# I dont see any savings with residential solar



## Lone Crapshooter (Nov 8, 2008)

With the demand for solar increasing for I just don't see the payback for the average home owner. 
If you have the typical city lot say 50X120 and the average 24X36 house and you want to put a solar array on the roof . 
I do not know how much the solar array costs but they look expensive I am sure that cost is proportional to out put capacity and you are going to put that over a shingle roof. 
Now at best the roof will last 25 years now before you can re-roof the house you have to remove the solar array probably at a cost of several thousand dollars put the roof on and re-install the array for several thousand dollars.
My argument is that the money that you are saving in reduced utility bills you will spend in re-roofing the house. Now if you lived on a large lot and could have a array on a rack in the back yard yes there would be some payback but how long the payback would be I do not know.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Lone Crapshooter said:


> With the demand for solar increasing for I just don't see the payback for the average home owner.
> If you have the typical city lot say 50X120 and the average 24X36 house and you want to put a solar array on the roof .
> I do not know how much the solar array costs but they look expensive I am sure that cost is proportional to out put capacity and you are going to put that over a shingle roof.
> Now at best the roof will last 25 years now before you can re-roof the house you have to remove the solar array probably at a cost of several thousand dollars put the roof on and re-install the array for several thousand dollars.
> My argument is that the money that you are saving in reduced utility bills you will spend in re-roofing the house. Now if you lived on a large lot and could have a array on a rack in the back yard yes there would be some payback but how long the payback would be I do not know.


 
there are plenty of 50, 75 year and lifetime warranty shingles on the market now.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

I'm just waiting for the market forces to go to work:

We're keeping demand artificially high right now by subsidizing solar. Increased demand encourages infrastructure growth which drives down supply costs. At some point this will balance to the point where the panels can be manufactured with suitable quality, at cheap enough price, that subsidies can be completely removed and the market will self sustain.

I sincerely believe that at the current rate of growth, within the next 10-15 years we will be seeing solar offered as a standard option on a lot of new homes.

-John


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Almost every customer I know that got a price on a solar installation the payback was 20 to 25 years even with the government incentives.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

I agree. I just dont see the benifit other than bragging rights. Spend 50,000 grand to save 80- 100 a month, and at the end of that time replace your roof, controler, inverter, and possibly some panels... Im not seeing it. Untill the price of that stuff comes way way down it will never really take off. Given many of the states economys i cant see the incentives sticking around to long. 
Your probably better off replacing all your your light bulbs with leds... and updating your major appliances to energy star ones..


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

I am not sure either on solar, I took a few solar classes and didn't feel like it was anything but a sales pitch. I think the savings come as your electrical rates rise over the next 20 years and your locked into a lease and know rates.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

captkirk said:


> I agree. I just dont see the benifit other than bragging rights. Spend 50,000 grand to save 80- 100 a month, and at the end of that time replace your roof, controler, inverter, and possibly some panels... Im not seeing it. Untill the price of that stuff comes way way down it will never really take off. Given many of the states economys i cant see the incentives sticking around to long.
> Your probably better off replacing all your your light bulbs with leds... and updating your major appliances to energy star ones..


I think that by the time a roof goes so will the panels so you will have to pay to have them replaced and pay for disposal of the old ones.


----------



## sarness (Sep 14, 2010)

Another option is that they put panels on your roof at no charge (they own them) and you get the electricity at a reduced rate.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

Bkessler said:


> I am not sure either on solar, I took a few solar classes and didn't feel like it was anything but a sales pitch. I think the savings come as your electrical rates rise over the next 20 years and your locked into a lease and know rates.


 I feel like all those supply house classes are sales seminars to get you to sell their product.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

You can always do a ground based system. No roof to worry about if they have the land for it.


----------



## Rap2 (Dec 17, 2010)

After incentives here in Hawaii you are looking at 3-4 year payback and 
30% return on investment for 30 years. 

That's better than gold or virtually any stock or anuity.

Of course we are at 40 cents per KWH..... Its not uncommon to have a $400.00 a month electric bill here.

