I would be very reluctant to size an inverter based on the default 23% derate factor, because it assumes, among other things, an inverter efficiency of only 92% a whopping wire loss of 2%, and a "soiling" loss of 5%.
I would not be a happy camper if I hosed the dirt off my panels and, in so doing, fried my inverter.
glxpass said: AbbaZabba said: glxpass said: AbbaZabba said: System is finally all installed and working. City inspector just finished. It is producing about 26kwh/day but during the summer this should be higher.
For anyone who is curious the installer was Tenco Solar - Matt Mitera 949-795-3472 he works all over southern california. He said if you're interested let him know you heard from jon and he'll give you a good price. He also said if you live in SCE territory the residential rebate is still $1.90/watt but it will drop to $1.60 a week or two. Also it is too late to get everything done this year to claim the 30% fed tax credit on 09 taxes. I was curious about the system configuration you ended up with and whether you decided to install as large of a system as you could, based on California AB 920. Thanks.
I selected 30x 190w panels with a PVP 4800 inverter. When the install came he upgraded to a PVP5200 inverter at no charge (not necessarily because of capacity but because the price was only ~100$ different). That would allow me to add 3 more panels but due to the complications involved with revising the rebate it was not worth the trouble however they could be added at a later date. For ideal placement I think 3 more panels would be the max for me. If you are looking to maximize you may want to consider using higher wattage panels like 220, 230. I wish I would have done that but I didn't know about AB 920 when I chose the system although I am very happy anyway. Our inverter was matched to the capacity of the panels, we've no plans for adding extra panels and changing the inverter. I think you were wise not to add the extra panels because:
1. As I understand it, California AB 920 is based on excess KHW generated at true-up time, not on excess money at the true-up, which is an important distinctionl, if you're on a TOU (time-of-use) plan, since your rate will vary based on time of day. Unless your solar PV system generates more electricity than you consume, AB 920 will be meaningless for you.
2. There's no guarantee what the rate of those excess KWH will be. It's quite possible it will be minuscule.
I'm not on TOU. If I really tried to save energy (turn off computers at night - turn off office computer on weekend conserve on the ac during summer) I could produce more then I use with the current system on a yearly basis. So if I did that then adding the 3 extra panels would be gravy since I would be getting paid for the energy they produce. I guess i'll wait and see what the actual pay rate is and if it makes sense I'll add the extra 3.
As for the inverter the california solar initiative site will show what works if you plug in components. the panels would have worked with a 4800w inverter due to the conversion difference. So far the peak it has gotten up to is 4200w but it should be higher in the summer.
dugggg said: Peak wattage should be around the equinoxes, when the sunlight is perpendicular to the panels...I'm not sure what you mean by this. It depends on the angle of the panels and the latitude where they're installed whether or not sunlight is perpendicular to the panels (at midday).
Haven't had a chance to read the entire thread yet, but I haven't seen it mentioned: One Block Off the Grid
I read about this company (no affiliation) and it seems interesting. Basically it negotiates "group buys/installs" for homeowners. Anyone have any experience with this?
hotdogwater said: Haven't had a chance to read the entire thread yet, but I haven't seen it mentioned: One Block Off the Grid
I read about this company (no affiliation) and it seems interesting. Basically it negotiates "group buys/installs" for homeowners. Anyone have any experience with this?
I did get a quote from them. They do contract with very reputable companies (heliopower I believe for my area) and they do give a pretty good price. They quoted me $6.05/watt. My system ended up being 5700W so that would be $35k. I got it for 30k. (we are talking pre-rebate numbers here). Keep in mind the CA incentive is based only on the size of the system so it would have been the same. (but I would have been able to take the 30% tax credit). So their price was about 3.5k more after rebate and 5k more out of pocket.
For our 5KW solar PV system, located in the SF Bay Area, we ended up with the following figures for our 12-month true-up period that ended January 6, 2010:
Net electricity cost: -$220.37. Note that the cost doesn't include an approximately $9/month charge for what IMO amounts to the privilege of being on the grid. Our utility doesn't let any of our credit apply to this monthly amount, nor does it allow one to roll their credit over to the next year; hence the word "true-up."
