# Would solar power pay off?



## r0ckstarr

Queef said:


> How long am I looking at as far as my return on investment? Is it even worth it?




Try this calculator.

http://solarsimplified.org/solar-resources/calculate-your-solar-savings


----------



## Oso954

Here is a kit source.
https://www.anapode.com/products/5000w_5kw_Complete_Solar_Panel_Module_Kit_DIY

If you don't have experience in running 240V circuits, you may still want an electricians help with it.


----------



## ChantryOntario

If you have the room and resources to go big, then it may pay off in the long run. Grid-tied is expensive and fraught with huge amounts of paperwork initially. Are there any gov't programs to subsidize a grid-tie in your area? They are usually the turning point between profitability and outright loss. 

Make sure you learn your solar insolation factors and plan for yearly average sun hours on the panels. That average insolation will be the key determinant in your cost-recovery schedule.

In this neck of the woods, the payback time for subsidized grid-tie is 17-22 years. Worth investing in if you will be in the same house at payback time. Yes you will see immediate and possibly big deductions in your grid usage, but it usually takes a while to regain $20,000 in install costs.


----------



## gregzoll

They only pay off, if your local electric supplier is not charging you for having them. I found that in my area, they are very restrictive in what they classify as solar electric panels.


----------



## Oso954

> I found that in my area, they are very restrictive in what they classify as solar electric panels.


Would you expand on that, please ? Is it simply a list of what they consider to be approved panels, or something else ?


----------



## yuri

ChantryOntario said:


> If you have the room and resources to go big, then it may pay off in the long run. Grid-tied is expensive and fraught with huge amounts of paperwork initially. Are there any gov't programs to subsidize a grid-tie in your area? They are usually the turning point between profitability and outright loss.
> 
> Make sure you learn your solar insolation factors and plan for yearly average sun hours on the panels. That average insolation will be the key determinant in your cost-recovery schedule.
> 
> In this neck of the woods, the payback time for subsidized grid-tie is 17-22 years. Worth investing in if you will be in the same house at payback time. Yes you will see immediate and possibly big deductions in your grid usage, but it usually takes a while to regain $20,000 in install costs.


I would be leery if the payoff is long as the panels themselves may die before then. It is new technology and if they lose strength or get damaged before the payoff then what is the point. I was watching This Old House hour and they mentioned that these panels have a lifespan.

If they can guarantee 20 years life then maybe. I don't think there is 20 years experience yet to prove this technology.


----------



## Oso954

The typical warranty on PV panels is 80% of minimum peak power at 20 years. I've seen one warranty that is 87% at 25 years.

PV for off grid use has been around since the 1970's that I know of. In 1978 PURPA mandated that utilities allow small scale interconnection (grid tie). We also got the Energy Tax Law (later repealed under Reagan) which provided the first tax credits for solar.

Cost of PV has been a problem for the industry. As the cost started coming down, the industry has grown. As it fell further there was even more growth. 

Cost is still a major hurdle. Without subsidies, the industry would be a fraction of what it is. But the good new is that the costs should continue to drop as the entire PV industry grows.

It doesn't surprise me that your exposure to the industry is shorter. Most of the early years of the industry were in the sunny southwest of the US.


----------



## beenthere

If your panels are roof mounted. They will help save some money in the summer on your cooling bill. Around here, in order to get a ROI in a reasonable amount of time, you need to generate at least 1 megawatt a year.


----------



## Queef

Thanks to everyone for the replies. I'm not so sure I'm interested with an ROI in the 17-22 year range. It seems I could invest that $10,000+ in other areas with a better return. We will see...


Sent from my iPhone using diychatroom.com


----------



## ChantryOntario

$10,000 would buy a fair chunk of insulation/window upgrades. Insulation can pay back in 5 years if you go from none to great......


----------



## Oso954

Conserving energy is always cheaper than generation.

If you spend the money on conservation first, it reduces the power bill all year long.

Then if you still want solar to further reduce your costs, your solar installation can be smaller (less expensive) than it would be without the conservation measures.

Many of the conservation measures also qualify for energy rebates.