OBTW if your roof needs to be replaced at the time of solar install you can offset some of that cost with the incentives depending on circumstances.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Not to mention that whenever I'm "pitching" solar, I NEVER sell it on ROI alone. If you do, the customer will be disappointed. I sell on, "it's the right thing to do for the environment.

After all, the same could be said about a 25,000 dollar car that saves you 5.00 at the pump.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

When oil hits $400/barrel it will get more cost effective. But then, the solar panels and labor to install will cost more too. 

As long as oil is available, I don't think solar has a prayer of being cost effective.


----------



## kbsparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Google the term SREC for some information about the additional wrench thrown into the machinery on solar systems paybacks.

As recent as a year ago, there were many places that offered SRECs that far exceeded the value of the actual electricity produced by the solar arrays. 

Of course, in places like New Jersey, the market became saturated and the value of the SRECs dropped over 50% this year alone. 

The SRECs can make a solar array pay for itself in less than 10 years, as opposed to the 15-25 year time it takes when considering the value of the electricity it generates alone.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

captkirk said:


> I agree. I just dont see the benifit other than bragging rights. Spend 50,000 grand to save 80- 100 a month, and at the end of that time replace your roof, controler, inverter, and possibly some panels... Im not seeing it. Untill the price of that stuff comes way way down it will never really take off. Given many of the states economys i cant see the incentives sticking around to long.
> Your probably better off replacing all your your light bulbs with leds... and updating your major appliances to energy star ones..


You're close on the numbers. 5 to 6 bucks per watt to install gives you a 10kW system. That will produce(area dependent) 50kW max per day. Now multiply that by your rate and 30 days. My 3kW system produces 12kW on a sunny day.


----------



## NJWVUGrad (May 12, 2011)

And fossil fuels aren't government subsidized? Solar rebates and incentives are fraction of what is/was pumped into oil and nuclear from the government.

Solar (energy not panels, unfortunately) is a homegrown resource that creates jobs in the US. 

I would rather government money go to that instead of some crappy defense project we don't need to prop up another failing bank.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

In time long after I am able to preform work the roof itself will be solar panels.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

NJWVUGrad said:


> And fossil fuels aren't government subsidized? Solar rebates and incentives are fraction of what is/was pumped into oil and nuclear from the government.
> 
> Solar (energy not panels, unfortunately) is a homegrown resource that creates jobs in the US.
> 
> I would rather government money go to that instead of some crappy defense project we don't need to prop up another failing bank.


What kind of fuel do fossils run on ?:laughing:


----------



## Rap2 (Dec 17, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Not to mention that whenever I'm "pitching" solar, I NEVER sell it on ROI alone. If you do, the customer will be disappointed. I sell on, "it's the right thing to do for the environment.
> 
> After all, the same could be said about a 25,000 dollar car that saves you 5.00 at the pump.


Aside from the Lotto its the best ROI, you spend 60K on a system and you get 40K back in taxes and it makes you 500 dollars a month for the next 30 years. 180 grand for 20 invested is better than your IRA.

And if you don't use the power to run A/C and your Hot Tub and actually use it to make money say baking cookies, you make even more as you can now afford to buy more cookie dough per month:laughing:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Another antialternative energy thread.


----------



## 19kilosparky984 (Sep 14, 2011)

Lone Crapshooter said:


> With the demand for solar increasing for I just don't see the payback for the average home owner.
> If you have the typical city lot say 50X120 and the average 24X36 house and you want to put a solar array on the roof .
> I do not know how much the solar array costs but they look expensive I am sure that cost is proportional to out put capacity and you are going to put that over a shingle roof.
> Now at best the roof will last 25 years now before you can re-roof the house you have to remove the solar array probably at a cost of several thousand dollars put the roof on and re-install the array for several thousand dollars.
> My argument is that the money that you are saving in reduced utility bills you will spend in re-roofing the house. Now if you lived on a large lot and could have a array on a rack in the back yard yes there would be some payback but how long the payback would be I do not know.


 
So if your not even sure of the costs pardon my french but then how the F___K do you even make a statment like this????

Based on this post it is very obvious you don't have the slightest idea what your talking about when it comes to solar.

