Free Power From the Sun

Status
Not open for further replies.

mkgrady

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
I am no expert on solar power and I'm not even a student of it. I really know very little about it. I do have the impression that in its current form it is a waste of money if your goal is to reduce your electricity costs. Does anybody disagree?

I realize to improve the technology there has to be a market for solar and that market exists because governments are willing to provide tax credits to those that install solar systems. But it seems like with the current technology there is never a return on investment. I have heard calculations on a particular system that would pay for itself in 20 years and then the power is free. Does anybody believe this?

I'm thinking about the costs that typically don't come to mind when people do the math. For instance, if the roof is only going to last 20 years, what about the cost of replacing a roof with all those panels sitting on top. If you were to have a battery connected to store power, I would imagine the batteries would have to be replaced every few years. Maintenance costs seem like a real unknown. And if the system has a break even cost after 20 years, 20 years from now you will probably have already replaced the system with something more effecient, so you never realize the pay back. Even inflation and the time value of money should be considered in the analysis. For instance, if I invest 20K in a solar system and the payback is 20 years, I should compare that investment with putting 20K in a mutual fund investment that would likely quadruple in 20 years (using 7% gaine per year).

For all of the above reasons I have real doubts about solar having any real value in its present form. If my ignorance of solar is showing please let me know what I don't know.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I have gone to some classes, have installed some systems and did much of the electrical design work on some 500 KW systems. It does not make me an expert but I think you have a pretty good grasp of the situation.

The honest merchants of solar equipment will tell you that you will get more bang for your buck by investing in energy saving appliances and changing your life style.

As far as batteries go ........ forget it unless you absolutely have to have them, like an off grid situation.

I think most installations go with grid tied so any power produced over what you are using gets sold back to the utility. If you wanted to back that up a generator would be cheaper than batteries and could last for days on end if needed.

All of the above is just my personal opinion, take it for what it is worth. :)
 

drive1968

Senior Member
There are some situations where it makes economic sense for the homeowner.

1) The homeowner currently pays high marginal rates. My last customer paid $.42/kwh for their above baseline usage.

2) The homeowner doesn't size their system to zero out their utility usage, but only to get their usage down to the lower marginal kwh rates. My last customer got down to the $.18/kwh range by sizing their system to only produce 30% of their usage.

3) The utility offers significant rebates.

4) The homeowner is able to take advantage of the federal tax credit.

5) The roof is fairly new and has available South/West space.

6) The homeowner is in a state not too far north. There's a big difference in productivity between California and Washington.
 
Last edited:

SAC

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
I don't know the details, but at least two people I work with have said that the utility paid to have solar panels installed on their houses, and the homeowners get the electricity produced by the panels for free. I don't know if they also get paid for any excess put back into the grid, though. It seems the utility must think that solar, including the installation costs, is saving them money - maybe it is preventing the need to sink a lot of money into additional generation or distribution capacity? It seemed like a somewhat puzzling arrangement to me...
 

Strife

Senior Member
You're pretty much right on the money.
The companies pushing solar power (as usual) will overestimate savings and such, and will not show all costs associated with maintaining the system.
Not only that, but let's say everyone goes solar, does anyone REALLY believe that the government will just take the loss of revenue?
Come on? REALLY?
One quick example: Down here we've been asked to conserve water, and we did.
In fact we did so good conserving water that most cities doubled their fees to cover the loss of revenue.

I am no expert on solar power and I'm not even a student of it. I really know very little about it. I do have the impression that in its current form it is a waste of money if your goal is to reduce your electricity costs. Does anybody disagree?

I realize to improve the technology there has to be a market for solar and that market exists because governments are willing to provide tax credits to those that install solar systems. But it seems like with the current technology there is never a return on investment. I have heard calculations on a particular system that would pay for itself in 20 years and then the power is free. Does anybody believe this?