----------



## concrete_joe

diy it with battery bank (48vdc is best) and some quality true-sine inverters.

also, depends on what you want the solar for. i plan to do some solar, but i will wire in solar outlets for my washer & dryer (gas dryer), microwave, and some other things. i also plan to use the DC voltage for some lighting in and outside my home. i will not do grid tied, this usually means you need lots of panels to make it worth the effort.


----------



## LeakyHawaiiRoof

I have a photovoltaic (PV) system on my roof, but I don't live in Arkansas. 

I think there are some bits of information missing from this thread.

There is a 30% federal tax credit for PV systems. http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US37F So that should help lower the net cost of the system.

Arkansas, as far as I can tell, doesn't have any state tax rebates on PV systems. 

Arkansas (and most states) have something called Net Metering where a system sends power to the grid during the day and extracts it at night. Essentially, the grid is the storage battery. http://www.entergy-arkansas.com/your_home/net_metering.aspx

The minimum electricity bill in Arkansas (again, as far as I can tell) is $20. So if someone installs enough PV, they'll pay the $20 a month. Its not worth buying batteries for storage if the savings is only $20 a month. I think the life of storage batteries is only 5-7 years anyway. 

Arkansas electricity costs are about 9.5 cents per kwh. 

I don't know how much PV panel installation costs in Arkansas, but in Hawaii it is about $1000 per panel--ie the total cost of a 30 panel system will be $30,000. 

A PV system will lose about 0.5% efficiency per year and the life of the system is 20 years.

Knowing only the cost of electricity in Arkansas and there being no state tax rebate and factoring in the probable lower cost of things, I'd say it is probably not worth buying a PV system.


----------



## jogr

The short answer is that if your doing solar for only financial reasons then it doesn't make sense or cents at this time.


----------



## PD_Lape

jogr said:


> The short answer is that if your doing solar for only financial reasons then it doesn't make sense or cents at this time.


True. If you are only going for a small scale solar power system like I do, it barely makes a difference. Now I only use it for lights and backup power source for my PC. It is kind of good to have though as a back up but not as you are intending it to be.


----------



## Ben25

If you buy the materials and install yourself, it pays off. I installed a 10.92 kW system on my roof for $9,000 after incentives. ($16,000 before with 30% federal and $2,500 state incentives) 
It should pay itself off in 4 years. Not a bad investment if you ask me...


----------



## concrete_joe

everyone knows some companies are doing zero out-of-pocket $ in a leasing program.


----------



## mgp roofing

I had a 2kw system installed just over a week ago--it generated 65kwh in 7 days (with rather average weather)--my power consumption for the week prior to installation was 32kwh. I was told by the installer that payback period is typically 5-7 years--seeing the figures above makes me think it may pay off sooner than that although only time will tell for sure.
I did make sure to use a reputable supplier, who only uses quality components--my system has Trina panels (the most popular in Australia), and Enphase 215 microinverters, to cope with minor shading issues (from a flue pipe) in winter when the sun is lower.


----------



## dmxtothemax

It's all in the maths !
Lets say you spend $10,000 on a med size system
And as an example you generate 65Kwh a week
What do the utility companies pay you for this electricity ?
gotta be less than they buy it for !
lets say 10c Kwh
65 x 10c = $6.50
$10OOO/6.5 = 1538 Weeks
that's 29.58 years 
just to pay back initial instal costs
If you think your system will still be fully functional
in 29.5 years your dreaming !

The numbers just don't stack up !

The only time solar is useful is when there is NO grid.
In which case it's the only option.

Unless costs come down dramatically !
then solar is just a pipe dream.


----------



## Ben25

The numbers do stack up if you use the right ones... Otherwise nobody would be installing them.


----------



## beenthere

dmxtothemax said:


> It's all in the maths !
> Lets say you spend $10,000 on a med size system
> And as an example you generate 65Kwh a week
> What do the utility companies pay you for this electricity ?
> gotta be less than they buy it for !
> lets say 10c Kwh
> 65 x 10c = $6.50
> $10OOO/6.5 = 1538 Weeks
> that's 29.58 years
> just to pay back initial instal costs
> If you think your system will still be fully functional
> in 29.5 years your dreaming !
> 
> The numbers just don't stack up !
> 
> The only time solar is useful is when there is NO grid.
> In which case it's the only option.
> 
> Unless costs come down dramatically !
> then solar is just a pipe dream.