Seems like you started this thread to just be negative


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Solar is a joke.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Lone Crapshooter said:


> With the demand for solar increasing for I just don't see the payback for the average home owner.
> If you have the typical city lot say 50X120 and the average 24X36 house and you want to put a solar array on the roof .
> I do not know how much the solar array costs but they look expensive I am sure that cost is proportional to out put capacity and you are going to put that over a shingle roof.
> Now at best the roof will last 25 years now before you can re-roof the house you have to remove the solar array probably at a cost of several thousand dollars put the roof on and re-install the array for several thousand dollars.
> My argument is that the money that you are saving in reduced utility bills you will spend in re-roofing the house. Now if you lived on a large lot and could have a array on a rack in the back yard yes there would be some payback but how long the payback would be I do not know.


I agree, you don't know.


Bulldog1 said:


> Almost every customer I know that got a price on a solar installation the payback was 20 to 25 years even with the government incentives.


How much actual first hand knowledge do you have?



captkirk said:


> I agree. I just dont see the benifit other than bragging rights. Spend 50,000 grand to save 80- 100 a month, and at the end of that time replace your roof, controler, inverter, and possibly some panels... Im not seeing it. Untill the price of that stuff comes way way down it will never really take off. Given many of the states economys i cant see the incentives sticking around to long.
> Your probably better off replacing all your your light bulbs with leds... and updating your major appliances to energy star ones..


It already took off here your not considering the SRECs


Bkessler said:


> I am not sure either on solar, I took a few solar classes and didn't feel like it was anything but a sales pitch. I think the savings come as your electrical rates rise over the next 20 years and your locked into a lease and know rates.


Lease? Low rates? I think your confusing ownership with a PPA


HARRY304E said:


> I think that by the time a roof goes so will the panels so you will have to pay to have them replaced and pay for disposal of the old ones.


Yes they do have a relatively short life span (less then 25 years) but cadmium is highly recyclable there is likely to be very little cost if any to upgrading or replacing.


sarness said:


> Another option is that they put panels on your roof at no charge (they own them) and you get the electricity at a reduced rate.


This is a PPA


captkirk said:


> I feel like all those supply house classes are sales seminars to get you to sell their product.


yea pretty much.


hardworkingstiff said:


> When oil hits $400/barrel it will get more cost effective. But then, the solar panels and labor to install will cost more too.
> 
> As long as oil is available, I don't think solar has a prayer of being cost effective.


catch 22 I suppose Solar isnt a silver bullet for our energy crisis but it moves us in the right direction.


kbsparky said:


> Google the term SREC for some information about the additional wrench thrown into the machinery on solar systems paybacks.
> 
> As recent as a year ago, there were many places that offered SRECs that far exceeded the value of the actual electricity produced by the solar arrays.
> 
> ...


For a while we were seeing returns as short as 5 years or less



backstay said:


> You're close on the numbers. 5 to 6 bucks per watt to install gives you a 10kW system. That will produce(area dependent) 50kW max per day. Now multiply that by your rate and 30 days. My 3kW system produces 12kW on a sunny day.


5 to 6 is a tad high here, and you have to consider the srec values... your rate obviously effects the ROI as well


Peter D said:


> Solar is a joke.


So are you


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

gold said:


> So are you


I've been called worse, but I stand by what I said. Solar is a joke.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

I don't know how you can do residential for under $5/watt. The panels and racking are changing so fast, that by the time your quote is accepted, the state and utility paper work are done, the panels or racks are not available any more. I just tried to order UniRac rails from AEE Solar and they are discontinued. Now I have to order from the only place the has some of the length I need for more money. It sucks.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Peter D said:


> I've been called worse, but I stand by what I said. Solar is a joke.


Thats ok I've probably called you worse.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

Solar is a load of crap. The components will wear out way before you get a real return on it. Those dinky electronic inverters are not going to last 25 years. How about the rest of the electronic gear? In the rain, snow, ice..


----------



## 19kilosparky984 (Sep 14, 2011)

nitro71 said:


> Solar is a load of crap. The components will wear out way before you get a real return on it. Those dinky electronic inverters are not going to last 25 years. How about the rest of the electronic gear? In the rain, snow, ice..


YOU are a load of crap.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

19kilosparky984 said:


> YOU are a load of crap.


