Switching To Solar Power – One Month Later

ThinSkin writes "After an interesting article on solar panel installation for the home, Loyd Case at ExtremeTech has written a follow-up after about a month of normal use. Posting an $11.34 electric bill (roughly 3% of previous months), Loyd shares his experiences using solar power and how it can be fun for the geek, with computer monitoring services and power generation data. Of course, solar power isn't all fun and games, given the amount of required maintenance — even unpredictable maintenance, like wiping off accumulated ash from fires in Northern California."

Comments

Why can't he sell it back?

[deanoaz]

According to the article California will not allow homeowners to sell more power back into the grid than they are buying. He doesn't say why. I don't understand the reasoning for such a restriction, since the possibility of selling more than you buy would encourage wider adoption.

Re:Why can't he sell it back?

[Delwin]

Because their billing structure would put the power company out of business if they allowed it.

Note that while can't go net negative for the year he can get to net 0. Also note that he's 'selling' back power to get to that net 0 at retail rates.

The places that allow you to go net negative buy your power back at wholesale rates, which is far lower. If you think about it when you sell power back to the power company you're not competing with the power company, you're competing with the power generators. Why should the power company give you an unfair advantage there?

Re:Why can't he sell it back?

[Klaus_1250]

Why should the power company give you an unfair advantage there?

Lower costs for the power-company in terms of transmission and distribution of power (and related costs for that infrastructure). E.g. the power you produce can go right to your next door neighbor. Power from a power station usually has to travel quite a bit.

Re:Why can't he sell it back?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

IBM makes me work 60 hours a week. You see, my employment is contingent on something called utilization. My target and tenure is such that I can't meet my target unless I work 60 hours a week.

The utilization target is computed without taking into account vacations, holidays, and sick days. If I take all 3 weeks of vacation I've earned, then I won't make my utilization target, and I won't have a job.

It's time to fucking unionize the place. Or if that doesn't work, I'll just continue slacking for 60 hours a week. IBM gets an honest 30 hours out of me whether they know it or not. Fuck them.

Re:Why can't he sell it back?

[TheLink]

It's not whether it's privatized or not. It's whether it's _corrupt_ or not.

If you have a big corrupt government, your money and freedoms go to the corrupt government.
Of you have a small corrupt government, your money and freedoms go to some big corrupt company that bribes the small corrupt government.

Either way you end up being screwed.

You get all those libertarian fools thinking "Oh if the current big bad government is smaller, things would be wonderful".

Then you get the other fools thinking "Oh the current big bad government (that's already screwing me) should expand its role to take care of this".

It's not how big or small. It's how BAD or GOOD. When voters vote based on big or small, and not good or bad, what do you think they'll get?

If you have a good government, and it knows it has the ability to do "Natural Monopoly X" well (and will continue to do so for near future), nothing wrong with it doing X - after all it is supposedly answerable to the voters in a democracy. If it realizes it does not have the ability, it can get some company (or more) to do it, and if the government lacks the ability to even know whether the company is doing a good job or not it can appoint a regulator to do that.

Lastly if just because Company X gives lots of money to Candidate Y, means people vote for Candidate Y, then people sure are stupid. In the absence of Diebolded elections, you don't have to vote that way. If Coke and Pepsi are the biggest advertisers it shouldn't mean you continue drinking either Coke or Pepsi if both are bad for you.

When voters vote based on how much money Candidates get from companies, guess what they get?

So far it sure looks like voters have got what they have been voting for.

Maybe in the future companies like Diebold will save voters the trouble.

Re:Eh

[arth1]

So he saved about $330/month. It cost him $36K (which really cost $50K, but let's say). So it'll take 109 months to get back the money, or 9 years, not adjusting for inflation and investment opportunity cost. Let's say that brings it up to 12 years. Not including maintenance and repairs. It might even need complete replacement at that point. At 50K, which is the real cost, we're talking more like 16-18 years.

It's worse than that. The $11 bill was for 19 days, not a month. And 19 sunny summer days, at that. He won't save $330 per month. Let's see what the figures are after a whole year. My guess is that he'll save around $200, at most. For a $36k investment.

Seriously, if I had a $300+ monthly electricity bill, I would start by seeing how I could reduce the amount of electricity used.

Insane energy usage.

[SuperQ]

Yea, I was shocked at how much energy the family in this article uses. My GF and I average ~370kWh/month, 4,440kWh/year. We live in Mountain View, which is the next small city over from Sunnyvale. The family in this article is using 17,400kWh/year. If he expects a 20% drop in usage when the family becomes 2 people, that's still THREE TIMES what we use. I also have a home server and network.

Re:Insane energy usage.

[rrhal]

I lived "off the grid" for a while in Alaska. One thing I realized was that you could do pretty much everything you do now with a lot less electricity. Thats an important skill when you only get 2-3 hours of daylight for a good chunk of the year.

Re:Not a month

[cwmaxson]

My monthly electricity bill is roughly $25 a month without any alternative electricity generation winter or summer. My wife and I just use less. For example, proper window shade use keeps the house at 70 degrees during 100 degree weather without the need for fans or AC. Most of my energy is sucked up by a small fridge and surfing slashdot and such. The point is, alternative energy is great, but learning how to live with less can go alot further. My town (pop. 15,000) has actually as a whole cut their electricity 20% since 1987 through vast socialized conservation efforts (better lights, better insulation, etc). Most locals walk or ride bikes, and our police station, city council, and fire station is 100 % local solar and wind energy. Yes, I live in America. PS, I'm not a luddite, I live quite comfortably, I just utilize the surrounding environment more efficiently than most.

Use a lease/PPA for savings from Day 1

[fullon604]

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.

Another data point

[skidisk]

I put a 3kw system on my roof in February, 2005. (I live in Silicon Valley). My electricity bill has been zero since then -- well, actually, $60/yr in some fee PG&E charges. My total electricity cost for the previous three years (2002-2004) was $6,730. Installation of the solar panels cost a net of $13,369 after rebates. So I've saved 50% of the cost already, and my house is worth more due to the presence of the solar power array. I took advantage of California rebates which were higher then than now, though, so that's a bummer.

Re:Not a month

[Shimmer]

Window shade use keeps the house at 70 degrees during 100 degree weather without the need for fans or AC

Howzat? Even with no windows, no doors, great insulation, etc. I don't see how you can maintain a 30 degree temperature differential for more than a few hours.