I'm thinking about the costs that typically don't come to mind when people do the math. For instance, if the roof is only going to last 20 years, what about the cost of replacing a roof with all those panels sitting on top. If you were to have a battery connected to store power, I would imagine the batteries would have to be replaced every few years. Maintenance costs seem like a real unknown. And if the system has a break even cost after 20 years, 20 years from now you will probably have already replaced the system with something more effecient, so you never realize the pay back. Even inflation and the time value of money should be considered in the analysis. For instance, if I invest 20K in a solar system and the payback is 20 years, I should compare that investment with putting 20K in a mutual fund investment that would likely quadruple in 20 years (using 7% gaine per year).

For all of the above reasons I have real doubts about solar having any real value in its present form. If my ignorance of solar is showing please let me know what I don't know.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
There are some situations where it makes economic sense for the homeowner.

1) The homeowner currently pays high marginal rates. My last customer paid $.42/kwh for their above baseline usage.

2) The homeowner doesn't size their system to zero out their utility usage, but only to get their usage down to the lower marginal kwh rates. My last customer got down to the $.18/kwh range by sizing their system to only produce 30% of their usage.

3) The utility offers significant rebates.

4) The homeowner is able to take advantage of the federal tax credit.

5) The roof is fairly new and has available South/West space.

6) The homeowner is in a state not too far north. There's a big difference in productivity between California and Washington.

Bottom line ........ as it is now, take away the subsidies and it is not even remotely a good investment for the average person living on the grid.
 

mkgrady

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
I don't know the details, but at least two people I work with have said that the utility paid to have solar panels installed on their houses, and the homeowners get the electricity produced by the panels for free. I don't know if they also get paid for any excess put back into the grid, though. It seems the utility must think that solar, including the installation costs, is saving them money - maybe it is preventing the need to sink a lot of money into additional generation or distribution capacity? It seemed like a somewhat puzzling arrangement to me...

It sure puzzles me. Even a case where the POCO needs to reduce distribution costs it seems they would need a whole lot of solar panels to make a difference.
 

ron

Senior Member
It sure puzzles me. Even a case where the POCO needs to reduce distribution costs it seems they would need a whole lot of solar panels to make a difference.

Imagine you're the utlity and the peak load comes around whether it is noontime or when everyone comes home from work, and the panels experience a cloudy day. The utility has to be able to support the load no matter what, so a POCO likely does not like PV because it is out of anyones control if they produce and how much, but they still have to support the load with installed electrical generation and distribution infrastructure.

It's like double the work.
 

satcom

Senior Member
Imagine you're the utlity and the peak load comes around whether it is noontime or when everyone comes home from work, and the panels experience a cloudy day. The utility has to be able to support the load no matter what, so a POCO likely does not like PV because it is out of anyones control if they produce and how much, but they still have to support the load with installed electrical generation and distribution infrastructure.

It's like double the work.

Ron, seems everyone forgets, that the grid is hungry for a reliable supply.

We came a long way from making solar cells from old radio and tv parts to present day solar panels, and now we need to develop appliances and devices that will operate in off cycles when the sun takes a nap
 

sameguy

Senior Member
Location
New York
Occupation
Master Elec./JW retired
The tax payer is the one (me and you) that is footing the bills on this "green" power, not the power Company.
If the power Co. is "giving" rebates then the Gov. forced them to and we pay for it.
Our money should go for clean coal, nat. gas, oil, hydrogen and nuclear.
The money given to big oil "that the current admin. would like to stop" is way smaller than what is given to corn, photo, wind power.
We went through this in 1970 and did nothing; and we will politic it again, it is all about big money and most of us are just the little people who will be kept fighting each other while the big money rolls on.
 

elohr46

Senior Member
Location
square one
I am no expert on solar power and I'm not even a student of it. I really know very little about it. I do have the impression that in its current form it is a waste of money if your goal is to reduce your electricity costs. Does anybody disagree?

I realize to improve the technology there has to be a market for solar and that market exists because governments are willing to provide tax credits to those that install solar systems. But it seems like with the current technology there is never a return on investment. I have heard calculations on a particular system that would pay for itself in 20 years and then the power is free. Does anybody believe this?

