Switching To Solar Power – One Month Later 730
ThinSkin writes "After an interesting article on solar panel installation for the home, Loyd Case at ExtremeTech has written a follow-up after about a month of normal use. Posting an $11.34 electric bill (roughly 3% of previous months), Loyd shares his experiences using solar power and how it can be fun for the geek, with computer monitoring services and power generation data. Of course, solar power isn't all fun and games, given the amount of required maintenance — even unpredictable maintenance, like wiping off accumulated ash from fires in Northern California."
My PC is running great on solar power ... (Score:5, Funny)
Rookie mistake (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot to engage the hydropower backup generator.
Re:Rookie mistake (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It isn't easy maintaining a beowulf clusters of generators, ya'know.
The CDC in Georgia agrees with you, generator operations is hard.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2008/07/12/cdc_power_outage.html [ajc.com]
Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that while can't go net negative for the year he can get to net 0. Also note that he's 'selling' back power to get to that net 0 at retail rates.
The places that allow you to go net negative buy your power back at wholesale rates, which is far lower. If you think about it when you sell power back to the power company you're not competing with the power company, you're competing with the power generators. Why should the power company give you an unfair advantage there?
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple fix, trade kwh for kwh until net zero is reached and then sell excess for wholesale. Of course you would do this on an estimated annual usage basis just like the 'budget' billing most power consumers have to prevent huge spikes in their bills during certain hot or cold months.
As for putting the power company out of business, I'm all for it. Whoever had the bright idea of privatizing a utility should be shot. Fundemental public services should not be privatized they should be public and operating in a fully transparent manner. Roads, Schools, Libraries, Utilities, and Health Care.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:4, Insightful)
My power company, like my phone company, is a coop. I'd like them to remain in business, thank you very much.
Then again, depending on your definition, a coop could be considered a 'public' company.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:4, Informative)
Hear, hear.
I too am a member of an electric co-op, Bluebonnet Electric Co-op [bluebonnetelectric.coop] in Central Texas. As a Libertarian, I personally find their business model the best of both worlds. Being for profit, so that they seek to minimize inefficiencies, and being controlled by the members.
They're even cool enough to have information on their website on what it takes to have personally owned renewable power sources tied into the grid. [bluebonnetelectric.coop]
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez, what are you, some sort of communist?!
Who wants a working healthcare system when you can privatise it make a big budget surplus to spend on winning votes and create a huge mess that you can blame on your opposition once they're in office.
It's not like heathcare, power & water are vital services or anything...
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, those who want good healthcare I guess.
We have a "socialised" healthcare system here.
I can have extensive spinal surgery for $0 outlay.
My wife has had our two children in her very own private room for $0 outlay.
It may not be perfect, but I feel it's a heck of a lot better than the mess that's the USA healthcare system.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:4, Informative)
It may not be perfect, but I feel it's a heck of a lot better than the mess that's the USA healthcare system.
You don't say where you are but I live in the USA and have had quite an experience with healthcare here. As a college student without insurance I was hit while riding my bike one day after my classes. I was medevacted [wikipedia.org] by helicopter to the hospital where I got treatment while in a coma. I spent about a month in the hospital before I was moved to a rehabilitation house [wikipedia.org] where I lived about 1 1/2 months while getting therapy. When I left the house I moved into my mother's house. I went to the hospital 2 days a week for more therapy for a couple of months. My medical bills totaled more than $120,000 yet all that was spent despite no one, doctors, hospital, or rehab house knowing if they would see a dime from me. Actually while I was in the coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived and as a student I wouldn't have been able to pay. Even today more than 10 years later I'd argue with them about my being alive is a miracle, my life has been more like a living hell.
Even without my experience, I have an idea how medical practice is in the USA, my mother is a lab tech in the hospital I was taken to, actually that's how she found out, a coworker asked her if she knew me. I also have a sister who's a nurse. As it is now, by law a hospital has to provide medical care in an emergency in the US even if the patient has no insurance.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the USA has the best health care system in the world for everyone but I do believe a free market, which the US does not have in health care, can lower costs and make medical care affordable for more people. Some people say France has the best system but the Organization For Economic Co-operation a Development [oecd.org], OECD, disagrees. In the report "Private Health Insurance in France" [oecd.org] it says "While France has a universal public health insurance system, the coverage it provides is incomplete and the vast majority the French population has private complementary health insurance."
Falcon
Re:LOL, I bet you don't know your real pay either (Score:5, Insightful)
Having socalised healthcare costs a lot of money.
Not having socialised healthcare costs a lot of humanity.
Your call.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't a privatized utility. The problem is a privatized, unregulated utility that holds a monopoly. The power line going to my house should be tightly controlled, but I should be allowed to choose the entity that energizes that line.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, because we all know the government always does everything in the most economical and efficient way, right?
You may want to take a look at this paper [oecd.org] about health care in France. It comes from a very trustworthy source, the OECD, and presents some surprising data. Although public health care in France is "universal" in the sense that almost everybody is covered by the public health care
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Informative)
Disinformation and selective quotation at work. Do you work for the USA private health insurers?
Let's check:
To really inform slashdot readers you might add that more than 80% of private health insurance is done by ... not for profit, and that the share of not for profit vs for profit has increased by 10% over the past years. It might help USA citizens understand a few things about how private "for profit" is really working.
"private" health insurance covers less than 25% of costs, 75% comes from the mandatory public system.
And in the special case of France, the private not for profit insurance has nothing to do with government efficiency as always there's some ideology and creative accounting at work ("chronic deficits" is a political choice). Administrative costs of health insurance are 6% in France vs 15% in the USA, if you want to increase waste you know what to do.