Electricity consumed: 10,380 Kwh
Electricity generated by PV System: 8,960 Kwh
Electricity required from grid: 1,420 Kwh
The energy measurements were from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, which is pretty close to the true-up period. You can therefore see the effect of our TOU (time-of-use) schedule (where we pay more for electricity during peak hours than during non-peak hours) on our electricity energy cost.
I've had my 4KW system installed in Southern California for almost 3 months now and I'm very happy with it so far. Even though we're in lower producing months, my system has produced about 26% more power than was on the state projections. I just got on the Time of Use rate plan so my next bill should show even more of a benefit.
Time of Use is bad for the customer and good for Edison.
Chgoman said: I've had my 4KW system installed in Southern California for almost 3 months now and I'm very happy with it so far. Even though we're in lower producing months, my system has produced about 26% more power than was on the state projections. I just got on the Time of Use rate plan so my next bill should show even more of a benefit.
I was wondering if anyone in Northern California has recent purchased Solar for their house. And if so which provider did they select. I am in the North San Jose area, and have been interested in Solar for a while, unfortunately the previous quotes I got for 6KW system seemed extremely high. Sungevity gave me a quote of $27,000 for 6KW system, this was my price after State and Federal Tax Credits. Anyone have other suggestions?
glxpass said: Note that the cost doesn't include an approximately $9/month charge for what IMO amounts to the privilege of being on the grid.
Around here at our "co-op" - the grid privilege is $30/mo. Oh yea, our co-op board likes to vote themselves $100k/year pensions at retirement and spend the rest of the money on hookers and blow...
arparikh said: I was wondering if anyone in Northern California has recent purchased Solar for their house. And if so which provider did they select. I am in the North San Jose area, and have been interested in Solar for a while, unfortunately the previous quotes I got for 6KW system seemed extremely high. Sungevity gave me a quote of $27,000 for 6KW system, this was my price after State and Federal Tax Credits. Anyone have other suggestions?
Thank you.
Definately shop around. With the company I used in Southern California you'd probably only be looking at around $21K after rebates and tax credits fro that sized system (I'm just estimating based on what I payed for my smaller system.
About time of use. It depends on your usage patterns. With Time of use plans (TOU) electricity is more expensive during Peak hours (10am to 6pm for me) and less expensive during off peak hours. The trick is that when you have a solar system they have to pay you when you are producing more than you use at whatever rate they would be charging you for power. Since you generate most of your power during the peak hours and many people don't use as much power during the day as they are at work, it can be really beneficial to be on TOU.
For us, we use little power during the day so by being on the TOU plan, they pay us at the higher rate for most of our electricity production and then when we're home in the evening we pay the lower rate for most of our energy usage. At the moment, we are generating about 80% of our electricity usage, but that covers 95% of our bill because of the TOU plan.
Some people on solar power will benefit by the TOU plan and some are better off on the Standard rate plan. It depends on how much power you use during Peak and Off Peak times.
laxlaw said: Time of Use is bad for the customer and good for Edison.
I live in the SF Bay Area. My current average monthly electric bill is about $132.
I got a quote for a 2.3KW DC system. It is a small system because my PGE bill is tiered, and I am only trying to eliminate the high tier cost from my bill.
System: 10x DelSolar 230w panels, 1x SMA 3000 inverter.
System cost: $12,219 State rebate:- $1,871 Fed rebate: - $3,104 (30% of (12219-1871)) city rebate: - $ 200 ======================= Net cost: 7,044
Average projected production from this system is about 261kwh per month, or about $62 saving/month. With the cash outlay, I will break even after 8 years.
Or I can lease this same system for $70 a month. I will still pay my remaining usage amount to PGE. the upside is that there is no upfront cost. the downside is that the lease is for 18 years.
I am considering purchasing the system outright. Has anybody use these panels or inverters? and how are they?
I don't know about the panels or inverter, but I'll mention that the Fed rebate is 30% of the cost after the state rebate, so it will be 30% of $10,348.
