Switching To Solar Power, One Year Later 541
ThinSkin writes "Slashdot readers may recall Loyd Case's series of articles illustrating his experiences after switching to solar power for his family home. Loyd shared his one month update, a six month update, and now finally concludes his series after one year of solar power. Despite the $38,000 initial cost for the setup, Loyd is very optimistic after a $3,000 savings in one year, meaning that in about 12 years he will break even — though he suspects ten years is a better estimate considering other factors. Other reasons such as feeling 'green,' increasing the property value of his house, and the 'spousal acceptance factor' all support Loyd's decision on why he'd do it all over again if he had to." The article is spread annoyingly over multiple pages, like everything at the site, and the print version omits the graphs.
Return on investment (Score:5, Insightful)
ROE is a much better way of calculating economics than "payback time," by the way
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A little off topic: If I went to any business today and promised them a 10 year ROI, they would laugh. In this economic climate 1-2 year ROI seems to what they are willing to risk.
A ten year ROI? (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think return on investment is measured in the units you think it is measured in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A ten year ROI? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
It means Return ON Investment.
Not Return OF Investment.
No money will be saved on this scheme until AFTER 10 or 12 years.
However even this is optimistic, because what is eventually returned on this investment will be worth far less than an equivalent amount today.
Further, maintenance costs will start to accrue well before that, and replacement parts will be needed for stuff that was obsolete the day it was installed, and may not even be available then.
There may be better equipment and cheaper equipment then. But more likely the failing part will be some obscure little piece requiring the replacement of some expensive big piece.
This is the risk of buying into a developing technology. The payoff is a long way down the road. Usually beyond the next generational change in the technology.
Still, it takes people like Loyd to go out there and do it with what is available, because we can't wait for the perfect solution or we would all still be living in Caves.
Re:A ten year ROI? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm in a situation where I'm not looking for ROI - I'm off-grid, and getting the mains connected has been quoted at AUD$33,000 PLUS tree-clearing costs. My latest upgrade (new 1320ah battery bank, 6x165w panels, regulator, frames & installation) cost AUD$23,000. It was subsidised at 50% so we only paid AUD$11,500, but even if it wasn't, it's still cheaper than getting the mains on.
SOLAR PANELS ARE CHEAP AND EASY TO REPLACE!! (Score:4, Interesting)
All I keep seeing around here is the depreciating power generation of solar panels... blah blah blahh...
It takes maybe an hour of your time, and ~$100-200/panel to replace 20 panels.
If in 15 years, he buys new panels, with better efficiency, for 4k, and an hours worth of his time, he's just reset his investment with a MUCH better payoff. The cabeling, and inverter will not fail that fast. The inspection won't change for a replacement. There'll be virtually 0 costs.
I have 600w of grid tied, net & production metered solar on my house. The coolest part? I did it for almost nothing. Bought everything on E-bay. Hardest part was complying with code, which looking back was really just a mere nuisance.
This isn't rocket science. If you pay someone to do it, they have to charge a ton because they are
1. Licensed electricions,
2. It's a business
3. they require certain bonds and insurances.
If you do it yourself (can you understand parallel & series circuits and do you know how to count, add, multiply, etc volts, amps & watts? you're qualified!) to your own house, you can get a system for MUCH less than 50K. bonus as your ROI is better, even better is that it makes more extreme lattitudes viable.
It's not ton's of $, but it does keep the house cool.
Re:SOLAR PANELS ARE CHEAP AND EASY TO REPLACE!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also I don't think the electrical safety laws apply to 12V installations - that's how I would wire things up. There is a lot of lighting and appliances designed to run off 1
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since it's so easy to mix up active and neutral I don't think it is quite so sad.
The black wire (positive) goes to the black wire, the white wire (neutral) goes to the white wire, and it's quite obvious that the ground goes to neither. If you have three wire in your house then by the process of elimination you can determine that the red wire (switched positive if it's hooked up right) goes to the black wire.
I was fully capable of wiring a light fixture around the age of 10, electrical outlets are much more tricky (since it's not obvious that the black wire goes to copper screw, and the
Re:Return on investment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You only have to consider resale if you plan on selling. If you've found the home you're going to spend the rest of your life in, then solar panel resale values are a moo point [youtube.com].