Whatever, you know I'm ****ing right


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Lone Crapshooter said:


> With the demand for solar increasing for I just don't see the payback for the average home owner.
> If you have the typical city lot say 50X120 and the average 24X36 house and you want to put a solar array on the roof .
> I do not know how much the solar array costs but they look expensive I am sure that cost is proportional to out put capacity and you are going to put that over a shingle roof.
> Now at best the roof will last 25 years now before you can re-roof the house you have to remove the solar array probably at a cost of several thousand dollars put the roof on and re-install the array for several thousand dollars.
> My argument is that the money that you are saving in reduced utility bills you will spend in re-roofing the house. Now if you lived on a large lot and could have a array on a rack in the back yard yes there would be some payback but how long the payback would be I do not know.


The shingles will not last 14 years because of algae.


----------



## 19kilosparky984 (Sep 14, 2011)

RIVETER said:


> The shingles will not last 14 years because of algae.


Say what?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

19kilosparky984 said:


> Say what?


He started a whole thread about algae and shingles. Strange things fascinate him sometimes.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Shockdoc said:


> In time long after I am able to preform work the roof itself will be solar panels.


They do make solar shingles.


----------



## mdfriday (May 14, 2007)

Don't forget, the roof will need to be replaced whether there is a solar array up there or not.

It makes sense to do this work if we can make money at it. If someone is going to pay me to do it, I'll do it.


----------



## 19kilosparky984 (Sep 14, 2011)

The solar panels have the same length warranty as shingles. So you just have your roof done before you put on the panels.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

gold said:


> I agree, you don't know.
> 
> 
> How much actual first hand knowledge do you have?
> ...


 Let me take a wild guess, you do solar.. 

Dude, solar is more about making the customer feel all warm and fuzzy than acually helping the enviorment or your pocket book. The towm of Maplewood NJ spent so much money on solar shingles on one of their public buildings that the maint cost on them out trumps the benifit by thousands.. I dont see any real value there what so ever.. LIke I said before, if they came way way down in price, sure, but for now there are many other ways to save money on your utility bill.


----------



## watt? (Nov 10, 2011)

*maybe something like this?*

I think that PV may be overrate in some scenarios. People need to evaluate where they are and geographically whether it makes more sense to use OTHER alternative energy sources. obviously in an areas where energy generation is cheap, and there is not nearly enough sunlight to make solar panels viable it doesn't make sense to use only solar. If you are in Hawaii, then heck yea you will be able to see a return on investment far quicker then if you live in say Northern BC. People tend to fixate on PV but geographically, maybe micro wind geothermal or micro hydro will be much more productive systems. imo. Plus, anytime that costs are distributed among a group, like the infrastructure created to supply energy now through public/private companies, they will be able to do it cheaper then individuals. so if people create small groups and utilize existing infrastructure (the grid) then the investment is less intense but there still can be a meaningful ROI.


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

even if it cost half of what it does it would still be too much. Whats it now, about 50k for 5000 watts..? If the tax credits go away forget it..


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

captkirk said:


> Whats it now, about 50k for 5000 watts..? .


If you don't know, why are you judging?


----------



## LARMGUY (Aug 22, 2010)

Could the this wane in desireablility actually be the cause of Solaris going bankrupt? :whistling2:

The Fed and the states are now considering charging per mile taxes on cars because the electric cars don't pay gas taxes therefore the states revenue is sliding.


Everything you save will be taxed to death or be eaten up in fees and extra charges. If that doesn't do it they will change the law after they said they will never change the law. Remember IRA's when they first came out in the 80's?

The only way I see solar or anything else to be effective is if you buy something so big you are running the meter backward. The utils will have to pay you.
:thumbup:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

captkirk said:


> Let me take a wild guess, you do solar..


I'll take a guess too, you don't ... 


mcclary's electrical said:


> If you don't know, why are you judging?


That seems to be a trend here.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Jan 27, 2009)

watt? said:


> If you are in Hawaii, then heck yea you will be able to see a return on investment far quicker then if you live in say Northern BC.


Just a note, solar panels are most efficient when they are in cooler climates.