For reference I cannot choose my private complementary health insurance provider which is the one of my employer by law (private market ? eh eh), I pay around 30 euros per month for it.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:4, Interesting)
I Gather you think the government actually uses your dollars as they should. Obviously they are doing so well with what we are giving them now. /sarcasm
Don't get me wrong I pay avg bill of 350.00 a mo to PGE. I'd love to pay less. But nothing government ran ever works at anything but creating more government and costs that skyrocket.
I work for state government and it's horrid. They make up silly rules just to provide a job for someone.
A for instance, Rule: We must buy at least 35% of our supplies/parts etc from Small Business and 25% from disabled vets. OK.. that is terrific. Except some administrative type comes along and says: We're going to do 100% or I'm going to be very unhappy. "with a mean leer"
So now we have a job a single person was doing that now takes the manpower of six people.
We cannot go to the lowest priced place and buy product because if it's available at 2x the cost at Sally's Product and she's a Disabled woman vet. You can f'in bet where we are going to buy it.
If government was ran like a business I'd be all for them having control over utilities. Right now You'd get your power 80% of the time at a cost of double what you pay. But it would ALL be justified on some piece of paper in case you wanted to look.
Meh.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Informative)
I guess that the statistics [wikipedia.org] would disagree, but why let facts get in your way!
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Informative)
Well done on assuming that Europe is one big member state with exactly the same health care, unemployment and whatever other statistics you want to quote.
No, France, Germany and the UK have completely different medical services, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. And that's just 3 countries, out of 27 in the EU alone.
They also have quite different levels of unemployment, but none of them are even close to the 35% you're quoting, they're more akin to about 6% or 7%. In fact, Slovakia is the highest at around 10%, still nowhere near what you're quoting. I'd like to see some sources for that bullshit.
What's more, you speak of the medical care in these countries as if it's vastly inferior to your own just because it doesn't always work out for the best for some people - yet you don't seem to realise that in the USA (I'm assuming that's where you're from based on your lack of knowledge about the EU) if you don't have health insurance, you're basically fucked if you get hit with anything worse than a bacterial infection or a broken bone. Sure, you might live, but you'll spend the rest of your life trying to pay that ridiculously bloated medical bill.
I'm not saying things are better in the EU, I've yet to see a "perfect" medical system, but to talk about it as if it flat out doesn't work is ludicrous. Quite frankly the British National Health Service is one of the best things to ever happen to the country, despite is flaws and failures - the fact that it's still around after more than half a century proves this and the first politician to suggest scrapping it is going to be performing political suicide.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Informative)
Australia has a typical 37.5-38 hour work week (excluding lunch, so 40 hours including a 30ish minute lunch) and record low unemployment.
And public health care.
And a pension system for those who cannot work.
And an economy kicking the US's...
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM makes me work 60 hours a week. You see, my employment is contingent on something called utilization. My target and tenure is such that I can't meet my target unless I work 60 hours a week.
The utilization target is computed without taking into account vacations, holidays, and sick days. If I take all 3 weeks of vacation I've earned, then I won't make my utilization target, and I won't have a job.
It's time to fucking unionize the place. Or if that doesn't work, I'll just continue slacking for 60 hours a week. IBM gets an honest 30 hours out of me whether they know it or not. Fuck them.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM makes me work 60 hours a week. You see, my employment is contingent on something called utilization. My target and tenure is such that I can't meet my target unless I work 60 hours a week.
IBM Makes you Work? MAKES you work? You make it sound like slavery. This is employment at will. You don't like their policies, pay, or heck, their cafeteria, then quit.
If you're still there and you are so displeased then you either are a fool for not finding a new job, or you can't find a new job because you are a fool.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Informative)
Social Security? IRS? Medicare? Please... there is nothing transparent about government waste. If it weren't for market based funding there would be no improvements in the health care system. Who do you think is going to do drug research for free?
Try Europe where you can get 35 hour work weeks and 35% unemployment. There everyone has the same mediocre health care and they STILL have to have insurance if they want any care beyond antibiotics or the setting of a broken bone.
Just a few minor corrections:
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Insightful)
hahahahaha, oh man you can't be serious. We all know how effective the government has been at all of those things....
Well, hasn't it? The Roads, Libraries, and Utilities seem to be working just fine under government regulation, at least here in California. Schools are uneven -- some are very good (e.g. most public colleges and universities, and some elementary schools and high schools). Health Care is lousy, but it's the privatized portion that's lousy. The public portion (Medicare, etc) works as advertised.
I think some people are so deep into their cynicism about governmental incompetence that they rarely stop to check if their cynicism is borne out by the facts...
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:4, Informative)
Government regulation and funding can be a hit or miss proposition, depending largely on what level of government is running the institution.
With roads, for example, the funding and management can be federal, as in the case of Interstate Highways, state, as in state routes, county, city, etc, or can be public-private parterships, as with some toll roads.
Libraries are almost always managed at the county or city level, and quality varies widely. In Arlington County, VA, for example, the library system is top notch -- libraries carry not just books but a huge collection of CDs and a pretty good collection of DVDs with a searchable online catalog and reservation system. You can reserve anything in the system online and have it sent to the branch of your choice for pickup. You can also extend the borrowing term online (except for DVDs) without worrying about late fees (which are trivial anyway).
The Chicago Public Library system, on the other hand, has only recently put its catalog online, and I don't think there is an automated reservation system yet. After moving from Arlington, where I was a very active library patron, to Chicago in 2006 I found the library here practically useless. I hope things have improved and someone can tell me I'm wrong.
State universities and colleges are of course state-funded and -managed, but they get massive financial resources from their endowments and philanthropic fundraising activities. The University of California system in particular has one of the most efficient and sophisticated fundraising operations in the country.