Re:Return on investment (Score:5, Informative)
I spent $78k (with no loan, so no extra payback) putting solar panels on my house late last year. My highest bill (August last year) was ~$1000 and I was averaging ~$700/month over the year; my May bill this year was $49. I estimate payback for my system to be ~10 years or so. There's a few things to consider if you're thinking of doing it yourself:
We use a lot of electricity. This is a nice, green way to offset that and still have the toys I like (heated swimming pool, air-conditioning, pond in the back yard, server-room in the garage,...). Example: last month (1st May -> 31st May), the power production (I have the monitoring system all set up :) was 1,260 kWH. That matches nicely with our average 40 kWH/day with air-conditioning on. And if it's not being soaked up by your solar panels, it's just warming the roof and causing your air-con to go into overdrive... :)
:)
The payback calculation is pretty easy. Maintenance is essentially zero, so total cost including permits, installation, etc. was ($78k - $2k - $15k) = $61k. Savings per year are ~$6000. Payback in ~10 years, assuming electricity costs are static (unlikely) and after that it's all gravy
Simon
Re:Return on investment (Score:5, Funny)
It's called "we want electricity but we're going to protest any time someone wants to build something that produces electricity in our state because we're so super environmentally friendly that we'd rather drag power from halfway across the country from an ancient, smog and carbon spewing coal plant losing tons of power to transfer loss rather than build clean energy production in our own back yard".
Californomics - not for the feint of heart, the light of wallet, or the comprehending of basic math.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Panels are not the likely issues.
Panels are in the 20-30 year range (tho at 80% power).
Inverters and batteries are the issue.
Inverters can go bad every 5-7 years and batteries more frequently than that.
On the plus side... power seems to be ~280% more expensive over 20 year periods that I researched. 2 cents in 1968, 5 cents in 1988, 15 cents in 2008.
So in 10 years, presumably, his power bills will be about double what they are now.
And that assumes no period of high inflation-- recent government printing of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...as long as the investment itself dosn't depreciate in value.
which in this case it surely will. In fact the way technological things change in general I would assume that his solar-power setting would have pretty much depreciated to some small fraction of 38k.
PS: I don't disapprove of this guy spending 38k on solar powering of his house even a tiny bit, but I think it is quite interesting to evaluate this stuff as parent suggested-
Re:Return on investment (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, what? He's not reselling the damn thing, he is making money off of it every month. So what if it depreciates, we were never measuring the value of the thing over time anyway. Though I'm guessing many of the components will not depreciate much, just the batteries and photovoltaics. Having his house set up to run off of photovoltaics will let him easily take advantage of whatever advances come along in module and energy storage. The power modules will last at least 30 years. See, he would never be reselling the thing independent of his house. The thing is a part of the house now, and the entire house will continue to appreciate. As people become more interested in solar, a house with solar already in place will appreciate faster.
Funny how so many people seem to want to find fault with solar energy, and use incomplete reasoning to look at only the possible negative consequences without looking at all the positives. Why do you think some people have such an irrational hatred of solar energy? I think the hippies are to blame. Nobody likes them, and they never fight back when you blame them, so I am going to go with definitely the hippies fault.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to it's decreased output overtime? ...... and you expect zero output after 50 years
Check out a typical actual warranty for a kyocera module:
http://www.kyocerasolar.com/pdf/specsheets/kc_warraty.pdf [kyocerasolar.com]
They guarantee 90% at 20 years since manufacture, or 80% at 20 years after sale date (from reseller or whatever)
So, at about 30 grand, at least for the first 20 years, it loses about $150 of output per year.
Basically decreased output is no longer economically relevant compared to disaster type problems. Now that we get "100 year floods" every year for the past 4 years, the house will rot out fr
Re:Return on investment (Score:5, Interesting)
The system wouldn't just lose $760/year in value, it would also lose 2% in efficiency per year, which means that if he saved $3,000 the first year, he could expect to save only $2,940 the second, and so on (all else - electricity usage, cost of electricity, etc - being equal). The revenue stream then looks like this (over 10 years):
Year 0: Cost of $38400.