Now change that to 65KWHs a week above what he uses, and subtract what was his monthly electric bill. So an additional $1,200.00 a year he isn't paying out.


PS: The electric company doesn't pay 10 cents a KWH to a home owner, its much lower(more like 2 cents). And would never cover the cost of the PV system(at least here in PA).


----------



## Ben25

Depends on your electric company. Mine pays 20 cents/kWh. And they charge 14.7 cents/kWh.


----------



## beenthere

Ben25 said:


> Depends on your electric company. Mine pays 20 cents/kWh. And they charge 14.7 cents/kWh.


So they pay you more for the electric you generate, then what they sell it for?

Do they get carbon credits for it.


----------



## Ben25

No idea. 
Also, if you over-produce and don't use up all your credits during the winter, they send you a check for the difference.


----------



## concrete_joe

many places its no longer a buy, you "lease" the equipment (which is paid for by the sun, etc). the trade for leasing is zero down for the use of your roof or site, etc.....


----------



## LeakyHawaiiRoof

In Hawaii, those photovoltaic lease programs are terrible. Nearly everyone is better off getting a loan from a bank to pay for the system. Yes, the homeowner doesn't have to pay anything out of pocket upfront, but the long term costs are only slightly less than a regular electricity bill. 

The simple explanation I give people is that the lease company is making money (or else they wouldn't be offering it). That money comes from somewhere, you guess where. 

One lease contract I read required the homeowner to pay for all the electricity the system produced, hahahaha good luck with that.

http://hawaiirenovation.staradverti...pros-cons-of-owning-your-photovoltaic-system/


----------



## concrete_joe

some plans i saw were a 60/40 split of power generation, 40% to leesee. how that equates to $$ is relevant to homeowner power use, etc.


----------



## beenthere

concrete_joe said:


> many places its no longer a buy, you "lease" the equipment (which is paid for by the sun, etc). the trade for leasing is zero down for the use of your roof or site, etc.....


Zero down. And hosed by the lease company for years down the road.


----------



## ChantryOntario

Is the make or break point here yet? For me personally, it's break even, so if you want to go for it, do so with the knowledge that you will have to make some lifestyle choices that may be hard initially. I'm personally right on the edge of committing to off grid in a place that has a power pole and a 200 amp service to the house already installed. No, I'm not crazy or deluded. Well, not deluded anyway. Ok,maybe a little of both.

You gotta remember that electric prices are always going to go up, and the price of solar equipment seems to be coming down while the quality seems to be going up. One day, ordinary people will realize that this stuff is the next big thing.

For example, under Hydro1 in Ontario, we pay $40 a month to rent the digital meter. Yes, that's right, your bill will be minimum $40 plus 13% hst if you use 0 power all month. Then we have a "time of use" system whereby rush hour power costs you double. Then we have "delivery charge" to subsidize the grid, "debt retirement" charge to subsidize the corporation's wages.... A KW of power at 5 p.m. will cost you more than a quarter IIRC, I think that's before other surcharges , so long story short a family of 4 with gas heat and hot water can still look at an easy 200-250 a month for power. Ontario people please correct me if I'm estimating low or high . We have nearly the highest electric rates in North America. 

Now $250 a month can go a looooong way to setting up an off-grid system no matter where you are. Add in the cost to put your poco service drop in, about 3k now if I remember right, and a purpose built off grid system is suddenly not so expensive by comparison. Led lights also factor in when you realize that you can now light your whole house on 70 watts. If you build a proper battery bank, where you only ever use 25% of your battery capacity, $2500 worth of batteries _may last 15 years if treated right and maintained_.All depends on how deep you draw them down.

Just get used to the fact that with an off grid solar system, you will never use electricity to create heat ever again, water, stove, heaters, or otherwise. Get used to a smaller fridge, and no power for traditional AC. Get used to cleaning off the panels occasionally, adjusting the angle of them occasionally, checking/topping up the batteries monthly.Get used to forking out $5 a watt to get started, and a couple/three bucks a watt after that to add panels and batteries. For me, personally, $20,000 is not that much to never see another power bill again. My power bill adds up to $20,000 every 9 years, and that's with _today's prices._


----------



## concrete_joe

post #30.

i didnt see in there any allowance for maintenance or panel upgrades. 1hr of time for someone to wipe all the panels clean could mean a negative -$200 for the time they could be earning $200. depends on how you value your time. if your time is worth $0 than have at it. others might think $40/month just to be able to use poco power is worth it as there is zero time needed to have it at $40/month, etc...

a big heavy storm comes and a tree from 1/4 mile away rips off and wipes out your panels..... or a small cessna crashes and rips away 1/2 your panels,,,......... now what?? are you insuring your solar investment? what does that cost??

i think there's a lot more to it than just "install solar, go off grid, its cheaper".

