Tell me why PV systems are not a scam

Status
Not open for further replies.
regarding the direction that the solar panels point:

Pointing solar panels in the wrong way reduces their output and makes them more expensive per kWh produced.
Perhaps you should go to PVWatts and see how minor that effect is as long as you point your array within 15 or 20 degrees of due south. Your statement about solar not being viable in the absence of subsidies isn't completely accurate, either; there are systems around that get no subsidies that are viable. The subsidies, where they exist, have been steadily decreasing over the 10 years since I got into the business as the cost of PV systems has come down. That's the long game - to use subsidies as "training wheels" until they are no longer needed.
 
I am not a solar PV system expert at all. I have very limited knowledge in the area. But I am concerned that people are being scammed by installers of roof mounted residential solar power systems. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I say this because people are paying many thousands of dollars for systems that can't possibly produce that much power. Even if somebody else is subsidizing the system like the Gov't or the utility, they don't make economic sense for the individual and even less sense for the taxpayer or ratepayer.

It's my understanding that solar panels produce the most power when they are directly facing the sun (exactly 90 degrees). The amount of power produced falls off greatly as the angle changes from 90. The best systems track the sun keeping the panels in proper alignment as much as possible. Cheaper ground based systems don't move, but are at least aimed to maximize the potential sun input. Then there are residential systems that are built on people's roofs (usually flat to the roof). The roof could be way out of alignment with the sun and a solar contractor will put panels there anyway.

It's also my understanding that if any portion of any panel in a string of panels becomes shaded, this significantly reduces the output of the entire string, yet I see panels installed near chimneys, antennas, trees, and other things that throw shade at some point during the day.

In my travels I have seen many PV systems installed at my clients homes. The vast majority of them are backfed to the panel on a 2 pole 30 amp breaker. This must mean that the PV system produces less than 30 amp at its peak. Since the peak is only a few minutes each day, I suspect that most of the rest of time it's producing far less: 15 amps?, 10 amps?, 5 amps? And of course, the system produces zero amps at night.

A thirty amp breaker is probably what the system manufacturer requires, but since most systems are not installed to maximize solar input as I mentioned above, they are probably producing far less.

Is 15 amps of solar power for a couple of hours each day worth $10-20K in expense? And what if the roof needs replacing and all the panels have to be removed and reinstalled? And what if an inverter craps out and you have to replace it? I hear many clients talking like they are going to power their entire house off the system and sell gobs of power back to POCO. Then they wonder why it's not working. Were they oversold?

If homeowners want to create an aura of "greenness" around themselves, then fine. Otherwise, in my humble opinion, it doesn't make sense. I'll stick to recycling and bringing my own bags to the grocery store.

In Central New York we get 1-1-1/2 solar days a year so no good with out the tax payer footing the bill.
 
Currently residential solar is economically viable only because of a bunch of artificial incentives, including tax credits and things like net metering tariffs. There are good arguments both for and against these incentives, and discussion of such can get quite heated.

-Jon

And Im not trying to drag this into a political discussion, but I always like to remind people that many many things besides PV are subsidized by the government: Oil, corn, dairy, agriculture in general, trains.........It just seems that PV gets "picked on" the far more than these others. Subsidies and Tariffs, huge complex topic for sure.
 
And Im not trying to drag this into a political discussion, but I always like to remind people that many many things besides PV are subsidized by the government: Oil, corn, dairy, agriculture in general, trains.........It just seems that PV gets "picked on" the far more than these others. Subsidies and Tariffs, huge complex topic for sure.

The problem with renewable subsidies in general is that they allow artificial penetration of wind/solar/biomass into the electrical market. When oil refineries are required by law to blend millions of gallons of "biofuel into their products or buy "credits", when feed in tariffs for solar and wind are based on some bureaucrat's idea of the avoided cost of additional production, when POCO's are forced to buy certain percentages of "green power" at non-market rates, and when some POCO's are forced to take all the renewable energy available even if it exceeds demand, the sum total effect is more than a footnote discussion.

NJ has one of the most generous (to PV owners) programs in the US. They use SREC's, which are a form of certificate for POCO's to satisfy the renewables mandates. Right now, SREC's are trading at $200/MW-hr, or about 4X the market cost of electricity in NJ (not counting facility charges). That cost inflates the final price I pay. It sucks.
 
The problem with renewable subsidies in general is that they allow artificial penetration of wind/solar/biomass into the electrical market. When oil refineries are required by law to blend millions of gallons of "biofuel into their products or buy "credits", when feed in tariffs for solar and wind are based on some bureaucrat's idea of the avoided cost of additional production, when POCO's are forced to buy certain percentages of "green power" at non-market rates, and when some POCO's are forced to take all the renewable energy available even if it exceeds demand, the sum total effect is more than a footnote discussion.

NJ has one of the most generous (to PV owners) programs in the US. They use SREC's, which are a form of certificate for POCO's to satisfy the renewables mandates. Right now, SREC's are trading at $200/MW-hr, or about 4X the market cost of electricity in NJ (not counting facility charges). That cost inflates the final price I pay. It sucks.

Yup. I dont use trains yet i am paying for them. It sucks. :)
 
The problem with renewable subsidies in general is that they allow artificial penetration of wind/solar/biomass into the electrical market.
The idea is for the subsidies to enable renewables to eventually become self sufficient where otherwise they wouldn't have been able to get into the game. Solar has made great strides toward that goal in the 9 years I have been involved with it.

Burning fossil fuels for energy isn't sustainable in the long game; renewables are the future and we cannot wait until they become necessary to start developing them.
 
What do you do on a calm, dark night?

