Slashdot Mirror

here's an option... http://www.solarcity.com/resid...

From SolarCity's 2015 impact report it seems that 70MW of installed power produced 28,630 metric tons of CO2. It's 2017 (which should have yielded further emissions savings over 2015), plus installing bulk might yield yet further savings.

But I'm a firm believe in the energy trap, so I think that's 28,630 tons of CO2 well invested.

Tesla / SolarCity have indeed shipped and installed plenty of batteries, with this being probably the most prominent example.

There was even a Slashdot article about it less than a month ago.

In order to be qualified as a SolarCity supplier, manufacturers need to have effective Quality Assurance programs and refined manufacturing processes in place, and steady product and manufacturing quality must be demonstrated. Rigorous tests need to be passed on an ongoing basis, performed by a qualified 3rd party lab. Furthermore, we require that factory controls and in-line testing are in place to ensure quality is sustained over time and deviations are rapidly detected, so the deployment of faulty products in the field is prevented.

I get a 404 error on the first link. The actual report link is at : http://www.solarcity.com/sites/default/files/reports/SolarCity%20Photovoltaic%20Modules%20with%2035%20year%20Useful%20Life.pdf
As for the degradation of panels, I have a 10kW system made of relatively inexpensive Chinese Renesola Virtus II hybrid panels for over 3 years now and I have seen no measurable degradation in performance so far. And I even look at the peak days of month to avoid the issue of daily weather and still it seems the peak has not reduced (rather increased by 1% which should be within the margin of error) in these three years. So there goes two myths my installer told me "you need to pay me to service and wash them every year to maintain peak output" and "output will measurably drop yearly anyway though". No I haven't washed them. So, I don't know if they will continue this trend or will suddenly drop in efficiency, but at least for the first few years they seem stable.

In fact, there's a solar installer that will happily sell you a PowerWall with your rooftop system...

To improve its environmental standing, America needs *more* dense urbanized areas like NYC, not less.

As batteries, solar, wind, microgrids, EVs, etc. . . become cheaper and cheaper, I wonder if this still holds true. As we see more and more small communities become self sufficient, the traditional argument for moving towards centralized efficiency will be harder and harder to make. Looking at how decentralized technologies have defined recent history, I would not bet my money on investments that depend on increased centralization at this point. . ..

No, SolarCity doesn't lease the panels back to you - they sell the power from the panels to you. And they control the rate you pay and have the ability to raise it annually (up to 2.9% per annum).

Solar city has a variety of financial plans available. I believe you are referring to the "SolarPPA" option, but leasing panels is also an option.

Unless you do both at the same time, which is exactly what SolarCity is now offering using the Tesla battery back thing.

2) Cloud... And the difference [between sunny-day production and cloudy-day production] is less than you'd think - it's about 90% of summer rather than the 25% or similar you might think.

That has not been my experience. For example, here is my system's output on April 25th (which was a cloudy day), and here is the output on April 26th (which was a sunny day). The cloudy-day output was about 10% of the the sunny-day output.

2) Cloud... And the difference [between sunny-day production and cloudy-day production] is less than you'd think - it's about 90% of summer rather than the 25% or similar you might think.

That has not been my experience. For example, here is my system's output on April 25th (which was a cloudy day), and here is the output on April 26th (which was a sunny day). The cloudy-day output was about 10% of the the sunny-day output.

And here's the companion press release from SolarCity, where they are reselling the Tesla product with their panel installs.

OK. Possibly I misunderstood what was required to allow a push connection to the electrical grid. OTOH, it was a couple of decades ago that we put in solar panels (with a grid connection, and, obviously, not Solar City), so also perhaps the rules have changed.

The bank would also want security for the loan, perhaps you could get better terms from them. If the Solar City salesman you contacted said they don't do "off the grid" installations...that doesn't seem to be what the company currently says. Maybe they didn't, maybe it's flim-flam, maybe your salesman didn't want to do it. From your description he was clearly lousy at his job.

OTOH, this http://www.greentechmedia.com/... might be related to your experience. However this http://blog.solarcity.com/put-... seems to bolster your point. But this http://cleantechnica.com/2012/... disagrees with that. These were all published at different points in time, so quite possibly the position is in flux. Their site doesn't seem to address the question directly for residential customers.

So I think you are basically correct, if you want an "off the grid" solar installation you should go with someone else until they are ready to make a clear statement. But for the larger installations that they are talking about in this Press Release, attaching to the grid appears to be an afterthought. (It couldn't really be an afterthought, but it seems designed for locations where good grid connections cannot be assumed.)

I don't doubt your terrible experience. But when looking at their web site, they claim that the contracts are open. I assume you are referring to the MyPower product and that, in your location, the rates are higher than traditional grid electricity in which case it wouldn't make much sense. They do offer a standard solar product as well. I'm not endorsing SolarCity or the My Power project but it does seem reasonable. You are locked into a long-term contract with fixed prices for electricity. You're putting no money down and they are taking mpst of the risk. So I'm not surprised that they are getting most of the benefit. Seems too complicated for me; people are bound to be unhappy. I wouldn't touch the My Power project. I would take an interest if they starting offering solar systems with a used Tesla battery pack so that I would hardly ever need grid electricity. But I'd purchase the equipment up-front, not enter into a complicated contract. In any event, this is a long response, but the point is that you can see the contracts before talking to a person. They may or may not be a good deal. http://www.solarcity.com/resid...