15yr battery life, under normal charge and discharge? what batteries do that?


----------



## mgp roofing

For real world system performance data, check out this link to my system data. https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/pv/public_systems/eZX2500044 You can look at similar data for systems all over the world on this site. And I enjoy getting power bills that look like this, beats paying them $100+ every month :thumbsup:


----------



## concrete_joe

mgp roofing said:


> And I enjoy getting power bills that look like this, beats paying them $100+ every month :thumbsup:


do they pay you that, or do you just owe zero and it's in escrow until you use more than you gave back? having panels on my property to give free power to the poco so they can then sell it off is not something i would like to do.


----------



## LeakyHawaiiRoof

dmxtothemax said:


> It's all in the maths !
> Lets say you spend $10,000 on a med size system
> And as an example you generate 65Kwh a week
> What do the utility companies pay you for this electricity ?
> gotta be less than they buy it for !
> lets say 10c Kwh
> 65 x 10c = $6.50
> $10OOO/6.5 = 1538 Weeks
> that's 29.58 years
> just to pay back initial instal costs
> If you think your system will still be fully functional
> in 29.5 years your dreaming !
> 
> The numbers just don't stack up !
> 
> The only time solar is useful is when there is NO grid.
> In which case it's the only option.
> 
> Unless costs come down dramatically !
> then solar is just a pipe dream.


 I realize you're just making these numbers up, so let me give some actual numbers for my actual system that I actually experienced so that actual people know what actual happens. 

System cost: $18,762 (after rebates and tax incentives)
2014 production: 14.2 MWh 
Retail electricity cost for 2012 to 2015: various, ranging from $0.32 to $0.37 per kWh 
Previous yearly electricity bill (2012): $3252
Grid connection fee (minimum charge): $14
Annual savings: approximately $3000

Since electricity rates change and I haven't exactly kept good records of how much electricity I actually use, I'm just going to use $3000 annual savings as an estimate. A $3000 annual savings will pay for the $18,762 system in about six years. Factoring in the fact that electricity is currently about 15% cheaper bumps the payback period up to about 7.5 years.


----------



## Greg.Now

LeakyHawaiiRoof said:


> I realize you're just making these numbers up, so let me give some actual numbers for my actual system that I actually experienced so that actual people know what actual happens.
> 
> System cost: $18,762 (after rebates and tax incentives)
> 2014 production: 14.2 MWh
> Retail electricity cost for 2012 to 2015: various, ranging from $0.32 to $0.37 per kWh
> Previous yearly electricity bill (2012): $3252
> Grid connection fee (minimum charge): $14
> Annual savings: approximately $3000
> 
> Since electricity rates change and I haven't exactly kept good records of how much electricity I actually use, I'm just going to use $3000 annual savings as an estimate. A $3000 annual savings will pay for the $18,762 system in about six years. Factoring in the fact that electricity is currently about 15% cheaper bumps the payback period up to about 7.5 years.


That's a huge system though. It will surely pay for itself in the long run but not everybody can afford the initial cost. It does look like a sound investment. :thumbsup:


----------



## Bob Sanders

Greg.Now said:


> That's a huge system though. It will surely pay for itself in the long run but not everybody can afford the initial cost. It does look like a sound investment. :thumbsup:


The number listed is a bit fictional because it does not included maintenance costs. I'm not saying there won't be a savings but you need to factor in the cost of maintenance and upkeep to get an ACTUAL idea of the savings involved. Hard to do in the beginning because new systems typically result in low to no maintenance... but as they age the maintenance cost goes up

To get an accurate assessment you would have to keep records over the rated lifespan of the system which would include the time and money involved in the overall operation of the system.