Year 1: Benefit of $3,000.
Year 2: Benefit of $2,940.
Year 3: Benefit of $2,880.
Year 4: Benefit of $2,820.
Year 5: Benefit of $2,760.
Year 6: Benefit of $2,700.
Year 7: Benefit of $2,640.
Year 8: Benefit of $2,580.
Year 9: Benefit of $2,520.
Year 10: Benefit of $2,460.
Value of system after 10 years: $30,400.
Plugging these numbers into the IRR formula gives you a 5.7% return per year.
If we make a slightly different assumption that the decreased output is geometric (not arithmetic) and still use the idea that the depreciated value equals the original cost times the current efficiency, then you can show that D + R = 7.9%, where D = depreciation rate and R = rate of return. So if you assume D = 2%, then R = 5.9%. But if D = 4%, then R = 3.9%, which is not great.
Doesn't sound to me like an obvious win for solar power. On the other hand, it's not an obvious money sink, either, so that's good. I'm sure things will continue to improve.
Would be interesting to see a subsidy-free comparison of both methods of electricity generation, but that's pretty hard. You can easily handle the consumer tax breaks, but how much do the producer's tax incentives affect the cost? And how much of his local coal/natural gas/hydro/nuclear generation is subsidized?
Re:Return on investment (Score:5, Informative)
It is an obvious win, because you are failing to compound the savings.
He can invest the savings on electricity each year and substantially increase his ROR.
The IRR formula does NOT account for the potential re-investment of interim cash flows.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
$36k invested at 5% for 12 years returns $68,000.
$3000/year invested each year at 5% for 12 years returns $47,000
With option A, he still had to pay $36,000 in electricity payments as well. He doesn't get a lot more, he gets a lot less.
Kudos for adding a car analog
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not so sure... (Score:2)
Because the money spent needs to be factored as, how much could he have made investing it and provided he didn't take a loan to get it all change the equation.
Throw in, what is the change in insurance cost, maintenance of said units, and then determine true savings. I think he will find it will not pay for itself within ten to fifteen years.
I also think that to speed up his return he needs an energy audit to find out how he is wasting electricity. Perhaps 4k to 5k power bills are the norm, but it seems ex
Re: (Score:2)
Aye.
I have a wife who won't turn off lights, use window ACs, and still only spend $900 a year on power. $1200 a year on natural gas. 1300 sq feet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the money spent needs to be factored as, how much could he have made investing it and provided he didn't take a loan to get it all change the equation.
Currently, all he needs to do to make his investment match an equivalent stock or real estate investment is go up on the roof and smash the panels with a hammer. Of course, since it's already paid back a portion, he'll have to smash out his windshield as well to break even.
Re: (Score:2)
If that ROE is reasonable, why aren't zillions of commercial solar farms popping up everywhere? Or at least co-located with the wind farms that are being installed?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Return on investment (Score:5, Insightful)
If that ROE is reasonable, why aren't zillions of commercial solar farms popping up everywhere? Or at least co-located with the wind farms that are being installed?
That 7.8% doesn't factor in the risk. Most of the initial investment is unrecoverable. The 10-12 years for return on the principal is based on many variables, most of which are volatile and unpredictable. The specific technologies are relatively new and bring their own unknowns. He wins big if electricity costs skyrockets and solar/alternate energy tech stagnates. Those are unlikely to both occur. He loses if power gets cheap or solar/alternate energy tech has some rapid advances.
He has essentially exchanged his exposure to energy price fluctuations for host of new risks. The rate of return is pretty decent in today's economy, but not by a huge margin. At 5% or 6%, it wouldn't fly.
At least this means residential solar is nearing viability.
On the other hand, viable residential solar is not good news for the nuclear industry because of the political externalities involved. Large numbers of voters entering the energy generation business will sharply increase the nimby factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Return on investment (Score:4, Informative)
" Despite the $38,000 initial cost for the setup, Loyd is very optimistic after a $3,000 savings in one year, meaning that in about 12 years"
Might want to look up the lifespan of solar cells.
"Cost of Solar Panels ...