----------



## 19kilosparky984 (Sep 14, 2011)

Mr. Sparkle said:


> Just a note, solar panels are most efficient when they are in cooler climates.


Yea more proof that the anti solar crowd isn't educated enough to make their statements...

And it does rain a lot in most of Hawaii. The rainiest place on earth is on Kauai


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Mr. Sparkle said:


> Just a note, solar panels are most efficient when they are in cooler climates.


Up here in Minnesota, string sizing can be a challenge with -40 to +85 degree temp swings. On my home system the peak wattage was on a January day at -20.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

LARMGUY said:


> Could the this wane in desireablility actually be the cause of Solaris going bankrupt? :whistling2:
> 
> The Fed and the states are now considering charging per mile taxes on cars because the electric cars don't pay gas taxes therefore the states revenue is sliding.
> 
> ...


The last two I installed ran the meter backward quite often.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> The last two I installed ran the meter backward quite often.


this thread is useless without pics !!


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Here are a couple of spinets from an interesting article about a year old. 



> The suitability of Solar PV as a grid-tied energy source can be analyzed in a straightforward manner. In Tucson, Arizona, a 1 kW residential or commercial grid-tied PV system costs approximately $5,000 installed[1] and may offset up to $66/year[2] of fossil fuel use. This 76 year simple payback is well beyond the life of the equipment and does not include maintenance cost.





> PV system costs must fall by at least a factor of five[3] to offer real value in reducing fossil fuel use. Additional evidence of this is the fact that current federal, state, and utility subsidies cover 65-75%[4] of the up-front cost of these systems and net metering laws provide a rich subsidy for energy produced and yet the systems are still only marginally viable.


http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/econenviron-pvs/


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

BBQ.. do you have solar panels on your house..


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Your quoting the opinion of some guy with a blog about Arizona. We been through this 1000 times you don't like solar Bob we get it.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

B4T said:


> BBQ.. do you have solar panels on your house..


No, but I did look into it and everything I found pointed to the fact I could save more money by investing in more energy efficient appliances.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Here are a couple of spinets from an interesting article about a year old.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I live off grid and install solar systems, but I agree with you about their payback. The only bone I would pick is the 1kW size is very small and cost decreases with size. While a 1kW system would cost $5000, a 2kW system would be under $10,000 and 4kW system would be closer to $16,000. Most systems in residential are 3 to 4kW.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> We been through this 1000 times you don't like solar Bob we get it.


And you do like solar, we get it.

We both get to state our opinions and IMO there is no real payback of PV installs where the grid is available.

The only chance of pay back is through the rebate and incentive programs.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> No, but I did look into it and everything I found pointed to the fact I could save more money by investing in more energy efficient appliances.


So you "looked into it" and you have determined that solar is entirely a bad investment everywhere?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> Your quoting the opinion of some guy with a blog about Arizona.


And your opinion has more weight why?


As far as the author and souce I did not try to hide it, I provided link so people could see the source and make their own decisions.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Well I'm not sure but I think this section of the forum was set aside for people who ARE interested in solar and other alternative energy.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> So you "looked into it" and you have determined that solar is entirely a bad investment everywhere?


Not what I have said at all. I answered the question B4T asked me.

What I will say is this.

If the grid is available and the rebates and incentives were taken away PV would be a bad investment in most cases.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> Not what I have said at all. I answered the question B4T asked me.
> 
> What I will say is this.
> 
> If the grid is available and the rebates and incentives were taken away PV would be a bad investment in most cases.


Thanks for your opinion appreciate you looking into it for us.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> Well I'm not sure but I think this section of the forum was set aside for people who ARE interested in solar and other alternative energy.


When someone is interested in a subject often they would like to hear both sides. You seem to feel this section is only to post positive things about PV, I do not see it that way. I see it as a place for both the positive and the negative.



Perhaps you can talk to Nathan about it.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

gold said:


> Thanks for your opinion appreciate you looking into it for us.


Again you are spinning it, I said I looked into for my own home and I shared what I found for my situation with others here.

Maybe you should just put me on ignore.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

BBQ said:


> Again you are spinning it, I said I looked into for my own home and I shared what I found for my situation with others here.
> 
> Maybe you should just put me on ignore.


maybe you should kill yourself


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

The average roof lasts (25) years... what about the cost of removing and then replacing the solar panels when the roof goes bad..