Freeze to death in the dark.

You can't "develop" renewables by forcing people to use them at prices exceeding fossil fuels. In fact, without price pressure, there is no incentive to for those technologies to become more efficient. Just have your friends in the state house or on capitol hill force POCO's to buy your very expensive electrons; problem solved!
 
Freeze to death in the dark.

You can't "develop" renewables by forcing people to use them at prices exceeding fossil fuels. In fact, without price pressure, there is no incentive to for those technologies to become more efficient. Just have your friends in the state house or on capitol hill force POCO's to buy your very expensive electrons; problem solved!

Seriously, how much has renewable energy development cost you, personally?

You can develop renewables by giving them an economic helping hand while they are getting started. These "very expensive electrons" aren't all that expensive, actually; the cost of them comes down with each advance in the technology that produces them, and their development eventually helps everyone. Without either renewable energy and fossil fuels, we really do freeze to death in the dark, and fossil fuels are not a sustainable resource.

The hyperbole that comes from anti-solar, anti-wind, etc. factions sometimes stuns me.
 
What do you do on a calm, dark night?

Hyperbole. No one is talking about completely converting to solar power right this minute, or ever, actually. The energy picture of the future is a mosaic of a number of different sources, and solar is just one of them. Efficient energy storage will be part of it as well, to answer your question.
 
Hyperbole. No one is talking about completely converting to solar power right this minute, or ever, actually. The energy picture of the future is a mosaic of a number of different sources, and solar is just one of them. Efficient energy storage will be part of it as well, to answer your question.
Yes. Storage. That's why I mentioned it before. Hydro has it but not everywhere has the topology. We need storage at utility level in order to progress with renewables.
 
Seriously, how much has renewable energy development cost you, personally?

You can develop renewables by giving them an economic helping hand while they are getting started. These "very expensive electrons" aren't all that expensive, actually; the cost of them comes down with each advance in the technology that produces them, and their development eventually helps everyone. Without either renewable energy and fossil fuels, we really do freeze to death in the dark, and fossil fuels are not a sustainable resource.

The hyperbole that comes from anti-solar, anti-wind, etc. factions sometimes stuns me.

Back of the envelope calculation comes in at about 15% of my electric bill.

What kind of "helping hand" did Ford or Chrysler get? Or the early POCO's? You don't need to install 100,000 solar panels to "develop" a more efficient panel. And the basic research on solar cells isn't being funded by any percentage of solar panel sales so don't even try to go there.

Just cruise the web looking for solar panel prices. They are coming in at about $0.80 - $1.00 or so per watt. That's peak watts, so at a standard insolation of 1,000 watts/sq meter. The year average efficacy of solar panels is roughly 35% of nameplate, depending on local climate. I use about 30 kW-hr per day. So, assuming I get 6 good hours per day, I need 5 kW installed. But wait, divide by 0.35 for capacity factor and now we're at 14.3 kW. That's $14,000 worth of panels without mounting and all the rest. I've seen an estimate from Solar Estimate of $3.50 to $4.00/watt for a financed system, so total of $49,000 to $56,000. I can buy about 30 years worth of power for that money.
 
Yes. Storage. That's why I mentioned it before. Hydro has it but not everywhere has the topology. We need storage at utility level in order to progress with renewables.
We need utility level storage to convert completely to renewables (solar and wind, anyway), that's for sure, but we don't need it to make progress with the technology. Fossil fuel energy production is not going away overnight. Coal and nuke plants can't be started and stopped quickly enough to smooth out the fluctuations in energy production from solar and/or wind, but natural gas generators can.

Here in Texas we have a lot of solar and wind. ERCOT (the Texas grid management authority) has an elaborate and sophisticated program for dealing with grid stability.
 
We need utility level storage to convert completely to renewables (solar and wind, anyway), that's for sure, but we don't need it to make progress with the technology. Fossil fuel energy production is not going away overnight. Coal and nuke plants can't be started and stopped quickly enough to smooth out the fluctuations in energy production from solar and/or wind, but natural gas generators can.

Here in Texas we have a lot of solar and wind. ERCOT (the Texas grid management authority) has an elaborate and sophisticated program for dealing with grid stability.
Heard of Dinorwig?
 
Heard of Dinorwig?
Not specifically, but I am aware of pumped hydro energy storage. There's the answer to your question; on a calm dark night you draw power from Dinorwig. :D
 
Last edited:
Back of the envelope calculation comes in at about 15% of my electric bill.
So you are saying that your power bill is 15% more than it would be if renewable energy subsidies did not exist? I'm sorry; I do not believe that.
 
I use about 30 kW-hr per day. So, assuming I get 6 good hours per day, I need 5 kW installed.
That's not how it works. To see how much PV you would need to install to completely offset your usage, go to PVWatts and do some homework. It depends on your latitude, the orientation of the array you are considering, the weather data averaged over 20 years, and any potential shading issues you might have. Then you 'll need to consider how much electricity from the grid costs you and work the numbers, figuring in how you would pay for a system, the 30% ITC, and any other incentives that might be available. It might or might not work for you.
 
Last edited:
That's not how it works. To see how much PV you would need to install to completely offset your usage, go to PVWatts and do some homework. It depends on your latitude, the orientation of the array you are considering, the weather data averaged over 20 years, and any potential shading issues you might have. Then you 'll need to consider how much electricity from the grid costs you and work the numbers, figuring in how you would pay for a system, the 30% ITC, and any other incentives that might be available. It might or might not work for you.

You're right, to match my energy consumption it would be 10 kW per PVWatts. Capacity factor is 13.8%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top