As an aside, it's easy to assume that the richest and most famous schools -- your Harvards and Yales -- have the most effective fundraising, but that's not really true. When you're at Harvard and can raise a couple hundred grand in a week just by opening the mail there's not much pressure to increase your efficiency or sophistication. If you want to see the state of the art in higher-ed fundraising, have a look at Stanford.
It's not that government run enterprises don't work, it's just that they tend to work better when there's a public-private partnership going on. Most projects in general live or die on the strength of the management. It's much easier for a completely public project to suffer complete managerial incompetence. There are a lot more agonizingly inefficient DMVs than smoothly functioning ones (hats off to IL in this case, at least in my experience). Have a look some time, for example, at the University of the District of Columbia.
There's no question in my mind that the government has to step into healthcare at least to control the spiraling costs. But neither is there a question that the private medical sector will and needs to continue to exist. Universal state medical systems elsewhere, e.g. Cuba and Canada, do a great job of achieving quality relative to the cost, but they also benefit greatly from advancements made in the US. And those advancements are purely down to the private medical sector.
All the same, I'm a college educated professional, I have a good job with insurance, and I know that I simply can't afford to get sick. I know I'm not alone. And that is a problem that will likely need government regulation and/or ownership to solve.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll agree on that one. A kid taking twelve years of science classes, and yet not being able to read or critique an experiment in science journals is terrible. But when they graduate not even knowing what a journal is, or how to create an experiment, that's just broken beyond imagining.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, that's why libertarians remind me of religious fanatics. If something good happens, it's always because the free market has managed to score a success. If something bad happens, why, sure, it's because of government interference. It doesn't matter what, where, and when, or what the real numbers are - as soon as someone says that, in practice, in known privatized industries certain inefficiencies are observed, a libertarian will immediately counter by, "Well they are still regulated to some extent, so what did you expect? It's all because of that pesky regulation!".
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have a big corrupt government, your money and freedoms go to the corrupt government.
Of you have a small corrupt government, your money and freedoms go to some big corrupt company that bribes the small corrupt government.
Either way you end up being screwed.
You get all those libertarian fools thinking "Oh if the current big bad government is smaller, things would be wonderful".
Then you get the other fools thinking "Oh the current big bad government (that's already screwing me) should expand its role to take care of this".
It's not how big or small. It's how BAD or GOOD. When voters vote based on big or small, and not good or bad, what do you think they'll get?
If you have a good government, and it knows it has the ability to do "Natural Monopoly X" well (and will continue to do so for near future), nothing wrong with it doing X - after all it is supposedly answerable to the voters in a democracy. If it realizes it does not have the ability, it can get some company (or more) to do it, and if the government lacks the ability to even know whether the company is doing a good job or not it can appoint a regulator to do that.
Lastly if just because Company X gives lots of money to Candidate Y, means people vote for Candidate Y, then people sure are stupid. In the absence of Diebolded elections, you don't have to vote that way. If Coke and Pepsi are the biggest advertisers it shouldn't mean you continue drinking either Coke or Pepsi if both are bad for you.
When voters vote based on how much money Candidates get from companies, guess what they get?
So far it sure looks like voters have got what they have been voting for.
Maybe in the future companies like Diebold will save voters the trouble.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Insightful)
[quote]You get all those libertarian fools thinking "Oh if the current big bad government is smaller, things would be wonderful".[/quote]
Actually, you shouldn't speak for Libertarians, because I think most libertarians would agree with your good/bad delineation. However let me ask you a simple question .....
Which is easier to control ... Big Bad Government or Small Bad Government?
The point of smaller being better isn't because of "good vs bad" it is because Smaller = less government = more freedom to change how it works.
The current monstrosity that is Governance today is wholly out of control, with little or no ability to make any sort of meaningful change. We are a gnat on the elephant's back, we may annoy it, but it isn't going to change because of us.
As for private vs public control, you are 100% right. I wish we had a governance that took issuing of corporate licences more seriously and would lock more of the short sighted, bad management class and toss them into pound me in the ass prison for their malfeasance, more often.
Stealing from a bank with a gun isn't nearly as violent as stealing from the same bank with dubious business practices. I think there should be a whole bunch of people thrown in jail over the current banking Mortgage scandal.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't even need a paragraph to counter your post, just six words.
Enron. Even non-governments can be corrupt.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should the power company give you an unfair advantage there?
Lower costs for the power-company in terms of transmission and distribution of power (and related costs for that infrastructure). E.g. the power you produce can go right to your next door neighbor. Power from a power station usually has to travel quite a bit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While if 'everybody' installs these systems I do think that there's a good probability that less in the way of transmission lines would be needed(capacity wise), the 'power to next door neighbor' is actually fairly unlikely - on the whole, your neighbor is going to be using power the same time you are.
Is it dark out for you? It'll be dark for your neighbor. Is it hot enough to require AC? Then it's hot enough for your neighbor unless he's been creative and went for an earth home or such.
You'd want to run
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Insightful)
It still doesn't make sense to pay you the same rate that you pay them.
Consider the situation where you produce as much as you consume, but not at the same time. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that you produce lots of power during the day, and then use lots of power during the night, such that the two are equal. Your net power use is therefore 0, but you're pushing lots of electricity to the grid during the day and pulling a lot at night.
Should your bill be zero?
I would argue that it should not. The power company is still maintaining the transmission lines, is still running the generation plants that you rely on at night, and the electricity you're giving them is not going to completely make up for that. The power company in this case is acting as a middleman, in the good sense, in that they ensure that stuff gets to where it needs to be. Middlemen can only make money, and thus provide their service, if the producers charge less money than the consumers pay.