SMA is a good inverter. Have not heard of the panels but as long as they are UL listed should be fine.
Are you sure your state rebate is correct? That seems awful low.
Although looking at the rebate site http://www.csi-trigger.com/ it looks like you are at $1.10/watt whereas SCE cusomers are at $1.90/watt. HUGE difference. If you are in SCE territory and are thinking about solar act fast before the rebate goes down. After 1.90 it goes to 1.55 then 1.10.
FYI if you have alot of open area (to do ground mounting) you can pickup 60w Kaneka panels from sunelec.com for 98c/watt (you will still need an inverter/hardware). AFAIK they do qualify for all rebates (they are listed on the page). Text
The downside is if you fill up your roof you won't produce much. They are much less efficient for the space they occupy. But if you have the space you can get a solar system for CHEAP - just the install cost if you are in sce territory.
For our 5KW solar PV system, located in the SF Bay Area, we ended up with the following figures for our 12-month true-up period that ended January 6, 2010:
Net electricity cost: -$220.37. Note that the cost doesn't include an approximately $9/month charge for what IMO amounts to the privilege of being on the grid. Our utility doesn't let any of our credit apply to this monthly amount, nor does it allow one to roll their credit over to the next year; hence the word "true-up."
Electricity consumed: 10,380 Kwh
Electricity generated by PV System: 8,960 Kwh
Electricity required from grid: 1,420 Kwh
The energy measurements were from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, which is pretty close to the true-up period. You can therefore see the effect of our TOU (time-of-use) schedule (where we pay more for electricity during peak hours than during non-peak hours) on our electricity energy cost.
ETA: further cost details.Am I to understand that for a 12 month period, your total savings was $220.37? How much did you pay for the system? Where does this put you break-even assuming your system won't degrade? What is the assumed inflation rate over this time?
For our 5KW solar PV system, located in the SF Bay Area, we ended up with the following figures for our 12-month true-up period that ended January 6, 2010:
Net electricity cost: -$220.37. Note that the cost doesn't include an approximately $9/month charge for what IMO amounts to the privilege of being on the grid. Our utility doesn't let any of our credit apply to this monthly amount, nor does it allow one to roll their credit over to the next year; hence the word "true-up."
Electricity consumed: 10,380 Kwh
Electricity generated by PV System: 8,960 Kwh
Electricity required from grid: 1,420 Kwh
The energy measurements were from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, which is pretty close to the true-up period. You can therefore see the effect of our TOU (time-of-use) schedule (where we pay more for electricity during peak hours than during non-peak hours) on our electricity energy cost.
ETA: further cost details.Am I to understand that for a 12 month period, your total savings was $220.37? How much did you pay for the system? Where does this put you break-even assuming your system won't degrade? What is the assumed inflation rate over this time? For details about the solar PV system, see this post.
No, -$220.37 means that in an ideal world, not only did I pay $0 for electricity for the 12-month period, but PG&E (my electricity provider) paid me $220.37. Savings = cost of 10,380 Kwh + $220.37. In the real world, PG&E zeroes out the $220.37, and charges around $8 - $9 per month for being connected to the grid.
There was a recent state law passed, however, that says your electricity provider has to pay you a certain rate for any electricity you produce that exceeds what you used. That doesn't apply to us; a favorable-to-solar TOU (time-of-use) rate schedule for us meant that our system was sized so that the system would only have to produce approximately 80% of the electricity required for the year in order to have net $0 in electricity costs - not including that pesky $8 - $9/month fee.
As was previously stated, we paid about $34K after a state rebate (and not including a $2K federal tax credit). But the rebates became much better in California about 3 years later; if we had purchased then, the price would have been much lower, as I believe the OP reported earlier in this thread. That's OK; for us, there were more than just financial considerations when we decided to buy our solar PV system. I expect the system will pay for itself eventually (but over a much longer period than for the OP); it really depends on how energy costs change over the years.