Solar panels have an effective lifespan of about 20 to 25 years, and their value and wattage output decrease steadily over time. The solar cell that has
www.solarpanelinfo.com/solar-panels/solar-panel-cost.php "
I have them too, but to be rigorous one needs to take their lifespan into consideration.
Re:Return on investment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Return on investment (Score:5, Informative)
With the exception of the part where you said their output decreases over time, that's simply not true. Most of the current generation of solar panels guarantee a minimum of 80-85% output after 25-30 years, depending on manufacturer. That's in the warranty for the panels. If they fall below that level within 25-30 years, you get new panels. The effective lifespan before they produce no power at all is probably 100+ years, though most people would replace them with more efficient panels well before that time....
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it. A year ago he probably could have locked in a %3 rate on a CD, and I would say that on average that is a pretty reasonable number to assume for a no-risk investment. If we further assume that electricity prices will go up by about the same amount (3% annually) his break even point is about 15.5 years.
Of course, there's no telling what those rates are going to do over that kind of timeframe. Its also difficult to say what the performance of his solar panels will be over the entire lifec
Solar panel longevity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They lose efficiency over time, and will never offset his initial costs before needing to be replaced.
Oh, and don't forget maintenance (they get dusty).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe the $38,000 cost was for the entire conversion. I doubt replacement panels would cost that much. I think you're right that it would significantly extend the ROI, though. I think 12 years is optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's blocking light, it is making a difference.
If you can see the dust, it's a noticeable difference.
If it's noticeable to your eye, it's definitely affecting the efficiency of the panel.
Your story would have been much better if you had suggested rain instead of a hose.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Learn to read. His cells are warranted for 30 years with a guarantee that they will output 80% of rated at hat power. This 50% drop in 10 years was never true. You are also not factoring in the almost assured rise in electrical costs.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So maybe it'll pay for itself in 12 years, but how long before those panels need to be replaced? That's what we really need to know in order to decide if he's actually saving money.
Well if you want to be a financial stickler, you might want to factor in the standard rate of inflation if it's going to be 12 years. The funny thing is that inflation has been going down in the past three months according to this site [inflationdata.com]. But you need to remember the pert formula and assume that most of the time you're looking at an average of what about 3% inflation per year? On your original investment of $3800, right? So that's like a 42% increase in the value of that 2008 money assuming inflation cont
Industy Standard Warranties (Score:5, Informative)
Most manufacturers guarantee that their panels will give at least 90% of peak power at ten years, and 80% of power at 25 years. Yes, he's saving money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Industy Standard Warranties (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why solar is a good investment in those areas and not where you live.
No, he's NOT saving money (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No, he's NOT saving money (Score:5, Insightful)
And what long term investment would that be that reliably makes 5%? If he had invested that $38k in just about any stock or mutual fund in the past year, he'd have lost at least 30% of its value.
Re:No, he's NOT saving money (Score:5, Insightful)
Also factor in taxes. If you invest and make $1000, you owe taxes on it. If you save $1000 there's no additional taxes as it was already your money.
Re:No, he's NOT saving money (Score:4, Funny)
This guy, Bernie Madoff, has a sure-fire guaranteed investment strategy that makes WAY more than 5% annually. He hasn't been returning my calls lately though, I'm sure he's just busy...
Re:No, he's NOT saving money (Score:5, Informative)
The last 70 years or so ago takes you from just after the wall street crash. That's probably not the most representative time frame. If you had invested just before the wall street crash, your investment would still have underperformed compared to a cash investment after all this time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It took until 1954 for the stock market to recover to its 1929 peak.
Re:No, he's NOT saving money (Score:5, Insightful)
Why people still routinely neglect compound interest I'll never know.
If he takes the $3000 he saves in electricity costs every year and invests that at 5%, he'll have $47,751.38 at the end of 12 years.
With your scenario, he has $68,242 but he will have paid $36,000 in electricity, leaving him with $32,242 if he "cashes out".