What ever money saved goes into the roof replacement.. so you either make no money or it costs you money out of your pocket.. 

I don't know if this question was already raised on this thread..


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

B4T said:


> The average roof lasts (25) years... what about the cost of removing and then replacing the solar panels when the roof goes bad..
> 
> What ever money saved goes into the roof replacement.. so you either make no money or it costs you money out of your pocket..
> 
> I don't know if this question was already raised on this thread..


Typically when you install a new system the roof is upgraded to a 30 yr roof. With revenue from SRECs and rebates the ideal ROI is under 10 years with higher returns during the second decade from elevated energy cost. Most systems tho rated for 25 years will peak after 20. The return is great enough to cover the decommissioning cost. Cadmium is also becoming much more recyclable further lowering decommissioning cost.


----------



## watt? (Nov 10, 2011)

I should have been more clear sorry, I meant that Prince Rupert or Prince George have more cloud cover than * I thought* Hawaii. I didn't realize that Hawaii was so wet!

And it does rain a lot in most of Hawaii. The rainiest place on earth is on Kauai[/QUOTE]


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

B4T said:


> The average roof lasts (25) years... what about the cost of removing and then replacing the solar panels when the roof goes bad..
> 
> What ever money saved goes into the roof replacement.. so you either make no money or it costs you money out of your pocket..
> 
> I don't know if this question was already raised on this thread..


The average life of the panels are 30 years same as the roof so when the roof goes so do the panels and there is no guarantee that the government money will be there when that time comes, so the HO will have to pay the cost in full there is a good chance the HO will just replace the roof and not install new panels because of the extra cost .


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

I just want to go on record because I know you all pay heed to what I have to say. I think solar is over priced and the ROI is low or negative. I also think that our govt could be spending money on worse things such as bombs, war planes and nuclear weapons. So if we are going to spend money we might as well spend it on something useful such as power generation and infrastructure.


----------



## Stab&Shoot (Aug 23, 2011)

BBQ said:


> No, but I did look into it and everything I found pointed to the fact I could save more money by investing in more energy efficient appliances.


This is very true!


----------



## yungun (Oct 7, 2011)

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/12/23/is-there-a-rooftop-solar-bubble-and-is-it-about-to-burst/

pretty interesting article by an economist. it talks about how residential solar in particular puts more strain on the grid and actually uses it as a sort of battery, yet homeowners with solar do not pay for this service. Utility companies factor grid maintenance cost into their pricing, and due to net metering laws utilities have to pay homeowners at the same rate for power produced as they charge the homeowner. This means utility companies are actually paying solar homeowners for using the grid, because if a household was to produce as much power during the day as it consumed both during the day and night its bill to the utility provider would be $0, even though the household is using the grid more than a non solar equipped household. Net metering laws where initiated as part of the solar incentives, however the long term consequences are a lot bigger than I think imagined. One of the more immediate consequence is higher electric rates for non solar households, which as the article also points out tends to be lower income households.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

yungun said:


> it talks about how residential solar in particular puts more strain on the grid and actually uses it as a sort of battery, yet homeowners with solar do not pay for this service. Utility companies factor grid maintenance cost into their pricing, and due to net metering laws utilities have to pay homeowners at the same rate for power produced as they charge the homeowner. This means utility companies are actually paying solar homeowners for using the grid,


There have been threads about that issue before and it seems the solar supporters refuse to accept the above facts. 

They think the power company can be everyone's battery for free.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> This would make economic sense if the rates a utility charged its customers for electricity consumption were designed to cover the cost of electricity generation exclusively. But that’s not how it works. Instead, prevailing rates *typically bundle charges to cover the costs of maintaining a reliable electric grid *and other, regulator-imposed burdens, like energy efficiency investments. So solar customers get paid by the utility for supplying grid services that the utility, in fact, provides at considerable cost, and that they, in fact, _consume_.


my morning lol!

~CS~


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> There have been threads about that issue before and it seems the solar supporters refuse to accept the above facts.
> 
> They think the power company can be everyone's battery for free.