----------



## LeakyHawaiiRoof

Bob Sanders said:


> The number listed is a bit fictional because it does not included maintenance costs. I'm not saying there won't be a savings but you need to factor in the cost of maintenance and upkeep to get an ACTUAL idea of the savings involved. Hard to do in the beginning because new systems typically result in low to no maintenance... but as they age the maintenance cost goes up
> 
> To get an accurate assessment you would have to keep records over the rated lifespan of the system which would include the time and money involved in the overall operation of the system.


Maintenance costs for the first ten years is effectively nothing. 

The warranties are as follows: the solar panels and the micro inverters have a 25 year warranty and the installation workmanship has a 10 year warranty. 

Since there's no moving parts, there's really nothing to do to keep the system running. Also, since it rains a lot at my house, I don't need to wipe the panels down at all. I also think the panels have some sort of anti-mildew coating (or perhaps the glass (or whatever) material is naturally anti-mildew) since there's no mildew at all. I suppose if a drought came along, I'd have to scrub the panels down, but that's pretty minor. Instead, I'd probably just stand on the ground and shoot my hose up to wash them instead of getting my ladder out. 

As for making sure the system is performing properly, I have the free Enlighten Manager app installed on my phone. I can check exactly how much my system is producing at any moment, including how much it produced each day, and how much each panel produces. If any panel begins to malfunction, I should be able to see its production go down almost immediately. 

To me, the biggest issue is the predicted 1% yearly loss in panel effectiveness. Even at 80% effectiveness (after 20 years or so), my solar system is still worth every penny.

I realize some people might be interested in what 14.2 MWh looks like so here is my 2014 production. Each point represents a day's energy production.










I live in a very rainy area so clouds often block the sun and that's why the line is so jagged. For people who live in an area that gets more frequent and regular sun, the line should be smoother and their production per panel is probably higher.


----------



## Yodaman

IMHO - if solar pwr was all that some would like us to believe it is then it would not require substantial gov't subsidies to even remotely cost justify. I had a system quoted for my home awhile back, even with a 50% gov't subsidy the ROI was still nearly 20 years. Definitely not a sound investment in my book.


----------



## LeakyHawaiiRoof

Yodaman said:


> IMHO - if solar pwr was all that some would like us to believe it is then it would not require substantial gov't subsidies to even remotely cost justify. I had a system quoted for my home awhile back, even with a 50% gov't subsidy the ROI was still nearly 20 years. Definitely not a sound investment in my book.


That's because your region has little sun and low electricity rates. 

I see that you are in upstate New York. From what I can tell, your region gets 3-4 daily sun hours. Also, electricity rates in Albany are about 12 cents / kWh.

You're basically at the intersection of low electricity rates and low sun. That's the worst recipe for solar. 

Compare your situation to California that gets 4-8 daily sun hours and electricity costs 17 cents / kWh. If you lived in California and used the exact same amount of electricity, your electrical bill would be about 30-40% more and you would only need about half as many panels to produce the same electricity (more or less, Cali is a big place with various levels of sun). Put simply, your ROI would be about 6-8 years instead of 20 years. 

Or, compare this to my situation in Hawaii with 6 daily sun hours and 31 cents / kWh electricity. The ROI drops to about 6 years.

Ultimately, whether solar is a good investment or not really just depends on where someone lives.


----------



## Yodaman

If the solar industry as a whole were a viable power alternative there would be a feeding frenzy of industrial entrepreneurial investment taking place. Like the revolutionary fracking techniques developed by gas and oil industries that has finally released the global strangle hold on oil by the OPEC nations. And these advancements occurred mostly in spite of gov'ts, not because of them. 
But with solar, instead of a free market explosion and technological advances being economically driven we see politically motivated prodding and funding. Take away the gov't subsidies and the solar market crashes instantly!
Obviously ROI calcs will differ greatly from region to region but with out the subsidies your mfg, dealer, and installer, may not even exist.


----------



## concrete_joe

with companies like 1st Solar building panels that almost dbl the power density every 5yrs or so, i'd say the companies are making great leaps in the technology. i dont think solar needs subsidies any longer, just need to stomach that its a ~5yr ROI just to break even. after that its a game of TCO vs production. grid tie will likely become limited to large commercial or industrial sector, residential folks will likely just be happy with having their own solar system w/ battery banks. home builders are starting to include solar systems in their builds. once every home has local solar power the prices for kwh from poco will go up.