If you're in SCE territory you can get a killer deal (since the panels are only $0.99/watt and the rebate is still at $1.90/watt) They won't be completely free after paying for the inverter and install but it will be cheap. If I had the land i'd build like a 20kw ground mounted system with these for almost nothing (then collect the $$$ from extra production once they start to pay for it)
Also i've heard that if you put a very small system like 2kw on a rental property you can get ~100-200 more in rent/month and also have lots of interest. But I think it would have to be classified as a second residence while you install the system then decide to rent it after getting the rebates back.
I live in San Jose, ca and I looked at a few places.. Sunrun came by and wanted to lease my roof, but way to many conditions and 18 years.. Pass
Another place was around 26k installed, so I looked for a system somewhat like it to compare and I got a quote ( see below ), the issue is The average cost of installation in your area is anywhere from $1.30 - $1.80 per DC watt. This would put the cost of your installation in the $5,600 - $7,700 price range. Once an installer is found and he has visited the install site for a survey, we should have a more precise price for your installation.
So I am wondering for the people that had solar systems installed how much was the cost to get an idea?
The system I was looking at and price and link to the systems, it way down at the bottom Link
This system is rated to produce 620 KWH per month based on 5.5 hours of peak sunshine.
4.32 kw system PS240M - 20/U panels - 18ea PVP4800 inverter - 1ea Solar connector cables Unirac Solarmount hardware DC disconnect, Grounding Lugs,
15,984.00 base price 01,170.00 Tax 01,398.00 Shipping ----------------- 18,552.60 Plus I have to play the installer so that's unknown
tsaosf said: I live in the SF Bay Area. My current average monthly electric bill is about $132.
I got a quote for a 2.3KW DC system. It is a small system because my PGE bill is tiered, and I am only trying to eliminate the high tier cost from my bill.
System: 10x DelSolar 230w panels, 1x SMA 3000 inverter.
System cost: $12,219 State rebate:- $1,871 Fed rebate: - $3,104 (30% of (12219-1871)) city rebate: - $ 200 ======================= Net cost: 7,044
Average projected production from this system is about 261kwh per month, or about $62 saving/month. With the cash outlay, I will break even after 8 years.
Or I can lease this same system for $70 a month. I will still pay my remaining usage amount to PGE. the upside is that there is no upfront cost. the downside is that the lease is for 18 years.
I am considering purchasing the system outright. Has anybody use these panels or inverters? and how are they?
Thanks, Could you or anyone else recommend a good installer in the SF Bay area? Thank you!
tsaosf said: I live in the SF Bay Area. My current average monthly electric bill is about $132.
I got a quote for a 2.3KW DC system. It is a small system because my PGE bill is tiered, and I am only trying to eliminate the high tier cost from my bill.
System: 10x DelSolar 230w panels, 1x SMA 3000 inverter.
System cost: $12,219 State rebate:- $1,871 Fed rebate: - $3,104 (30% of (12219-1871)) city rebate: - $ 200 ======================= Net cost: 7,044
Average projected production from this system is about 261kwh per month, or about $62 saving/month. With the cash outlay, I will break even after 8 years.
I am considering purchasing the system outright. Has anybody use these panels or inverters? and how are they?
BTW, I talked to one installer today and he has a very good opinion of SMA inverters.
About a month ago, I had an installer come over to the house to see if it'd be worthwhile and what my cost structure would look like. I had only really called them because their advertisement said the hardware was American made, but when he left I was very interested because I thought it might actually work out for me. The installer was going to run the readings and calculations through a spreadsheet that would spell everything out and that I could take to my bank for the loan application. Before leaving, he mentioned the subsidy rates step down over time and I thought I made it very clear that I could probably cope with the rough guess but much more out of pocket would be pushing it.
Two weeks later, I hadn't heard back so I contacted the installer to get that chart. The bank wants it and I also refuse to commit $15K+ out of pocket on rough guesses. I reminded him that I am also looking at alternatives like burning coal in a stove for heat. I'm really getting screwed in the winter and expected solar to make my electricity free over the summer so the winter bills didn't hit as hard. The responses I got back were totally useless, no details, no chart, just rambling really. I don't think they're concerned about selling me anything at all.