Now, it may very well make sense in a broader political sense to make the rates be the same in order to encourage exactly this sort of independent generating capacity, but from the limited point of view of the economics of electrical generation and distribution, the rates should not be equal.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Informative)
currently power generation is more valuable during the day, because thats when it is most used (especially in A/C dominated CA.)
That is the likely reason for a retail price compensation OK for solar generated by day. The solar is likely displacing more pricey natural gas, for cheaper coal/nuclear. Also possibly reducing net line load from the factory during peak draw...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:4, Informative)
It was arranged so that PG&E will never have to pay you money.
There is also a $5 "connection fee" each month, so your smallest possible annual bill will be about $50. I used to hit that with a 4kW array (minute-by-minute stats are available [dfsmith.net]).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Posted by JavaManJim
Re:Something to keep in mind [slashdot.org]
Where would the homeowners fit into the power generator chain - do they go first before the wind turbines or do they go last
just before the last plant to go online?
Debate flares over wind power in Texas [dallasnews.com]
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand the reasoning for such a restriction
It's to keep home generation from going commercial. The inverters tie to the grid by going in sync with it. They are required to shut down in a power outage to prevent islanding and frying linemen. With too many of these of too large of a capacity, they may become large enough to island a small block. With the size restriction, loss of grid ensures shutdown regardless of the powerfactor the neighborhood may provide.
The system in the article has no battery and no transfer switch. It is unable to provide power during a full power failure. He rejected two other bids which had 2 inverters. Most likely, one was grid tie and the other for running critical load with battery backup for power outages. The 2 inverters was not explained well in the article. My dad's system has no grid tie. It is battery and critical load inverter. It sells no power, stores some, and picks up about 65% of the typical load. These systems cost more and have higher maitnance due to the batteries, but are great for end of the line unstable power.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a long ways off, and I'd imagine that if this starts happening, they'd start installing more/bigger transmission infrastructure, rather than a voluntary-shutoff communications infrastructure. They may even increase their connection fees to do so. The power company wouldn't want all that power to go to waste.
Err, 240*200 = 48kW.
First off, if the solar constant [wikipedia.org] changes by a factor of 4, this guy's wiring is going to be the least of your trouble. Second, NEC ampacity standards are for tolerable voltage drop, not wire overheating. A 200A-rated line will actually carry a lot more than 200A. Third, many of the newer electrical panels have a main breaker that everything goes through. They are thermal, so they don't care which direction the electricity is going through them. If not, the inverter will usually have an output breaker of its own. Fourth, the house itself is consuming a good fraction of the power it's generating.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Second, NEC ampacity standards are for tolerable voltage drop, not wire overheating. A 200A-rated line will actually carry a lot more than 200A.
That is backwards! The NEC ampacity tables (310.16, 310.17, etc.) are concerned with conductor heating. That's why there are:
Separate columns for different wire temperature ratings
Reduction factors for higher than normal ambient temperatures
Different tables for single conductors and multiple conductors in a raceway or cable
Adjustment factors for more than thre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well no, the price of electricity will drop until the supply balances out the demand. At a certain point, the price of electricity will be so cheap that it won't make economic sense to mount panels anymore. Basic economics!
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Insightful)
People in third world nations spend a MUCH higher proportion of their total work/income on securing food and energy than we do in the western world. If all you cared about was providing for your basic needs, you could work 10 hours a week, or just sit at home and collect welfare. There are many reasons why people work as much as they do, but the cost of energy has little to do with it. Most of us work because we either find enjoyment in the work itself, or because we want to splurge on luxuries, AND be able to make a statement about our earning ability. Why do you think guys buy expensive cars, and women like wearing flashy jewelry? Because the cost of electricity is so high that it's forcing everyone to buy shiny objects? Don't be a friggin' idiot.
Your ignorance of economic principles is truly mind-numbing.
The word "thinking" doesn't really belong in that sentence ....
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Informative)
Grid tie equipment is required to have automatic disconnection systems. Also, the linemen can pretty much wave a wand at the lines to see if they are live or not...
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:5, Informative)
Inverters designed for feeding excess power back into the grid not only must maintain phase lock but usually have provisions to continuously detect if the line has lost external power. If the utility power drops for any reason then the inverter disconnects and stops feeding power back into the line.
Re:Why can't he sell it back? (Score:4, Informative)
It's required by law. An inverter which does not disconnect when the grid goes down is illegal. There are also access laws... there must be an outside disconnect switch in clear view or near the house's outside panel. There are also laws (in CA) governing panel grounding, fusing, breakers, and other safeties.
-Matt
Wait to winter time when there is less sun to see. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait to winter time when there is less sun to see how much you save at that time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is actually quite striking. I worked on a solar/wind project last year and the solar panel we were using was an 80W rated panel (normally provides a little over 60W in full sunlight at these latitudes), but I never realized how much your eyes compensate for the variation in illumination levels. When it was cloudy in the winter, even when you could see perfectly well and thought it was rather bright outside, the solar panel was only pumping out about 2 or 3 watts.
The idea is that it tends to be windy
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think I saw that on the Red Green show. Only instead of a 12VDC to 120VAC inverter, he tried to use a step up transformer. Which might even work if you hooked up a DPDT toggle switch and jiggled it back and forth 60 times per second...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It sure will. Even in California or here in Florida you have fewer hours of sun in the winter. Since most people on solar are trying to live on far less energy than a human needs to be comfortable in order to utilize technology that simply isn't cost effective yet, I have no doubt they will be borrowing from the grid in winter.
On the other hand, unlike the northern states, power usage in these places is also reduced. In warm climate areas you stay inside in the summer to avoid the weather rather than the wi
Re:Wait to winter time when there is less sun to s (Score:4, Interesting)
It sure will. Even in California or here in Florida you have fewer hours of sun in the winter. Since most people on solar are trying to live on far less energy than a human needs to be comfortable in order to utilize technology that simply isn't cost effective yet, I have no doubt they will be borrowing from the grid in winter.