----------



## LeakyHawaiiRoof

Yodaman said:


> If the solar industry as a whole were a viable power alternative there would be a feeding frenzy of industrial entrepreneurial investment taking place. Like the revolutionary fracking techniques developed by gas and oil industries that has finally released the global strangle hold on oil by the OPEC nations. And these advancements occurred mostly in spite of gov'ts, not because of them.
> But with solar, instead of a free market explosion and technological advances being economically driven we see politically motivated prodding and funding. Take away the gov't subsidies and the solar market crashes instantly!
> Obviously ROI calcs will differ greatly from region to region but with out the subsidies your mfg, dealer, and installer, may not even exist.


Oh dear, where do I start?

Let me just say that the federal government spent $100 million in research to develop fracking and continues to offer BILLIONS of dollars in tax or other subsidies for oil and gas companies. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/fracking-developed-government_n_1907178.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2013/10/31/how-much-did-the-feds-really-help-with-fracking/

I can't think of a viable energy technology developed in the past 50 years that wasn't supported by millions or billions of dollars in federal grants, subsidies, and tax breaks.


----------



## beenthere

concrete_joe said:


> with companies like 1st Solar building panels that almost dbl the power density every 5yrs or so, i'd say the companies are making great leaps in the technology. i dont think solar needs subsidies any longer, just need to stomach that its a ~5yr ROI just to break even. after that its a game of TCO vs production. grid tie will likely become limited to large commercial or industrial sector, residential folks will likely just be happy with having their own solar system w/ battery banks.
> 
> Residential with batteries/island system. Won't break even in 5 years. Plus many would need a generator as a back up, so that has to be added in the cost of a island system.
> 
> home builders are starting to include solar systems in their builds. once every home has local solar power the prices for kwh from poco will go up.


Be another 100 years before solar becomes efficient enough to make it viable for the average home owner to afford and use an island system.


----------



## paintdrying

The third happiest day of my life was when my very rural property got a power pole. Having a connection to the grid is such a wonderful thing. I ran the ac all night. Solar is a nice option when there is nothing else. 
All electric houses are the way of the future. I do not see the idea of investing in a primitive technology that will take ten years to break even. I would like to thank solar for the comforts it has provided over the years but no way with those limitations


----------



## Yodaman

LeakyHawaiiRoof said:


> Let me just say that the federal government spent $100 million in research to develop fracking and continues to offer BILLIONS of dollars in tax or other subsidies for oil and gas companies.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/fracking-developed-government_n_1907178.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2013/10/31/how-much-did-the-feds-really-help-with-fracking/



Leaky your own post with hufpo article substantiates my very point. Which is that solar is heavily gov't funded and without it may not even exist.

_"More recently, the natural gas and petroleum industries altogether accounted for about $2.8 billion in federal energy subsidies in the 2010 fiscal year and about $14.7 billion went to renewable energies, the Department of Energy found. The figures include both direct expenditures and tax credits._"

Quick math (from your post) says gov't funding is only putting 20% of its federal energy subsidies into gas and oil. And while gas and oil make up nearly 65% of US energy consumption, solar even with technology gains and billions invested still makes up less than 1/2 of 1%! 

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/solar/

Indicates to me that while one industry has benefitted from gov't funding another exist because of it.

I am not anti solar, just not in favor of govt. wasteful spending on a technology that is politically motivated (green energy to prevent global warming) and currently is clearly not ready for widespread use. Someday perhaps. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ng-to-junk-investments-and-failing-companies/


----------



## LeakyHawaiiRoof

Yodaman said:


> Leaky your own post with hufpo article substantiates my very point. Which is that solar is heavily gov't funded and without it may not even exist.
> 
> _"More recently, the natural gas and petroleum industries altogether accounted for about $2.8 billion in federal energy subsidies in the 2010 fiscal year and about $14.7 billion went to renewable energies, the Department of Energy found. The figures include both direct expenditures and tax credits._"
> 
> Quick math (from your post) says gov't funding is only putting 20% of its federal energy subsidies into gas and oil. And while gas and oil make up nearly 65% of US energy consumption, solar even with technology gains and billions invested still makes up less than 1/2 of 1%!
> 
> http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/topics/encyclopedia/solar/
> 
> Indicates to me that while one industry has benefitted from gov't funding another exist because of it.
> 
> I am not anti solar, just not in favor of govt. wasteful spending on a technology that is politically motivated (green energy to prevent global warming) and currently is clearly not ready for widespread use. Someday perhaps.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ng-to-junk-investments-and-failing-companies/


 Um, you do realize that solar isn't the only form of renewable energy right? There's wind, hydropower, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and a bunch of others I can’t think of right now. That $14.7 billion wasn't spent entirely on solar. 