I looked up the company that makes the hardware and they have an installer locator. I'm thinking about filling out the form to see if they can recommend somebody else. But the later it gets in the year, the dumber it seems to put out a heap of money up front that won't even start making a dent until April or May at the earliest. But then if I wait until next year, the subsidy drops low enough that solar is almost 40% more expensive than the electric company (I hate them so much but not enough to pay through the nose to get away).
PVWATTS is your friend. It's a solar program that provides very accurate estimates based on your location. If there is a location near you, I like the version 1 of the program. Version 2 was too complex for me!
You plug in your info and it spits out expected solar production, then you do the math.
The challenge is trying to align the local incentives with the federal incentives to make it work (or not). Multiple the annual output by 20 then divide by the after incentive price to get the cost per kW.
My system went live last week. I paid just a tad more per kW than I'm paying now for electricity. My reason for getting a system is for inflation protection. As an example, I pay around $2.50 per gallon of gas where I live. If someone offered me the chance to buy all the gas I would need for the next 25 years at $2.55 a gallon, but I had to pay now, I would jump at the offer. I look at it the same with solar. I know there are smarter people who can explain the disadvantage of paying up front, but I will leave that to them.
As far as the installer. I think that the installer is every bit as important as the equipment. This guy you talked to a few weeks ago is giving you signals that he might not be the right guy.
I definitely think incentives are going to decrease, but maybe there is a solar stimulus package just around the corner. A "bird in the hand" comes to mind.
CC, they sound like someone you don't want to do business with anyhow. If they are that bad before the sale, what will they be like if they already have your $$$ in their pockets and you have a problem?
Where are you located? There are state specific charts from DOE, et. al. that may be of help to you in seeing if solar even makes any sense to you for electrical generation. I was looking at a place (fishing retreat) and solar makes no sense whatsoever in that area, but a wind generator makes some sense. (Location was near the great lakes and windy all the time.) We are looking to move from our primary residence now and where we are looking, solar makes sense, both for electricity and hot water heating.
From talking to reps at the home improvement shows (about the only places I have seen clusters of solar & wind providers), they remind me of the old axiom "when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail", in that they want to bastard up a "solution" that will get you to buy their product, no consideration is ever given to whether it makes sense or not.
glxpass said: delzy said: glxpass said: A data point:
For our 5KW solar PV system, located in the SF Bay Area, we ended up with the following figures for our 12-month true-up period that ended January 6, 2010:
Net electricity cost: -$220.37. Note that the cost doesn't include an approximately $9/month charge for what IMO amounts to the privilege of being on the grid. Our utility doesn't let any of our credit apply to this monthly amount, nor does it allow one to roll their credit over to the next year; hence the word "true-up."
Electricity consumed: 10,380 Kwh
Electricity generated by PV System: 8,960 Kwh
Electricity required from grid: 1,420 Kwh
The energy measurements were from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, which is pretty close to the true-up period. You can therefore see the effect of our TOU (time-of-use) schedule (where we pay more for electricity during peak hours than during non-peak hours) on our electricity energy cost.
ETA: further cost details.Am I to understand that for a 12 month period, your total savings was $220.37? How much did you pay for the system? Where does this put you break-even assuming your system won't degrade? What is the assumed inflation rate over this time? For details about the solar PV system, see this post.
No, -$220.37 means that in an ideal world, not only did I pay $0 for electricity for the 12-month period, but PG&E (my electricity provider) paid me $220.37. Savings = cost of 10,380 Kwh + $220.37. In the real world, PG&E zeroes out the $220.37, and charges around $8 - $9 per month for being connected to the grid.
It says, you consumed 10,380 KWH, and you generated 8960 KWH. Last time I checked that means you consumed 1430 KWH more than you generated, so you had to PAY for that, not vice versa. So the savings was on the 8960 KWH. Now, assuming you paid $220.37 for the 1430 KWH, then you probably saved about 8960/1430 * 220.37 or $1380.80 in a year (not counting any additional credits you may have received for generating solar energy). So assuming energy prices stay constant, at this rate, considering a 3% opportunity cost on your $32k, it seems unlikely the system would ever pay for itself.