Of course, if you'd RTFA, you'd know that the author mentioned that and figured his overall power bill to go from $4000 to roughly $1000 yearly.
You'd also have known that he states his power usage is higher than your typical family home due to the fact that both he and his wife work from home, he's got two teenage daughters, a pc lab, and pretty hdtv setups around his house. (thus the $4000/yr electric bill in the first place)
If you wanted to be a crotchety bitch, which clearly you did, you would have mentioned that it'll take him roughly 11-15 years to recoup his investment of $40,000 for the equipment and setup. That's what I'd go with.
Re:Wait to winter time when there is less sun to s (Score:4, Informative)
Working against that, you need to amortize your capital costs and pay for maintenance. Still, in some parts of the country, solar can indeed give you a reasonable mortgage length and IRR [daughtersoftiresias.org]
Not a month (Score:4, Informative)
From TFA:
Re:Not a month (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not a month (Score:5, Interesting)
Window shade use keeps the house at 70 degrees during 100 degree weather without the need for fans or AC
Howzat? Even with no windows, no doors, great insulation, etc. I don't see how you can maintain a 30 degree temperature differential for more than a few hours.
That last paragraph says it all (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on how fast those assets depreciate, and the long-term maintenance costs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other factors as well.. Kinda nice when you want to sell your house to tell prospective buyers, "yeah, well, we pay about $20/month for electric in the summer, when the AC is running full tilt.."
I imagine that would be worth quite a bit in resale value after the first few years of depreciation (and energy price increases)
Eh (Score:5, Informative)
So he saved about $330/month. It cost him $36K (which really cost $50K, but let's say). So it'll take 109 months to get back the money, or 9 years, not adjusting for inflation and investment opportunity cost. Let's say that brings it up to 12 years. Not including maintenance and repairs. It might even need complete replacement at that point. At 50K, which is the real cost, we're talking more like 16-18 years.
That's still a bit too long an investment for this to be really practical. Prices need to come down to about a four year payoff before I'd be really interested.
On another subject, I'm kind of glad to see someone who actually uses more electricity than I do. :)
Re:Eh (Score:4, Interesting)
So he saved about $330/month. It cost him $36K (which really cost $50K, but let's say). So it'll take 109 months to get back the money, or 9 years, not adjusting for inflation and investment opportunity cost. Let's say that brings it up to 12 years. Not including maintenance and repairs. It might even need complete replacement at that point. At 50K, which is the real cost, we're talking more like 16-18 years.
It seems to me that could change rather dramatically if the price of electricity goes up. I wonder what effect his solar array will have if he buys an electric car that can be plugged in.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No way a panel will last 16-18 years.. Try 2-3. You've got to factor in the price of complete replacecement. Hell, lets say he gets really lucky and they last 10 years.. he's still making a net loss.
Re:Eh (Score:5, Informative)
From the Article:
These particular panels were guaranteed to deliver 90% of their rated peak capacity for at the twelve year mark, and 80% at the 25 year mark.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Very old panels (over 25 years) still produce a good amount of power. A lot are "retired" at 75% output and you used to be able to pick them up cheap.
Re:Eh (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worse than that. The $11 bill was for 19 days, not a month. And 19 sunny summer days, at that. He won't save $330 per month. Let's see what the figures are after a whole year. My guess is that he'll save around $200, at most. For a $36k investment.
Seriously, if I had a $300+ monthly electricity bill, I would start by seeing how I could reduce the amount of electricity used.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Prices need to come down to about a four year payoff before I'd be really interested.
Or prices can come up. Because let's face it, coal-generated electricity (the main alternative) is way too cheap. You're basically just paying for the cost of digging up the coal, plus the amortization of the infrastructure needed to convert it to electricity and transmit it to the user. The coal itself is basically free.
And why should it be? It's a finite resource. If we had to bid against our descendants for it, it wouldn't be free, it wouldn't even be cheap. Nor is the environmental cost of dumping all t
your SUV (Score:5, Insightful)
isn't civilization, and the fact that you think it is indicates a deeply flawed view of the world.
Re:Quality of life != Stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
"[Chomsky] is one of the most deluded people in the history of published political literature."
Cite one example.
That I own an SUV has nothing to do with the poor African on the other side of the planet.
But it does have something to do with our current trouble in the middle east, our dependence on outside parties, and our declining currency. Try to stay with the subject matter. The US and Britain have been invading oil-rich countries since WWI. If OPEC cut off even a portion of their supply to us, it would severely damage our economy.
That's why our currency has been falling consistent with the rise of the price of oil and our growing deficit continues due to our involvement in Iraq. It makes us less competitive with every other more efficient national economy.
If everyone gave up every luxury and transferred everything to the poor, all we would have is more poor people. Nearly all poverty is covered by two causes: 1) self choice, and 2) lack of political freedom and political infrastructure.
Your concept of wealth is truly depressing. If you define poverty as a non-western lifestyle, you're right. People don't voluntarily give up local control over resources in order to make a small portion of their society more wealthy.
I believe in rationality above all else. Doing something that is useless is worse than doing nothing at all, because you delude yourself that you're having an effect, rather than considering what might have a better effect.
So tell me how using less resources can be worse than using more resources, from a purely economical standpoint.
What you don't understand is that resources are effectively unlimited. You won't understand this, but here's an example: we will NEVER run out of oil. NEVER. I mean, not in a million years. Why? Because oil just gets more expensive to get out of the ground until something else becomes cheaper.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument and to provide a handicap for your grasp of the meaning of the word finite, that we won't run out of oil "in a million years."