If you want to convince me that I would not have purchased a solar system without the government incentives, you're right. I wrote a check for about $38,000 to the solar company. I never would have spent that money had I known none of it would be coming back to me on my taxes. 

But to say that government subsidies to solar are a waste is just baffling to me. 

For decades, other energy industries received billions in subsidies and look where we are now. Specifically, from 1994 to 2009, the United State oil and gas industries received almost $447 billion in subsidies while renewable energy received less than $6 billion during that time. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocent...-subsidies-silent-killer-of-renewable-energy/ Most of that time, the government money went to support the monster pay checks for executives and the little people like me maybe saw a pennies of discount on our electricity and gasoline bills. Woop de do.

Now, the government is spending (what did we say? . . .) $14.7 billion a year so I can have solar on my roof for 20+ years and see some actual savings into my pocket. I'm all for that. Yeah sure solar only produces a very small percentage of the nation's energy, but you need to consider that the $20,000 of tax breaks I got will continue to create energy for the next two decades at practically no cost to the government at all. 

Plus, the money I spent on my panels supports industries that are further developing better panels. In the past few years, solar panel and related equipment prices have dropped 10-30% PER year. And this will continue for many years. There's no way oil and gas prices will decline that much in the next decade, if ever.

The point is that solar is a new industry with lots of potential. You may think that its not worth supporting now, but in 15 years when you're installing those solar panels on your roof in New York because the ROI is "worth it," you'll change your mind.


----------



## concrete_joe

LeakyHawaiiRoof said:


> Um, you do realize that solar isn't the only form of renewable energy right? There's wind, hydropower, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and a bunch of others I can’t think of right now. That $14.7 billion wasn't spent entirely on solar.


hydropower - not scalable
biomass - not scalable
biofuel - not scalable
geothermal - unlimited energy, not feasible to harness
nuclear - long term alternative, limited, not very scalable
solar - easily captured, unlimited, doesnt work at night

the equation has to be something like f(x, globally), cant just look at it from a town or state view, or even country, etc.


----------



## Unskilled

Can you get a small system tied to the grid and upgrade as you go along, or do you need to do it all in one shot?


----------



## Oso954

You have a number of components in a solar system that limit the ultimate size of the system. The inverter is one of them. If you are starting real small, or make the cheapest choices going in, you will most likely end up replacing everything.

If you make choices based upon a reasonable size going in and with an ultimate buildout size in mind, you can add more banks of panels to it and make some sizable increases.

It is a bit more difficult to make major size changes with battery banks involved, but it doesn't sound like you are thinking of battery backup.


----------



## Unskilled

Oso954 said:


> You have a number of components in a solar system that limit the ultimate size of the system. The inverter is one of them. If you are starting real small, or make the cheapest choices going in, you will most likely end up replacing everything.
> 
> If you make choices based upon a reasonable size going in and with an ultimate buildout size in mind, you can add more banks of panels to it and make some sizable increases.
> 
> It is a bit more difficult to make major size changes with battery banks involved, but it doesn't sound like you are thinking of battery backup.



Ok, cool, I was thinking that have a system to run some of the house, then all and eventually make more power than i'd need.


----------



## LeakyHawaiiRoof

Unskilled said:


> Can you get a small system tied to the grid and upgrade as you go along, or do you need to do it all in one shot?


 In additional to the physical aspects of upgrading, you may want to consider the tax considerations and grid saturation elements. 

The federal tax credit of 30% is scheduled to expire at the end of 2016. From what I can tell, Washington state exempts solar from sales tax and Snohomish County gives a $500 per kw rebate. I don't know when those expire so check on that to see if that's an issue.