Personally, I'd take $47000 over $32000 any day.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Futhermore, Wikipedia has this to say about Solar Panels and how efficient they are at a certain time frame:
Solar panels must withstand heat, cold, rain and hail for many years. Many Crystalline silicon module manufacturers offer warranties that guarantee electrical production for 10 years at 90% of rated power output and 25 years at 80%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_module [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Time value of money (Score:2, Interesting)
The whole solar argument still has to grapple with its high up front costs. Doing calculations on money savings with such a long time to "break even" means that you need to take into account the time value of money. Even using a small interest rate such as 4.5% as an example (which is the cost of capital of a bank's home equity loan that I saw advertised recently near my house) means that he won't break even in over 19 years. Over 50% longer than the statistic the summary uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem solved. [sunrunhome.com]
And your calculation doesn't take into account increases in energy prices. How much will electricity prices increase over the next 20 years? Who knows? There are lots of reasons to expect higher prices, though. But solar avoids that- if one finances solar with fixed interest on your loan, congratulations, it's a great hedge on energy price variability.
Re:Time value of money (Score:5, Interesting)
At the moment, though, you have to factor in the fact that we're about to hit some mondo inflation due to the money Obama's been printing. So, it's actually a good idea right now to get into things that aren't pegged to the actual dollars. This guy is basically buying his electricity up front before his $40k is worthless.
Re:Time value of money (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that we're not. Seriously off-topic, but inflation isn't unpredictable. Right now, the double-digit unemployment and positive savings rate we have suggests people are hording their cash, not shopping with abandon.
As soon as any of the indicators go up (these are pretty reliable predictors of activity), the FED simply filters the money out of the banks, rates go up for daily business paper and money is more scarce.
It's been managed this way for 3 decades, and fairly stable since 1983. Check for yourself. [measuringworth.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Panels these days put out 80% of rated power at 25 years, so I bet he will break even just fine.
Bad Math (Score:5, Insightful)
He sums the article up by claiming that his return will be sooner than 12 years based on changes in his electricity usage (like his daughter leaving for college). This is bad math. He would have changed his usage either way, so he can't really count those watts as impacted by his investment in the solar panels. Overall though it seems like he's getting a decent return on his investment.
Re: (Score:2)
If he had invested $38k in the stock market how much would he have after 12 years?
I'm guessing even in these harsh economic times the result would be more than the initial $38k. :)
Re: (Score:2)
or he could have $0.
This is guaranteed money, that always pays less than risky money.
Re:Bad Math (Score:5, Interesting)
Not it isn't.
The risks are different, but this is not without risks.
Panels could prematurely fail, and the provider go out of business leaving him with no warranty.
Price of electricity could fall, greatly extending his ROI.
Interest rates could climb, increasing the opportunity cost of his investment.
Far superior panels could be released next year.
Poor installation could lead to water damage to his house.
The possible risks are numerous, far from a guaranteed ROI.
Re: (Score:2)
All of those things are very unlikely or mitigated by insurance. A poor installation could lead to damage but that for instance would be the installers problem not his.
This is as close to a guaranteed ROI as it gets.
Re:Bad Math (Score:5, Funny)
His return will be sooner than 12 years based on changes in his electricity usage (like his daughter leaving for college). This is bad math.
He installs big ugly solar panels on his roof, making his daughter decide to go away for college to get away from her dorky dad, which reduces electricity usage. I don't see what the problem is.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually like the look of the solar panels on the roof...then again, I'm also the same person who thinks that the giant wind turbines actually improve the landscape of the Midwest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He sums the article up by claiming that his return will be sooner than 12 years based on changes in his electricity usage (like his daughter leaving for college). This is bad math. He would have changed his usage either way, so he can't really count those watts as impacted by his investment in the solar panels.
Or he'll pump the surplus electricity into the grid, and get paid for it. That's ignoring the increasing cost of electricity.
Re:Bad Math (Score:5, Insightful)
You're forgetting one detail.
Before putting on PV panels, when his daughter leaves, he'd just use less electricity. After adding the PV panels, when his daughter leaves he can sell more electricity to the power company.