I'm thinking about the costs that typically don't come to mind when people do the math. For instance, if the roof is only going to last 20 years, what about the cost of replacing a roof with all those panels sitting on top. If you were to have a battery connected to store power, I would imagine the batteries would have to be replaced every few years. Maintenance costs seem like a real unknown. And if the system has a break even cost after 20 years, 20 years from now you will probably have already replaced the system with something more effecient, so you never realize the pay back. Even inflation and the time value of money should be considered in the analysis. For instance, if I invest 20K in a solar system and the payback is 20 years, I should compare that investment with putting 20K in a mutual fund investment that would likely quadruple in 20 years (using 7% gaine per year).

For all of the above reasons I have real doubts about solar having any real value in its present form. If my ignorance of solar is showing please let me know what I don't know.

I would think that if the payback were 20 years that it's not worth going solar. Those who live in an area where there is State subsidy money and the payback is in the 10 year range then I might consider it for myself. I do believe that America needs to get off the "foreign oil dependency" any way it can, solar may help some but is not the total answer. After the disaster in Japan, selling people on more nuclear power will probably be getting tougher.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
After the disaster in Japan, selling people on more nuclear power will probably be getting tougher.

In my opinion what happened in Japan could be used to further Nukes if the media would just stop trying to sensationalize it.

Basically you have nuke plants that were hit by an an extraordinarily large earthquake and tidal waves and yet the consequences have yet to be that bad.
 

elohr46

Senior Member
Location
square one
In my opinion what happened in Japan could be used to further Nukes if the media would just stop trying to sensationalize it.

Basically you have nuke plants that were hit by an an extraordinarily large earthquake and tidal waves and yet the consequences have yet to be that bad.

unfortunately the full effect of a nuclear meltdown does not reveal itself until about 20 years later, that's why they were asking for volunteers (in Japan) to go into the damaged reactor area to be age 65 or over. Chernobyl and the surrouding locale is still a ghost town.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
unfortunately the full effect of a nuclear meltdown does not reveal itself until about 20 years later, that's why they were asking for volunteers (in Japan) to go into the damaged reactor area to be age 65 or over. Chernobyl and the surrouding locale is still a ghost town.

The Chernobyl area is still a Ghost town because it is ordered to be one.

Nature, ... the plants and animals are thriving.
 

hockeyoligist2

Senior Member
The only solar power that is worth the money is passive solar, IMHO. I use it for supplemental heat in the winter and for heating water year round. I didn't get any tax credits, I built them myself with the help of Mother Earth News, the payback was probably 2 years, excluding labor. Ten years later and the maintenance has been minimal and very few problems.
 

macmikeman

Senior Member
tesla-book.jpg
 
I have gone to some classes, have installed some systems and did much of the electrical design work on some 500 KW systems. It does not make me an expert but I think you have a pretty good grasp of the situation.

The honest merchants of solar equipment will tell you that you will get more bang for your buck by investing in energy saving appliances and changing your life style.

As far as batteries go ........ forget it unless you absolutely have to have them, like an off grid situation.

I think most installations go with grid tied so any power produced over what you are using gets sold back to the utility. If you wanted to back that up a generator would be cheaper than batteries and could last for days on end if needed.

All of the above is just my personal opinion, take it for what it is worth. :)

You get my vote!

Even IF the installation would start paying back some money after 20 years,the elctronics will be obsolete and dead AND the solar cells output greatly deteriorated if not dead. Not to mention that the calculations use unrealistic interest rates, future electricity and maintenance cost. So it is the biggest Government supported scam that exist,out of YOUR tax $-s.
 
The Chernobyl area is still a Ghost town because it is ordered to be one.

Nature, ... the plants and animals are thriving.

People interested in this subject can research the public records and find that the projected human damage, such as cancer and birth defects, were grossly exaggerated when compared to the actual results. Lot of people actually ignore the Government edict of exclusion and moved back to the areas and scientist have a hard time of putting together the numbers to show significant health effect.

This is not to minimize the dangers of radiation,but to highlight how poorly science understands the actual long term effects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top