While definitely not a problem in Washington, Hawaii is facing grid saturation with solar panels, meaning people who want to install solar panels or install more panels can't because the utility company is saying the grid can't handle the load. That alone is one reason lots of people in Hawaii buy an oversized system.


----------



## Oso954

I wouldn't call it running part of the house. You are better off thinking of it as offsetting part or all of your electric bill. Excess generation above your monthly bill is best treated as a separate subject.

Some states will pay you for excess generation, but how much they pay can vary widely. Also in some areas, excess generation above a certain level can take you out of the residential solar program and make you a power producer which puts you into tighter controls on your power quality, making your equipment that more expensive.

Washington is not the most favorable state for solar. First, they have a fairly low power cost, so the benefit is not as great compared to higher power cost states, Also, since the state has no income tax, there is no state credit against taxes which a lot of other states have.
The one incentive program that they do have, is currentlyexpiring in 2020. As I understand that program it comes as payments based on power produced, so that might change the plan of attack for phasing in power, if the program does not get extended.

I have also heard that some of the credit unions up there were offering low interest 15 year loans on solar. If those are still available, that could also impact your plan.

I would suggest that you find someone with a solar system near you, that you can talk to. 

You also should talk with an installer. While you will get a sales pitch from them, they can also be a source of information about programs available, costs of systems, etc. 

I would suggest you look at the Enphase mini Inverter system. It is the easiest to install DIY. While you might still need professional help with it to get a code compliant system, it is far easier than trying to learn all the requirements for an individual component system.


----------



## Beachfront

Oso954 said:


> I wouldn't call it running part of the house. You are better off thinking of it as offsetting part or all of your electric bill. Excess generation above your monthly bill is best treated as a separate subject.
> 
> Some states will pay you for excess generation, but how much they pay can vary widely. Also in some areas, excess generation above a certain level can take you out of the residential solar program and make you a power producer which puts you into tighter controls on your power quality, making your equipment that more expensive.
> 
> Washington is not the most favorable state for solar. First, they have a fairly low power cost, so the benefit is not as great compared to higher power cost states, Also, since the state has no income tax, there is no state credit against taxes which a lot of other states have.
> The one incentive program that they do have, is currentlyexpiring in 2020. As I understand that program it comes as payments based on power produced, so that might change the plan of attack for phasing in power, if the program does not get extended.
> 
> I have also heard that some of the credit unions up there were offering low interest 15 year loans on solar. If those are still available, that could also impact your plan.
> 
> I would suggest that you find someone with a solar system near you, that you can talk to.
> 
> You also should talk with an installer. While you will get a sales pitch from them, they can also be a source of information about programs available, costs of systems, etc.
> 
> I would suggest you look at the Enphase mini Inverter system. It is the easiest to install DIY. While you might still need professional help with it to get a code compliant system, it is far easier than trying to learn all the requirements for an individual component system.


I just got solar power and my family loves it. We got a federal rebate and a city rebate. The price was to good to pass up, we run the a/c all the time now!


----------



## concrete_joe

so its still a ~7yr break-even ROI ??


----------



## marcmorgan

Look at pluggedsolar.com. They have a relatively inexpensive kits that allows you to plug into an open electrical plug. They are small kits and really just offset your current electrical use. But that is how they can plug into an electrical plug.


----------



## Ben25

They are also not legal in the U.S.


----------



## beenthere

Ben25 said:


> They are also not legal in the U.S.


I believe the grid tie unit they sell is legal in the USA.


----------



## LeakyHawaiiRoof

I believe the pluggedsolar.com units would be legal in Hawaii, at least, provided that the user got approval from the electric company to run net metering. It appears that the smaller units would not require building permits, but my guess is that the rooftop ones would require building permits.

Also, the prices on those units seems cheap. $3500 for a 1.5KW grid tie in kit seems cheap, even with installation costs. I paid nearly double that a few years ago.

On a rather unrelated note, edX has a free Solar Energy course: https://www.edx.org/course/solar-energy-delftx-et3034x I signed up for it and ya'll are welcome to join me.


----------



## Ben25

If it was a dedicated male 240v receptacle with proper permits and poco approval, then sure. They show an enphase inverter plugged into a 120v receptacle. That will not work and is not legal.


----------