So why keep an infrastructure that is completely wasteful and inefficient? Why are you so dogmatically attached to the way you transport yourself? Why would you want to weaken our future by continuing with idiotic zoning and transportation policies that have us using three times the amount of oil of the average European? Do you consider Europe to be uncivilized?
We will never run out of energy. We are surrounded by enormous amounts of energy! Sometimes it'll get more expensive, but then something else will come along to produce more energy.
The energy you're using to putz around in is incredibly dense and valuable, representing about one hundred tons of plant material buried for millions of years. We may need it for things in the future besides hauling thousands of pounds of metal for your enjoyment.
Whatever solution you propose to replace gasoline, it will have to be matched with a very efficient transportation infrastructure. It will not include your truck.
I bet you think that things have never been worse than they are now.
No, I think they are better because most people who are informed about the situation agree that there is still time to make the transition from an oil-based society to one with reasonable energy needs met by clean energy sources.
Let me put it this way. If every one in the world used only one gallon of gas per day, and there is twice as much oil is we believe there is left on earth (1 trillion barrels), we'd be slap out of it in 36 years.
Energy is going to become more expensive, because cheap energy isn't going to be around for much longer, as we deplete oil, coal, and gas. Since there are 3000 oil calories expended to deliver one calorie of food, people will be paying much more just to survive. We need to find more efficient ways to transport ourselves and grow our food, and we need to start sooner rather than later.
Use a lease/PPA for savings from Day 1 (Score:4, Interesting)
(Disclaimer -- I do work for SolarCity http://solarcity.com/ [solarcity.com], a leading installer of residential solar arrays in the SF Bay Area and beyond. I won't make a totally shameless plug here, I'm trying to be fair to the other good and clever solar companies out there. A rising tide lifts all boats!)
By bringing in a 3rd party commercial owner via an Operating Lease or Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) structure, the customer can save money from solar on Day 1.
The 3rd party (an investment fund, or perhaps the solar company themselves) owns the system and claim the full range of available incentives. As opposed to residential owners, commercial owners can take accelerated depreciation on the system, and can take the full 30% federal tax credit (rather than facing a $2k cap), and they also get whatever state/local/utility incentives are available as per usual. The customer has a low (or zero) down-payment, and makes monthly payments over a period of ~15-18 years. The tax investor receives a reasonable return on their investment over time, the installer makes reasonable margins on the installation, and the customers can save money from Day 1. Everybody wins!
So to use the parent submitter's house as an example of what we can do -- For a $300/month average bill in Sunnyvale, CA, we might recommend a 7kW DC system. Assuming the customer had decent credit (720 FICO), we would require no down payment, and then charge monthly lease payments of $181/mo, for 15 years. The monthly payments do go up at 3.5% per year (we could alternatively have 0% escalation, but of course that would require a higher starting payment and so it's harder to show savings right away... there are many possible variations here. Also remember that local PG&E utility rates are increasing at >5% per year on average).
With this 7kW system, they might expect their average monthly bill to go from $300 to $72 per month. Add the $181/month payment, and their new average monthly electricity cost is (181 + 72) = $153/month, for immediate savings of ~$47/mo!!
The installers offering these plans usually offer full service/maintenance for the life of the lease, including replacement of the DC/AC inverter if necessary.
The customer is given the opportunity to purchase the system after years 6/10/15, or if they have to move or sell their house. The panels are warranted by the manufacturers to last 25+ years, so a long-term buy-and-hold strategy is solid. Or, if the customer looks around in 15 years and sees a better/cheaper technology, or just doesn't wish to renew or buy out), they are free to end the lease and we'll remove the panels at our cost.
The customer who understands Net Present Value (NPV) calculations can easily demonstrate that this offers far superior savings compared to either a) doing nothing, or b) purchasing the system for cash.
So before you all roll your eyes about solar being a poor investment with a 12+ year paybacks, please consider such alternative financing approaches.
380.00 bill? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like someone who threw money at a problem better handled by conservation.
Believe me, i LOVE solar, but solar works better when it isn't the only solution.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think you need to investigate this whole solar thing a little bit.
Don't buy a house & save $2 million (Score:4, Interesting)
Well a house in Calif* with a clear view of the sky & enough room for 27 solar panels is about $2 million. So it's a choice between saving $250 on electricity or saving $2 million on housing.
Questions? (Score:5, Funny)
2. Are they bolted on? Any locking mechanisms?
3. Is it easy to climb on to the roof?
4. Do you have good access to a road from the home?
5. When are you planning to take a vacation?
6. Does it have any kind of GPS thingie or Wifi thingie attached that will phone home?
Thanks buddy.
Re:Questions? (Answers) (Score:5, Funny)
1. They are somewhat heavy (50 lbs). They are awkwardly large at 5ftx3ft. Two person job if you don't want to risk a rooftop fall.
2. They are typically bolted on. Uninstall time will be in the several minutes per panel range. Be sure you have an electrician with you to avoid death by electric shock.
3. You can see in the pictures he has a typical roof. Bring a ladder. And a crane if you want an easier time lowering the panels.
4. Yes, see the pictures.
5. Don't know about that one. Probably end of December or next summer.
6. Doubtful.
pink (Score:3, Funny)
He's should've bought like 2 less solar panels and used the money to paint his house some color other than pink.
Do the math -- is he really saving money? (Score:3, Insightful)
Today it's hard to make solar actually pay for itself. At California's high-tier rates, it is possible, but still takes a lot of work.
He says he put in $36,000 and will save $3,300 per year in payments to the power company. Now the historical annual rate of return of an S&P 500 index fund is 11.3% over the last century, so $36K put there would return over $4,000 -- enough to pay the $3,300 to the grid, have $700 left over and of course, still keeping the principal. Compared to that, the panels are losing money each year and will never pay for themselves -- unless grid power goes up a lot.