Adding your own generating capability means a reduction in usage is also an increase in sales.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure it varies state by state (and province by province), but last time I checked, the power companies don't pay you penny-for-penny for the kwh you sell back to them. If memory serves, they pay you something like 10% of the going rates, which doesn't really amount to much. However, every bit of power you *reduce* your power company usage by, is pure gain. Counting on selling excess just doesn't factor in practically at this time.
Energy prices are unstable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Energy prices are unstable (Score:5, Informative)
But there's no hard guarantee. Sure there is. Go read up on Peak Oil. Then go read what anybody's doing about it. (Hint: Apart from mostly singular projects like the one in TFA, mostly jack shit.) Electricity prices will go up.
Except for the fact that only around 1.5% of the US electricity generation comes from the use of oil. Take a look here: Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer [doe.gov]. Out of a little more than 4,000,000 MWH of electricity generated, about 65,000 MWH came from petroleum.
Price of certainty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Price of certainty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Price of certainty. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are 3 types of systems for connecting to the grid:
Off-grid - self explanatory
Hybrid - can use battery power when the grid is out
Sync'd - they must be sync'd so that when the grid is out, the power from the panels is not used..otherwise you'd be trying to feed the grid yourself.
The last is the most common setup since the idea is to conserve electricity usage, not replace the need for the grid. If all the panels in a neighborhood were feeding energy into the, now dark, grid imagine the power company technician trying to work with the wires that are 'live' from the client side. They could shut off power from the distribution source, but it would still live from the residences preventing it from being safe.
I imagine it would be bad to run A/C stuff inverted from a variable DC line as well. If you are trying to run normal household stuff straight off the power output of the panels, as it gets later in the day, you'd start getting your own 'brownouts' in the house wouldn't you? And since this guys setup never produced more power than he needed it was always below demand.
Re:Price of certainty. (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought when the grid went down that synced panel set ups just cut them selves off from the grid, not that they cut them selves off from powering your home.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It would be really easy for you to be trying to draw 4kW while your system could only make 3kW, which would probably result in relatively nasty results.
Haven't you heard? They've got these new-fangled current-limiting devices. I heard a wizard -- I mean, an electrician -- talking about them the other day. I think he called them "fuses." He also said something about working on a new invention called a "circuit breaker," but he wouldn't tell me what it was supposed to do.
*ahem*
We could even get fancy, and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I imagine it would be bad to run A/C stuff inverted from a variable DC line as well. If you are trying to run normal household stuff straight off the power output of the panels, as it gets later in the day, you'd start getting your own 'brownouts' in the house wouldn't you?
I suppose you could intentionally buy stuff that fails that way. I don't.
Most switching mode supplies don't care as long as it's above a certain minimum.
For example, I have a perfectly nice "twelve volt" input ATX supply in my server from powerstream. It doesn't much care as long as the input voltage is above 9 volts and below 18. At 9 volts the lead-acid backup batteries are about 99.99% empty so theres not much lost capacity. If the battery is above 18 volts, its probably on fire or something. So pre
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The hookups should disconnect from the grid when the grid is down. It is si
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure how you got modded "Interesting" since your main point "Sync'd" is incorrect.
Apparently they didn't explain the function of a transfer panel at your alternative energy show. A transfer panel will decouple your home energy generation system from the grid in the event of utility power failure.
Some panels do this automatically and others are manual. Either way a solution exists and is commonly used for just the situation you're describing. Also, AFAIK almost every municipalities electrical code re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To all the people mocking his investment, your missing one thing. You do not know what the price of energy is going to do in the next few years. The guy in the article however is guaranteed a minimum amount of power each year from his solar panels at a rate he knows. (His initial investment / Life time of the panels). If the companies decide to hike the prices in two years time due a deterioration in Gulf politics for example, he is sheltered from its effects and lets be honest it's very unlikely the price is going to go down per kwh. He is also sheltered to a certain extent from the failure of the power network so if a situation does arise where there are rolling blackouts again, he knows he will a least have some electricity each day. One of the things that people constantly underestimate the price of is certainty.
And the price of energy is artificially low since we don't really factor the environmental cost into things. If you factor in environmental remediation, health care for people poisoned by the power plant pollution, etc, etc, fossil fuels would be very expensive. Just imagine how much gas would cost if we didn't pay for the military with payroll taxes but with a gas tax -- total out of pocket for the tax payer being the same, just let them see what they're really paying to make sure they have gas at the pump
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The rest of the world does usually manage to get their oil without large militaries.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a residential PV system.