Thanks for the PVWATTS links; I'll try them at home where I can be sure I have the right parameters to put in.
The house I wanted to put solar panels on is in south central PA, reasonably close to the Harrisburg area. I know the northeast isn't ideal for solar and the initial consultation, where I had 82-87 ratings (80 minimum to qualify for subsidies) and he kept trying to get me to cut down trees, pretty much confirmed that. That's why I was pretty sure it would be the biggest help in the summer months, when I use barely 1/4 of the electricity and could sell excess capacity back.
I was told, given my yearly KWH range, subsidies, buyback rates, and so on, I could expect a payback in 5 years. However, when I put some (but not all) of those numbers into the panel manufacturer's website, I get closer to 15 years. Without a more detailed chart, I don't know which one is more accurate.
When I posted a longer version of this ongoing saga on a different forum, people said the electric baseboard heat I have is stupid for anyone in the northeast (despite how prevalent it is in this state). Another suggested I spend the $15K getting natural gas equipment installed, trading one perpetually skyrocketing subscription plan for another. I'm starting to think that "human farming" comment I got awhile back was alot closer to the mark than I thought before...
hpmax said: glxpass said: delzy said: glxpass said: A data point:
For our 5KW solar PV system, located in the SF Bay Area, we ended up with the following figures for our 12-month true-up period that ended January 6, 2010:
Net electricity cost: -$220.37. Note that the cost doesn't include an approximately $9/month charge for what IMO amounts to the privilege of being on the grid. Our utility doesn't let any of our credit apply to this monthly amount, nor does it allow one to roll their credit over to the next year; hence the word "true-up."
Electricity consumed: 10,380 Kwh
Electricity generated by PV System: 8,960 Kwh
Electricity required from grid: 1,420 Kwh
The energy measurements were from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, which is pretty close to the true-up period. You can therefore see the effect of our TOU (time-of-use) schedule (where we pay more for electricity during peak hours than during non-peak hours) on our electricity energy cost.
ETA: further cost details.Am I to understand that for a 12 month period, your total savings was $220.37? How much did you pay for the system? Where does this put you break-even assuming your system won't degrade? What is the assumed inflation rate over this time? For details about the solar PV system, see this post.
No, -$220.37 means that in an ideal world, not only did I pay $0 for electricity for the 12-month period, but PG&E (my electricity provider) paid me $220.37. Savings = cost of 10,380 Kwh + $220.37. In the real world, PG&E zeroes out the $220.37, and charges around $8 - $9 per month for being connected to the grid.
It says, you consumed 10,380 KWH, and you generated 8960 KWH. Last time I checked that means you consumed 1430 KWH more than you generated, so you had to PAY for that, not vice versa. So the savings was on the 8960 KWH. Now, assuming you paid $220.37 for the 1430 KWH, then you probably saved about 8960/1430 * 220.37 or $1380.80 in a year (not counting any additional credits you may have received for generating solar energy). So assuming energy prices stay constant, at this rate, considering a 3% opportunity cost on your $32k, it seems unlikely the system would ever pay for itself. I paid nothing for the net amount of electricity I consumed (actually 1420 KWH, not 1430 KWH), because I'm on a TOU (time-of-use) plan, where electricity costs more from noon - 6pm (peak hours, when my solar PV system is producing the most power) than in the morning/evening (non-peak hours). As long as I don't use too much electricity during those peak hours, my TOU plan means that I can break even even if my solar PV system doesn't produce all the electricity during the year that I require.
As I explained, my electricity cost for the year was negative $220.37. Ideally, my savings would have been the cost of 10,380 KWH + $220.37; however:
1. PG&E starts at zero at the end of the 12-month period and doesn't refund any negative amount, when KWH required > KWH produced by the PV system. I believe there's now a CA regulation in place that says the value of excess KWH produced must be refunded to the consumer. 2. PG&E charges about $8 - $9/month just for being connected to the grid.
Thus total savings for the year = cost of the 10,380 KWH - around $100.