And grid power might go up, but only so far. Because eventually the grid power hits the solar price, and the grid itself starts putting in solar sources at that price -- because it's cheaper.
Most solar installations lose money hand over fist outside of California's high priced tiers. Today, solar comes in about 20 cents/kwh (at more like a 6% interest rate, not the 11.3% rate of the stock market.)
Try this spreadsheet:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pWKShknjJFBt7sOTCJre_SQ&hl=en [google.com]
To work out the real cost.
It's worse if you consider that at the true cost of the system before rebates -- $48K if I read right, it really loses money.
Now, I'm not saying it's not good to put in solar to be greener, or that the government shouldn't be providing subsidies to make this happen.
I just don't want people to use the wrong math to think they are saving money, when in fact they are spending more (for a purpose.)
Re:Do the math -- is he really saving money? (Score:5, Informative)
He says he put in $36,000 and will save $3,300 per year in payments to the power company. Now the historical annual rate of return of an S&P 500 index fund is 11.3% over the last century, so $36K put there would return over $4,000 -- enough to pay the $3,300 to the grid, have $700 left over and of course, still keeping the principal.
You're comparing apples and oranges here. If people always invested solely based on maximizing the expected average rate of return, then bank CDs wouldn't exist, bonds wouldn't exist, real estate and REITs wouldn't exist, etc. In reality, people are balancing the expected rate of return against variability. The reason bank CDs are paying something pathetic like 4% right now is that the banks have to guarantee that they'll pay you 4% on your money. The bank is essentially charging you for insurance against negative variability. Although there are a lot of unknowns involved in buying PV (what will electric rates do in the future? how much will the technology improve), they're a lot less than the unknowns involved in stocks. My S&P 500 index fund is down 19% from its peak value last year. There's a reason that most people build a balanced investment portfolio that includes both stocks and bonds; it's because mixing volatile and nonvolatile investments is a way of maximizes your expected rate of return for a given amount of risk that you're willing to accept [wikipedia.org].
And grid power might go up, but only so far. Because eventually the grid power hits the solar price, and the grid itself starts putting in solar sources at that price -- because it's cheaper.
Your logic doesn't work. When you own a PV system, you're part of "the grid itself." When I'm at work during the day, my PV panels are pumping energy into the grid, which is selling it to other customers. In my area, grid power has hit the solar price, for a south-facing roof with no shade; that's why I, a homeowner with a south-facing roof and no shade, have put in a PV system. You seem to be assuming that if rates go above a certain threshold, the entire state of California will suddenly magically cover itself with PV panels, because that will be the right thing to do according to the laws of supply and demand. That doesn't make sense, for a couple of reasons. First, there are huge variations in the price of land, the local cost of electricity, the amount of sunlight, which way people's roofs face, and how much shade they get. Second, there's a barrier to covering every house with PV panels, which is that most homeowners are short on capital. Your idea that the whole grid would suddenly go solar at some threshold is like imagining that everybody will suddenly drive a hydrogen-powered car if gas goes over $6 a gallon. We're talking about a massive infrastructure that doesn't change overnight.
Re:Do the math -- is he really saving money? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] the S&P500 from 2000-2007 only returned 1.6%, and if you include the absolutely dismal 2008 (thru June) economists are already calling this the "lost decade" since returns over the past 10 years are pretty flat. Worse when you factor inflation. With returns like that, solar panels would've certainly been the better investment. At the least, you wouldn't be as subject to local Edison's blackouts and other various fiascoes, which for some reason seem to be getting more and more common and taking longer to fix each time.
Just the thought of being independent from the local power grid woes is pretty appealing.
my experience after 1 year (Score:5, Insightful)
By coincidence, today is the day I got my first yearly bill for my new photovoltaic system. Where I live (Orange County, CA, with Southern California Edison as my utility), people who have residential PV systems get billed yearly rather than monthly. A year is also pretty much the minimum amount of time for which you need data in order to find out how your system is performing, since both your energy production and your energy use fluctuate seasonally.
My bill for this year was $353.63. The system is nominally 4.4 kW, and cost $28k after rebate. It's covering about 90% of our use, which was almost exactly what we shot for -- if we produce more than we use over 12 months, they don't pay us for the excess.
People always want to know the number of years until the system pays for itself. Basically that's utterly impossible to predict. There's a reason that they exclude energy from the consumer price index -- it's because energy prices are extremely volatile. If the increased price of fossil fuels starts to be reflected in the cost of electricity, then I'm going to look like a financial genius. The other thing that's completely unknowable is how fast the technology will progress. If there's a breakthrough in technology five years from now, and the price of panels per kilowatt comes down by a factor of two, then I'll wish I'd waited. It's also kind of funny hearing the quick-buck psychological attitude a lot of Americans have toward investing money in something like this; from the way people talk, you'd think they were going to take that money that could have gone into photovoltaics and invest it in some kind of magical pixie dust that was guaranteed to pay a steady 20% annually until the end of time. And finally, beware of anyone making blanket statements about whether PV is ready for prime time or not. It completely depends on factors like the price of electricity in your area, which way your roof faces, your latitude, the amount of cloudy weather, and the amount of shade. PV is like Linux: it's ready for prime time for some people, and it's not ready for prime time for other people.
That's not the "real" reason.. (Score:3, Informative)
There's a reason that they exclude energy from the consumer price index -- it's because energy prices are extremely volatile.
No, it actually has quite a bit of stability.. in its skyrocketing trend.
It skyrocketed during the gulf war in 1990, and pretty much stayed at that price afterward, and it continues to skyrocket today.
