quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
I actually don’t care about any of that. I care a bit about brand to the extent I avoid fly by night companies. I care about product quality. I care about financial return. A five year break even with a quality product that will last 15+ years is what I care about. And utility for outages.

I’m spending $300+ a month on electricity. $200 in winter. And that’s without running the ac as much as I would like. 5 year BE while running the ac more is attractive.

So if I am reading correctly, let me see if I understand, you are saying you don't care how many $$ taxpayers are forced to cover, as long as you make a good return on your $$?

First of all, I was responding to the post above yours. Second, I’m a taxpayer too. Tell me how I should consider taxpayer costs here. What the pros cons from a taxpayer perspective that I should consider here? What evil am I doing here? Is the op evil too? Are you going to call him and others out?

I sounds like this Tesla system is not available on the east coast.... in that regard I really can't figure out why they would not just ship me everything for a couple hundred dollars for the shipping plus retail cost of panels and other items with instructions....

as for the systems shutting down during a power outage.... that is bizarre... you would think there would have to be a way to disconnect and just run limited items in the home at least with what ever power the panels are generating.... what's the deal with the batteries?

So curious K what you do not care about in my post

Maintenence cost, repairs, the company you buy from sells to another less interested outfit? Once you fork out the big bucks there is no going back, It is yours. etc, etc.

Nothing personal. And it’s not that I don’t care about your post per se. but things like it being Tesla isn’t a consideration for me. I’m not a Tesla fan boy. I’m not considering solar because Tesla is offering it. I’m only considering Tesla over other no name companies. And it seems like they are offering the installed price that makes solar reasonable for me - reasonable BE period.

And going green or saving the planet or other things like that - couldn’t care less. Not a factor for me.

Just saying the considerations in your post aren’t influential in my decision. It’s a financial decision in an environment with increasing utility costs, pge filing bankruptcy, power outages, etc.

Understand K, I might be wrong. But I feel the grid is as or more so reliable than a stand alone solar system.

Lets say there is an earthquake. I doubt a personal solar system is going to be any better or worse off than the grid.

Don’t really disagree. Keep in mind stability here is not just reliability but pge intentionally cutting power for extended periods because of perceived fire hazards.

But also cost benefit may be regionally influenced. I feel raped by pge each month and fear it’s going to get worse as they recover from bankruptcy and fire liabilities. This may be the opportunity to say fu to them without costing much. But I will look into tco more. Would like to understand that better. Also, 25 year warranty may not mean much if cells have a ‘half life’ of 7-10 years.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
First of all, I was responding to the post above yours. Second, I’m a taxpayer too. Tell me how I should consider taxpayer costs here. What the pros cons from a taxpayer perspective that I should consider here? What evil am I doing here? Is the op evil too? Are you going to call him and others out?

Good questions, let me explain.

I have worked high tech finance in Silicon Valley for 35 years, taught accounting in college here. Tesla got into solar through the acquisition of Solar City, which was the successor to Solyndra. Solyndra was going bankrupt, Solar City somewhat took over, also became defacto insolvent, hence Tesla. Solyndra had $535 Million in fed loans, forgiven by Obama (ie, covered by taxpayers). One of Solyndra’s manufacturing plants was declared a toxic waste site. Solar City and Tesla also benefit from hefty taxpayer subsidies.

Once I flew across the Mojave Desert at dusk, saw the Ivanpah solar power plant, the largest in the world. Quite impressive to see three very bright glowing balls in midair. Ivanpah also has sizable taxpayer subsidies. And, when in operation it delivers only 2/3 of the originally promised power, meaning electricity costs 50% more than intended. Also, they need natural gas backup generators for when the sun doesn’t shine, which generators emit enough CO2 they had to register as a gross polluter. Plus lawsuits that the massive solar panel arrays are doing harm to the local flora and fauna.

And, I get my electricity from Pacific Gas & Electric, which is required to promote solar energy, one cost is reliability. There are other risk factors that can burn people.

I would like to see real numbers of what the actual cost of producing solar electricity is, without taxpayer subsidies, and the actual cost/benefit to the environment. Is solar electricity economically and environmentally viable/reliable without gov’t intervention? One concern is if gov't intervention (and increasing gov't control) makes things better or worse.

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:


as for the systems shutting down during a power outage.... that is bizarre... you would think there would have to be a way to disconnect and just run limited items in the home at least with what ever power the panels are generating.... what's the deal with the batteries?

THIS would be the only reason I would consider solar so that I have electricity, when the electric is out. Here, after a hurricane I've been without power for 2-3 weeks, twice in the past 6.5 years. If I had spent the money for solar panels and had no electricity just like everyone else, I'd be pissed off and it serves no purpose for me.

Arc did an incredibly detailed write up on the state of solar a year or two ago. His opinion then was that solar was a good idea on new construction and it was a good idea in many (but by no means all) cases as an add on later.

quote:

Originally posted by craigcpa:
I wish those prices and Tesla installation were available on the east coast.