There is an optional grid tie in.

http://www.solarcity.com/resid...

Tesla aren't just going to make batteries for cars in their 'gigafactory' they are intending to make battery backup for residential solar as well.

The way prices of solar panels, batteries and associated costs are dropping, solar+battery will be cheaper than grid before the end of the decade - no subsidies required.

I agree - so I looked it up and apparently they *were* doing this (via investments):

http://www.solarcity.com/newsr...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

But then their new CEO decided to abandon them:

http://www.bizjournals.com/san...

And then they changed their mind *again* and wanted to invest, but the PUC decided against it:

https://gigaom.com/2012/05/10/...

So, basically WTF. It's a complicated situation...

Actually capitalism is the only thing that is encouraging Americans to install solar power systems in any significant numbers. And within my city's limits, nobody has solar because the government-owned utility forbids residents from doing business with that capitalistic company (or its competitors).

I fail to see a problem with local/green energy production. Power distribution infrastructure is terribly vulnerable, horribly inefficient, and more often than not attached to a chimney.

Too many industries have the philosophy of "if it's broke, don't fix it." It's time to develop and employ 21st century technology, join up or stand aside. There's no reason power companies can switch their business model up a bit and adapt. Perhaps add SolarCity style businesses to their portfolio.

I would add (6) Many states have regulations making it impossible to do what Musk is doing. I live in Republican-Controlled Virginia, where I can't buy solar panels from Musk's SolaryCity, which has a location 20 minutes away from me in Washington DC and more locations in Maryland, because my state has pretty much given Dominion Power a monopoly on supplying electricity here, giving them exclusive rights to net-metering--which they have made cost-prohibitive to implement, and the company has actually successfully sued organizations that install solar panels.

When I go to a high point in this city and look down, I see countless flat roofs that could easily host solar panels. Even with all the fog this city gets, that would make a significant impact on our use of non-renewable energy. But it is not to be. Homeowners tend not to like the upfront expense, they tend not to know about SolarCity, and a bunch of the homes are rented. Absent some regulation, they aren't going to install renewable energy.

I think the neatest time to add renewable energy to a building is during construction. Absent that regulation, unless the owner makes it a priority, then the architects are not going to add it to the plan. For example, my work place recently commissioned and moved into a new building. It has an unobstructed, south-facing, 2-story-high, 10-foot-wide window that we have to cover up on the inside to maintain the climate. My immediate thought was: Solar energy. But I had no authority; the people in charge just put a poorly designed curtain on it. It just doesn't occur to them that we could put renewables in this building.

Actually, in the current political climate, I think renewable energy gets negative publicity from these deployments. Conservatives under the thrall of Koch money see renewables as an admission of AGW, and reject it. No! That reason is stupid! And regardless of AGW, renewables will help us survive the depletion of the oil reserves! The Koch-funded people claim that there is no depletion. I live in a state of extreme pessimism.

http://www.solarcity.com/resid...
http://us.sunpower.com/homes/h...

A number of places do leases where you are cash-positive day-1. But if you use no power and live super-far north, it's probably not available for you. Look up solar leases.

"the lay of the land today, where there are indeed too many suppliers, most of whom are producing relatively low photonic efficiency solar cells at uncompelling costs" (Quote from http://blog.solarcity.com/sile...)

You have indeed discovered the unvarnished truth, solar is not viable in terms of cost and this is unlikely to change anytime soon. Conservation is usually the best bang for the buck, but even that has it's limits.

I know this is a joke, but seriously I think our houses are much more efficient that it used to be. I have no idea how much an old tube TV cost to run, but the new 40" tvs are rated at about $10 a year. ... So really as we move to solid state we are going to increasingly see significant reduction in electricity usage, of course offset by more technology.

Yes, that was Jon's point, and it has been observed by economists as the Jevons paradox. As we get greater efficiency, we use more. An old TV was terribly inefficient, but you generally had only the one, and it wasn't running all day. Now, a typical house has a TV in every inhabited room.

The real fun will begin if electric cars and distributed renewable energy become popular. Then household electricity consumption trends could become extremely nonlinear for a while.

SolarCity installs solar panels on your house for free and then you pay them for your electricity at a greatly reduced rate from what you used to pay your local electric company. Solarcity tho' is not licensed to do business in every state yet but it is in a lot of States... check if yours is. http://www.solarcity.com/

not enough sunlight in many parts of the country

Actually most of the USA gets more sun than Germany but they are building out their solar capacity at record speed.

high capital cost, maintenance costs, etc

In case you missed it, the price of solar cells has fallen off a cliff in the last few years. And some companies will install the system for no money down, then sell you electricity at a rate lower than the utility.

Something like 40% of American households live paycheck-to-paycheck. The next bracket up has a small cushion but not enough to provide outlay for 8 years worth of electric bills. Then there is the class that's underwater in their mortgages.