Yup,Just like all the talk going on in Boston with the transformer issue all of a sudden the power company is at fault when the fact is those who are in charge in Boston never let the power company dig up the streets to up grade any part of the grid, and shut down power so they can add circuits and change transformers and other stuff that they need to do,,.

These people think all stuff is free and the power company just a big greedy corporation ,When in fact the rates they charge are set by the state .

The fact that those people that have solar panels get payed at the same rate that the power company charges when in fact they do not have all the overhead that the power company has goes to show how out of touch with reality those in charge are and all the rate payers have to foot the bill in the end.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> What’s more, residential solar customers often rely on the electric grid more than non-generating customers. They use it as a *virtual battery to store their solar electricity that is generated mostly during the day* but demanded by the household mostly at night.


so.....do these _'freaks'_ have any electrical knowledge, theory, or otherwise something _trade related_ to back this up?

~CS~


----------



## captkirk (Nov 21, 2007)

I was ready to put them on my home a couple of years ago..untill i actually did some research on them. Unless the price goes Way down they are pretty much a waste of money. I'm not sure why some guys get soo angry when you tell them the facts..? Kind of amusing...  The half a billion dollars the State of NJ spent on installing solar on poles is probably going to go down as one of the biggest waste of public money in history. Even the pseg guys laugh about it ... The only ones that made out on that deal are all the out of state contractors installing them...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> > Yup,Just like all the talk going on in Boston with the transformer issue all of a sudden the power company is at fault when the fact is those who are in charge in Boston never let the power company dig up the streets to up grade any part of the grid, and shut down power so they can add circuits and change transformers and other stuff that they need to do,,.
> 
> 
> Our electrical infastructure is laughably antiquitated Harry, they don't put a dime into what they won't get a dime out of
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

anyone subscribe to this?>

http://homepower.com/home/

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

someone mentioned 'facts'....?


It’s been a schizophrenic time for the U.S. solar industry. On the one hand, about $11 billion worth of solar power is set to be installed in 2012, with more than *five* times that figure in the investment pipeline.

 Demand for solar power rose *eightfold* between 2006 and 2011 — from 200 MW to 1,600 MW. 

Nationally, the solar industry employs some *100,000 Americans*, a number that rose by nearly 7% last year — even as overall employment barely grew at all.

Despite those rosy numbers, many U.S. solar companies — especially those that manufacture solar panels and modules — are struggling to survive. 
Most notably, the solar start-up Solyndra went under in 2011, taking with it over $500 million in government loan guarantees. The Bloomberg Large Solar Energy Index of 17 top solar companies lost more than two-thirds of its value in 2011.

In other words, if you’re buying solar panels or running a business installing them, life is good, but if you own a company that actually makes solar equipment in the U.S., you’re looking at a lot of red ink. That’s because solar power is getting much cheaper — prices for modules have dropped 40% over the past five years. According to some U.S. solar-panel manufacturers, that drop in price is due largely to low-cost imports from Chinese panelmakers. It’s not that their manufacturing methods are necessarily better than ours. It’s that government support from Beijing and low-cost labor make it easy for China to undercut its U.S. competitors. The result is more and cheaper solar power for Americans — but perhaps less market share for U.S. manufacturers.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2105734,00.html#ixzz1mx3sc4k4


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Shocking news, thanks CS for bringing to light the fact that lower wages and less restrictive government rules makes it possible to sell a product cheaper. :thumbsup:


----------



## ce2two (Oct 4, 2008)

No plans ever to have solar installed nor own an all electric car:no:........Still waiting for the pipe line fron canada to texas:whistling2:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Shocking news, thanks CS for bringing to light the fact that lower wages and less restrictive government rules makes it possible to sell a product cheaper. :thumbsup:


:laughing::laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

ce2two said:


> No plans ever to have solar installed nor own an all electric car:no:........Still waiting for the pipe line fron canada to texas:whistling2:


That is going to have to wait for the EPA to do another 20 year study.


