation - mainly due to differences in rebates as well as differences in the cost of power.

The bottom line is that PV must be evaluated on a case by case basis.

I also recommend that there are *better* more bang-for-the-buck things that can be done in advance of solar insulation that provide greater return:
Radiant barriers
Better insulation
Window shades / solar screens
Solar hot water
Then maybe solar power - via PV or turbine

the life of the panels is more than 12 years, but a reasonable lifespan on the inverter is 10 years and warranties rarely go beyond seven. that extends the break even point. But these figures only exist due to massive subsidies that would be better spent on nuclear or other large scale projects as opposed to small, "feel good" projects. Economically, which is what he should care about on FWF, it is a loser.

longwood8 said: nycll said: Al Gore is trying to change the system so that people will pay a fair price (higher price) for consuming Fossil fuel. Until then, he can afford his bills and I say let him.
Since when did a "fair" price equal a price higher than that set by free markets?Have you ever heard the economic concept of Externality?

Btw, a number of people including yourself show a disdain to environmental conscious people based on nothing more than a unfounded superiority complex toward strawmen you created by yourselves. If someone is doling out $5000 for a PV panel, obviously he neglects insulations, shades, and other sort of common sense measures. If someone buys a hybrid, obviously he thinks honda fit is a bad choice. If someone supports solar power, then obviously he doesn't like nuclear power. Etc, etc.

Since when did a "fair" price equal a price higher than that set by free markets?

This is wrong. The free market does not set the price for energy, electricity or oil/gas. Electricity is regulated by the govt at every step of the way. Oil/gas are subsidized by research grants, transportation grants, outrageous tax benefits for private companies, even road building.

Hybrids are a perfect example of all that is wrong with the environmental movement today. It is more important to look like you are doing something (and claim moral superiority) than to actually make some sacrifice. Simple fact is that a hybrid driven 50 miles a day is far worse for the environment than a Hummer driven 10 miles a day to soccer practice and the grocery store. Yet the hybrid driver can feel good while the hummer driver is shamed. No different than Al Gore and his huge utility bills and private jets.

Also untrue. The simple fact is that hybrids are a means to an end. Hybrids were developed because they are a transitional technology. Plug-in hybrids will soon hit the market. Electric cars will not be far behind (in fact, they were first). You can't change on a dime. Hybrid payback is an issue, but your hummer driven 10 miles a day is completely unrealistic.

As far as Al Gore goes, I change my behavior (I think most do) based on what is achievable and not an "inconvenience" in my life. The goal is to, as efficiently as possible, make these type of behaviors (such as installing solar pv) as easy as possible for the average american. that takes time, especially with flawed logic such as yours still pervasive.