There are now several companies that at eating this up front cost for you and doing free installs of solar. No, not everywhere, but in more and more places. What the homeowners get out of it is maintained solar panels and a *lower* power bill.

http://www.verengosolar.com/
http://www.solarcity.com/ (who went public yesterday http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/13/solarcity-ipo/1766375/)

To name a couple...

What would be a great business model would be, if some company offered to lease solar systems for a lower rate then your current electric bill. That would solve the whole "can't afford it" problem quite handily.

Unless no such company is available in your area, of course. In which case, there's an untapped market in your area...

Whenever somebody suggests that space-based solar power should be used, they keep forgetting to mention the largest solar panel installation ever put into orbit:

The International Space Station

The solar panels are the defining feature to the structure, and what sets it apart from all previous space vehicles. I think the power generated on the ISS is something on the order of about 50 kilowatts.... which certainly is a fair bit to consider and something akin to a small-town power plant. Running a power cable from the Earth to the ISS is not practical, so clearly solar power is the cheapest alternative (instead of using fuel cells... the only other realistic alternative up there). If you want to see a solar power satellite, any study that ignores the ISS and the technical issues they have discovered in its construction is to me a study not even worth reading in the first place.

Arizona has some innovative solar power generation facilities, including some that are "on the grid" right now. I'd have to say though that the economics really aren't there except for those who are looking for self-sufficiency. There are some companies like Solar City which has a product that certainly is interesting and is just on the threshold of being competitive with other forms of power generation. There are also some other manufacturers of solar panel equipment, and certainly the economics of solar panels and power generation make sense in rural areas where the expense of running a power line out to a remote place is cost prohibitive.

[A re-post of a comment from a few months ago] Guys -- you all seem to be neglecting the recent developments in solar financing. (Disclaimer -- I do work for SolarCity http://solarcity.com/ [solarcity.com] [solarcity.com], a leading installer of residential solar arrays in the SF Bay Area and beyond. We do use First Solar panels, in fact we're the only company using them for residential-scale projects in the US. 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. Commercial owners can take accelerated depreciation on the system, and can utilize the full 30% federal tax credit , and they also get whatever state/local/utility incentives are available as per usual. The customer would have ZERO down-payment, and makes monthly payments over a period of ~15-18 years. There is no lien on the house. 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 $400/month average bill in Sunnyvale, CA, we might recommend a 7.7 kW DC system. Assuming the customer had decent credit (720 FICO), we would require no down payment, and then charge monthly lease payments of $216/mo, for 15 years. The monthly payments do go up at ~3-4% 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 7.7kW system, they might expect their average monthly bill to go from $400 to $99 per month. Add the $216/month payment, and their new average monthly electricity cost is (216 + 99) = $315/month, for immediate savings of ~$85/mo!! [As a point of information, virtually all residential solar systems are grid-tied, so that when the panels are active during the daytime, the meter is often "spinning" backwards. This is how the utility-bill-savings part works.] The installers offering these plans usually include 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 at 80-90%+ kWh output, 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 many-year paybacks, please consider such alternative financing approaches.

[A re-post of my original comment to the original story from a few months ago]

Guys -- you all seem to be neglecting the recent developments in solar financing.

(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. Commercial owners can take accelerated depreciation on the system, and can utilize the full 30% federal tax credit , and they also get whatever state/local/utility incentives are available as per usual. The customer would have ZERO down-payment, and makes monthly payments over a period of ~15-18 years. There is no lien on the house. 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 $400/month average bill in Sunnyvale, CA, we might recommend a 7.7 kW DC system. Assuming the customer had decent credit (720 FICO), we would require no down payment, and then charge monthly lease payments of $216/mo, for 15 years. The monthly payments do go up at 3.9% 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 7.7kW system, they might expect their average monthly bill to go from $400 to $99 per month. Add the $216/month payment, and their new average monthly electricity cost is (216 + 99) = $315/month, for immediate savings of ~$85/mo!!

The installers offering these plans usually include 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 at 80-90%+ kWh output, 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 many-year paybacks, please consider such alternative financing approaches.

Frankly, this goes to show one thing: That democracy as-we-do-it is a dead end and will lead is straight into self-destruction. Evil dictatorship, on the other hand (China hasn't been a pure communist country for years) can get things done.

Face it: The west is in a dead-lock. We want to save the world, but we can't, because our focus on self-interest and "the market will solve it" very efficiently prevents any common-interest solutions. It's the tragedy of the commons all over again, just on a global scale.

This is the most fallacious comment I've seen in awhile and is totally wrong.

China's economy is half the GDP of the USA and pollutes almost as much. What are you talking about a central power 'getting things done'? A government-built 'green city'? How is THAT going to change the world?

Now, SolarCity is already profitable. And TM is already expanding scale to start producing electric cars for a wider market in about 2 years. Oh, and they're making profits too.

Evil money grubbers! Selling solar panels and electric cars! Self-interest != common-interest! Seriously, educate yourself.

Guys -- you all seem to be neglecting the recent developments in solar financing.

(Disclaimer -- I do work for SolarCity http://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.