----------



## yungun (Oct 7, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> so.....do these _'freaks'_ have any electrical knowledge, theory, or otherwise something _trade related_ to back this up?
> 
> ~CS~


this is kind of an arrogant question as no one is asking to prove your economic background and knowledge everytime you make a statement about economy. it is merely common sense, and one does not need years of trade experience, or any trade experience at all to understand basic electrical theory.



chicken steve said:


> someone mentioned 'facts'....?
> 
> 
> It’s been a schizophrenic time for the U.S. solar industry. On the one hand, about $11 billion worth of solar power is set to be installed in 2012, with more than *five* times that figure in the investment pipeline.
> ...


In terms of profit percentage, wouldn't everyone be making less money as the price of panels drops, not just the manufacturer? Lets say Solar Contractor A is making 25% of a $100,000 solar install. If the cost of that install where to drop to $75,000, wouldn't his profit margin also drop as well?

IMO solar is an unsustainable technology since if you were to take away government subsidies and it would no longer make economic sense to nearly everyone who has a hand in solar.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

yungun said:


> > this is kind of an arrogant question as no one is asking to prove your economic background and knowledge everytime you make a statement about economy. it is merely common sense, and one does not need years of trade experience, or any trade experience at all to understand basic electrical theory.
> 
> 
> the article's authors call themselves *freak*enomics , then make unsubtaintiated claims they can't back up
> ...


----------



## yungun (Oct 7, 2011)

didn't mean to start a war, perhaps i was a little rude in my wording. I just don't think that an economist needs to be an electrician to understand what is going on in the market, and nor does an electrician need to be an economist.

and I never said anything about turning down work or even morals. just commenting on how unstable the market seems to be. the reasons behind which it is the fastest growing sector of our trade seems questionable to me, and if more business men turned down work because of their own moral turpitude i do not believe we would be any worse off. really I did not mean to offend you, and my apologies.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

the green machine is _already _a war Yungun

your genetation didn't start it

but i suspect you'll be a foot soldier in it , like it or not

as such, the appolgy is from us, the older crowd

we led you to this point, and handed the riens to you

~CS~


----------



## yungun (Oct 7, 2011)

the real question is who picks up the 20-25 year warranties after the manufacture has crapped out?>


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Theft of panels are apparently rampant in some area, so you'll also need to offset the savings by the cost of insurance premium increase to add full theft and natural causes replacement cost coverage for PV equipment.


----------



## 19kilosparky984 (Sep 14, 2011)

Electric_Light said:


> Theft of panels are apparently rampant in some area, so you'll also need to offset the savings by the cost of insurance premium increase to add full theft and natural causes replacement cost coverage for PV equipment.


Wow that is some crazy trolling right there. What a creative imagination you have there


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

19kilosparky984 said:


> Wow that is some crazy trolling right there. What a creative imagination you have there


Try Googling before posting. :laughing:


----------



## Huntxtrm (Apr 3, 2012)

Wow! I install solar, and all of the systems I have installed seem to be right on track for ROI's of 9 to 10 years without inflation trends. I monitor them for performance. I have not had much problem getting my materials, except when "Solyndra" went down and I had 12kw of their panels sitting in a truck in my yard wanting to unload, I said NO! I understand, the whole who will uphold the warranty issue. Buy only from financialy stable companies. I learned my lesson.


----------



## myenergy (Jan 25, 2010)

If we keep on thinking of alternative energy in terms of money we will never arrive. we must change our paradym. and eventually cost will go down.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Envision a roadway system that collects power from the sun thru the roads, and delivers that power to the vehicles that are running on it. When you patent it, don't forget to give me my cut for thinking it up.........:thumbsup:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> Envision a roadway system that collects power from the sun thru the roads, and delivers that power to the vehicles that are running on it. When you patent it, don't forget to give me my cut for thinking it up.........:thumbsup:


I ran the numbers on this, installed cost 1-1/4 million per mile, payback 47.7 years, cost to the taxpayers 2.35 million $ per mile, average life span 1.5 years with government maintenance workers.
Obama has Gore working on this now, with Freddie Mac lining up investors and a Chinese firm doing all construction. Seems like a win win.


----------



## Kleinstar (May 3, 2012)

Of course the price will eventually go down, but unfortunately we live in a society that wants things immediately. It's sad really, so we have to just plug along until people realize that alternative energy is the way to go


----------