The reason it's excluded from the CPI is to allow politicians to claim the economy is just fine when people are pawning off their furniture to get to work each week.
Another data point (Score:5, Interesting)
solarnetwork.net (Score:5, Informative)
Re:haha (Score:5, Insightful)
trix are for kids mutherfucker!
That's right and responsible energy use is for adults. I like to see things like this, and as some might decry the amount of involvement one must provide to effectively commit to a project along similar lines. Though I personally think people (especially in the U.S.) could really benefit from having to be more involved in the production and usage of the energy they consume.
Insane energy usage. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yea, I was shocked at how much energy the family in this article uses. My GF and I average ~370kWh/month, 4,440kWh/year. We live in Mountain View, which is the next small city over from Sunnyvale. The family in this article is using 17,400kWh/year. If he expects a 20% drop in usage when the family becomes 2 people, that's still THREE TIMES what we use. I also have a home server and network.
Re:Insane energy usage. (Score:5, Interesting)
I lived "off the grid" for a while in Alaska. One thing I realized was that you could do pretty much everything you do now with a lot less electricity. Thats an important skill when you only get 2-3 hours of daylight for a good chunk of the year.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. Getting used to the lack of water seems more to be the problem.
I lived in Fairbanks for a bit, and it always seemed like the "no running water" bit would bother me quite a bit more than the electricity.
However, I had quite a few friends and coworkers that lived in that sort of arrangement, and as is typical for Alaskans, they were resourceful and made the most of it.
Re:Insane energy usage. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to agree. Though I don't live in Alaska, I've found recently that there are other ways to pull less power from the grid than simply jumping to solar. My wife and I recently moved into a house from our apartment and even though we jumped up in space a number of things have helped keep the power down. The A/C unit is only a few years old, the windows are in great shape, we run ceiling fans if we're warm, the outside walls are all brick and well insulated, etc... Our nominal monthly bill (including "service fees") stays around $50. Over the last year it's topped out at $80, but also been as low as $30 a few months. I run a web server here as well. It's not especially high traffic, but it does quite well considering it's a 500Mhz Geode LX with mirrored 250GB drives pulling 30 watts total max. All that's left now is to move the lights over to LED's and get a solar powered attic fan to help out on hot days (which here in VA tend to have tons of sun)
Before the move, our apartment was on the second floor, with a A/C unit/Heat Pump from the 80's and our power bill was never less than $90 with most months during the winter and summer hitting $145.
Basically, just make sure you don't go over the top with everything and make informed power decisions. A few thousand dollar new A/C unit and some insulation may go a lot farther than a $50k solar array to help you save money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with solar is the efficiency of conversion verses the the cost of production and maintenance.
While I think solar will eventually be the energy production method of choice it is still a poor choice for mass production. You have to take in the cost of making the panels/collectors, the cost to maintain an the waste generated during production of the panels and disposal once the panels reach the end of their lives.
Right now I think wind energy is the far better choice for mass production and while
Re:haha (Score:4, Insightful)
.. people [/] could really benefit from having to be more involved in the production and usage of the energy they consume.
Every time I read that it becomes more profound.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I prefer that people stick to doing what they do best and thus provide greater wealth to humanity through specialization (as mathematically proven by Ricardo [wikipedia.org]).
You and every banker.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:haha (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DC - AC - DC (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Solar is not a good choice if you want to save (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Solar is not a good choice if you want to save (Score:4, Interesting)
For some people it's not only about saving money but being a good environmental steward.
Re:Solar is not a good choice if you want to save (Score:3, Informative)
Solar is NOT a way to save money and every sucker who is drawn in by this idea will be turned off solar for a long time.
Depends on the future cost of utility-supplied electricity though, doesn't it? Buying solar panels for your roof is like buying a futures contract on electricity: in return for your money, you are (more or less) guaranteed a certain amount of electricity for a certain amount of time at a certain price. Whether or not you 'save money' depends on what the alternative price will be over th
Re:Solar is not a good choice if you want to save (Score:3, Informative)
This is not necessarily the case...
Say for example your in the market for a new home. You plan on spending $250K to $350k. You find a great house for $300K. --> 30 yr mortgage @ 5% is ~ $1610 per month. (bankrate.com/mortgage calc...) Now say you find decide to have a full solar array installed as part of the cost of your new home. Let's say your a real geek and decide to get the mother of all solar arrays for $50k. Your home now costs $350K --> 30 yr mortgage @ 5% is ~ $1880 per month. The difference
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so i saved a few hundred dollars a year but had to spend 38K ????? what the hell is the point. PV can't ever replace base load power sources.
What you say is PV "can't ever" replace baseload power, but what you mean is this solar installation, installed at this cost level, won't replace baseload power.
Solar panel manufacturing is doubling roughly every 18 months. Prices are going to drop.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try considering the opportunity cost! $36,000 in "initial investment" could also get you 4% a year in a 5-year CD with no risk... that's $120/mo! You can probably get double that if you take on a little risk in the stock market. If you're only saving about $100/mo then your "break-even" point suddenly runs all the way out to, what, twenty-thirty years?
And if you have any debt to pay down with more than a 9.2% interest rate, you'd probably want to do that fir
Re:Hail (Score:4, Informative)
We have a motorised wooded shutter over our glass skylight. They work similiar to a roll up garage door, they are slated of wood which when "open" are rolled up into a cylinder (below the roof so it's not visible) then when "closed" they form a solid wooden surface which absorbs hail stone & fallen debris blows better than a run of the mill blockout steel roller shutter which would typically deform and/or buckle under similiar loads.
They come in the poor man's windy handle version in addition to the lazy man's motorised version.
My insurer covers panels automatically in it's storm damage cover. Might be worth shopping around depending on your countries offerings.