Although I think energy costs will trend up over time (thus reducing the payback period), as I explained earlier, getting the solar PV system wasn't purely a financial decision. Also,if I had purchased the system more recently, when incentives were much better than almost four years ago, that would further reduce the payback period, thus making the purchase an even better financial decision.
ETA: Probably a purely psychological effect, but I've become much more energy-conscious since we bought our solar PV system, and, as others have mentioned, they are plenty of other steps one can take in order to reduce energy costs.
This system might be a good fit for you, if you can retrofit air ducts on your house easily. It's a heat pump optimized for cold weather with electric backup. Might be worth more investigation. http://www.gotohallowell.com
CommandCenter2 said: Thanks for the PVWATTS links; I'll try them at home where I can be sure I have the right parameters to put in.
The house I wanted to put solar panels on is in south central PA, reasonably close to the Harrisburg area. I know the northeast isn't ideal for solar and the initial consultation, where I had 82-87 ratings (80 minimum to qualify for subsidies) and he kept trying to get me to cut down trees, pretty much confirmed that. That's why I was pretty sure it would be the biggest help in the summer months, when I use barely 1/4 of the electricity and could sell excess capacity back.
I was told, given my yearly KWH range, subsidies, buyback rates, and so on, I could expect a payback in 5 years. However, when I put some (but not all) of those numbers into the panel manufacturer's website, I get closer to 15 years. Without a more detailed chart, I don't know which one is more accurate.
When I posted a longer version of this ongoing saga on a different forum, people said the electric baseboard heat I have is stupid for anyone in the northeast (despite how prevalent it is in this state). Another suggested I spend the $15K getting natural gas equipment installed, trading one perpetually skyrocketing subscription plan for another. I'm starting to think that "human farming" comment I got awhile back was alot closer to the mark than I thought before...
glxpass said: 1. PG&E starts at zero at the end of the 12-month period and doesn't refund any negative amount, when KWH required > KWH produced by the PV system. I believe there's now a CA regulation in place that says the value of excess KWH produced must be refunded to the consumer.
There is. I don't believe it takes effect for a year or two. However, it won't work in your case as I believe it only applies when the actual amount of electricity produced is greater than what was consumed.
I don't know anything about the MoTech. Are they UL listed? I assume they are. Give us the price you're being quoted. I'm a very part time solar installer.. I have an EE degree and have done a bit of solar hot water and just completed a PV system for a home builder. The margins on this stuff in my area of TX are really high - like 40-60% is what I've seen...
Unless you have state and local rebates OR the cost of power is super high (Hawaii), then paybacks will typically exceed 15 years.
I did notice this blurb on the inverter you referenced: Ease of Installation & Lower Cost: Integrated DC/AC disconnect switch that eliminates the need for external DC and AC disconnects.
In my experience, this means nothing as external disconnects are required by code in most circumstances.
psychoslowmatic said: This system might be a good fit for you, if you can retrofit air ducts on your house easily. It's a heat pump optimized for cold weather with electric backup. Might be worth more investigation. http://www.gotohallowell.com
Looked at their site as there are so many scammers out there. Comparing that unit to one I have installed in my home (Carrier):
SEER HSPF
14 9.7 Hallowell (both numbers are up to)
19 9.5 Carrier Infinity Series (both numbers are up to)
The units in the aforementioned ads are only marginally, if any, better than what others have available, not the cure for all things as their ads say.
Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) - The SEER rating of a unit is the cooling output in Btu (British thermal unit) during a typical cooling-season divided by the total electric energy input in watt-hours during the same period. The higher the unit's SEER rating the more energy efficient it is. ENERGY STAR qualified Central Air Conditioners must have a SEER of at least 14.
HSPF (Heating Seasonal Performance Factor) HSPF is an abbreviation for Heating Seasonal Performance Factor. It is the most commonly used measure of the heating efficiency of heat pumps. (The cooling efficiency of a heat pump is measured by its SEER.) Technically speaking, the HSPF is a heat pump's estimated seasonal heating output in BTUs divided by the amount of energy that it consumes in watt-hours.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