This is incorrect. Unless you're in an area where grid power is not available, you buy a PV system that's grid-tied, and then if there's a blackout, you have no power. A non-grid-tied system is significantly more expensive and complicated, so you don't want one unless its
Summer months most important (Score:2)
Looking back at the 6-month summary and seeing how drastic the difference is, I think that's all that's worth it, isn't it? Summer is when we run our air conditions (sigh) most and therefore, is typically the season when power grids are under their greatest stress. So even if the price goes up a great deal in the winter (and still considerably less than without the panels), I would think that this is still a great resolution to the problem.
Now the issue is just getting out the $$$ to pay for it up front and
"Spousal acceptance factor" (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the time, if you care for your family, that's the #1 factor in your decisions. Unless your ambition is one of those short-lived, Hollywood marriages.
SunRun (Score:3, Informative)
Affordable solar for little money down [sunrunhome.com]
If you live in CA, MA, or AZ, and have a roof with decent sun exposure, please check SunRun out.
I've got nothing to do with them; I just think they have a winning method of making the cash flow of solar very attractive.
And thanks, too (Score:2)
By being an early adopter, Loyd also helps the technology to gain acceptance, which helps everybody who chooses solar later on. Acceptance = economies of scale = lower price. Assuming energy prices stay roughly where they are or rise, people who come after Loyd will reach their break even point much sooner, even assuming further innovation doesn't cut the price of solar even more.
Cost of Equipment now (Score:2)
He is obviously an early adopter, so I also wonder if he'll continue to just upgrade his equipment before getting a return from his investment. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but the person who might best benefit from this experiment is his neighbor (assuming they get any old equipment).
If anyone is interested in a solar water heater... (Score:4, Interesting)
Overengineered waste of money (Score:3, Interesting)
He could've spent a fraction of that $38K to reduce his power bills to something closer to $100 per month. Better insulation, more energy efficient PSs in his computers, not leaving electronics on 24/7, change out to CF bulbs, and so on -- seriously!
He's going to hit Jevon's Paradox and end up not actually saving anything, IMO.
I'm more in support of community solar (have the HOA do it, or in a park, etc) which is more beneficial and lower cost. Mass solar.
waste of electricity, that's for sure (Score:3, Interesting)
I knew I couldn't have been the only person here who thought that way.
From the original article about the installation itself, they use 17,400kWh per annum - about 47.7kWh per day. This is a staggering amount, even considering that they do work from home as well and have two teenage daughters living at home. By their own figures, their $38,000 solar installation only covers half that electricity (although about three quarters of the bill). As I'm sure NuShrike wondered, what the hell are they spending that
I'm in my 5th year and have statistics (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm guessing his total savings will asymptotically approach the $38,000 that he initially sunk into the project...
Yes, But Not Necessarily By A Lot (Score:2)
Many Crystalline silicon module manufacturers offer warranties that guarantee electrical production for 10 years at 90% of rated power output and 25 years at 80%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_module [wikipedia.org]
Now I read his initial article close to a year ago, so I don't remember what type he got, or if it even specifically mentions it. However his panels are rated to last 30 years. I imagine the warranty specifically mentions how much they will output as their life increases. It should be fairly obvious to see if it's putting out what it should be in those 30 years. If they don't, well, his warranty will cover that.
A lot of good that warranty is going to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
... if the company in question is still around to stand behind it. I get a laugh out of roofers that offer 50 year guarantee on roofs when they know full well they themselves are unlike to be around by then. A lot can happen in 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Or using those lights to grow pot. Hmmm... he's funding terrorism!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the article conveniently left out mention of the 'grow room'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's bogus. Repeating from my other post -
Simple economics - the cost of manufacture is factored into the sale price. If the panels eventually pay for themselves, then that covers the manufacture costs - electrical, raw materials or otherwise. Sure the factory might get a better price for electricity than regular consumers, but there's also raw materials, labour and profit that's included in the price tag.