They (solar panels) don't make as much financial sense here in NC as they do in CA, partly due to differences in our weather but mostly due to (depending on your area) our vastly cheaper electricity costs.

If you are in Raleigh, you should be paying Duke's about 11 cents/kwh retail pricing. California's quaint rules and regulations have PGE retail customers paying a bit more than double that, or 26 cents/kwh. Link - PGE electrical rates

These are long-lived systems so the current savings is only part of the puzzle - you have to factor in what you think will happen over the life of the system. Realistically, there is nowhere for California's energy costs to go but way up - they hate nukes, love expensive 'green' energy, and the major utility out there (PGE) is facing fiscal ruin over fire liability and needs to update a bunch of decades-old transmission lines....who's going to pay for that, other than electricity customers?

Out here, we had a good chance of electricity prices actually going down till the environnazis killed the natural gas pipeline that would have connected us up to the cheap natural gas areas north of us.

Plus, we get a LOT less sun than CA, so the systems don't throw off as much energy over the course of a year as the ones do out there. So, compared to CA, double-whammy: less savings/kwh and lower production of kwh.

RE: the systems providing energy when the power is out. They don't all do that.

First, technically that would only work if the outages were during the day (duh) or if you had a battery in the system. Second, when repairing outages, power companies' repairmen need the downed side of the lines to be unpowered in order to make repairs safely. The solar photovoltaic system I had put in about 20 years ago in Silicon Valley had to turn itself off when the grid went off, by the building code that was then in place there. Maybe/hopefully things are different now. But if you are expecting this to power your system when the grid goes off, ask that question of your installer before you sign on the dotted line.

Scoutmaster, thank you for your post and explanation. Oh yes we all recall solyndra now don't we. Why am i not surprised. Another sham for the folks to buy into.

And indeed our power grid providers are in the trough now too. Grid power cost too high for ya, hmmmm.

Oh and ya, been watching the commercials for your go to online source for everthing (chicom). "oh goodie honey, another delivery at the door."
Yea, buy more of their shit and help with their agenda.

In case you missed it. All of this is tied together. So go ahead, jump right on it. And then tell us in all these threads about how pissed off you are about where we find ourselves.

It is all a real head scratcher isn't it?

And again, none of this applies if you are doing solar because no grid connectivity is possible.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: old rugged cross,

All the past issues aside, Tesla didn't cause the issues of Solyndra to happen, they just now own the company. Perhaps they'll clean it up and offer a good product from a USA company to USA customers.

As to having solar for power use in outages, IIRC, unless you install battery walls when the powers out, you are out, the solar panels never directly power the home/building, they only feed back into the grid kwH to the power company, your home is part of the grid to create solar generated power. You still run on the PGE/power company grid with solar all the time. (unless you are completely off the grid)

A basic calculation for an 8kWh system assuming and average 4 hours of full production per day and 25 year useful life:

8x4x365x25=292,000kWh over the life of the system.

12÷292=$.04 per kWh. I'd be curious to know what it costs a utility to produce electricity.

I'm under the impression that generator based solutions allows for disconnecting from the grid. Why couldn't a similar solution be available for solar? Unless HRK is correct - solar panels are installed at residence but it doesn't power the house - the power goes back to the grid. Unless connected to battery (powerwall?)? I'm getting a little confused - financials and redundancy against outages are two key elements for doing solar for me.

I'd also like to know the cost for utility to product electricity; but to be fair, seems like costs to deliver to POU should be built in as well? But in concept, it would be good to know what the cost is for electricity (and to Scout's point, costs depending on generation source).

That being said, there is window right now to install solar at reasonable costs w/ reasonable BE duration (relative to numbers from 5-10 years ago) while the tax credits are still decent (26% this year, down from 30% last year, going to 0% in 2 years). If one is getting solar, this year may be the time to do it unless install costs drop more than 26% over the next couple of years.

I'm still wondering about solar vs generator, solar + generator, solar + powerall.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
Scoutmaster, thank you for your post and explanation. Oh yes we all recall solyndra now don't we. Why am i not surprised. Another sham for the folks to buy into.

And indeed our power grid providers are in the trough now too. Grid power cost too high for ya, hmmmm.

Oh and ya, been watching the commercials for your go to online source for everthing (chicom). "oh goodie honey, another delivery at the door."
Yea, buy more of their shit and help with their agenda.

In case you missed it. All of this is tied together. So go ahead, jump right on it. And then tell us in all these threads about how pissed off you are about where we find ourselves.

It is all a real head scratcher isn't it?

Maybe a summary from my perspective.

I believe solar power (with battery storage) has merit, particularly in times of power outages. And I would like to see the real cost/benefit numbers without taxpayer subsidies (visible and invisible). I also believe the gov't is exercising increased control over our energy sources, under the guise of environmental responsibility, but their meddling will increase the cost and reduce the reliability of our electricity.

In terms of scalability and utilization per dollar, it seems that solar would be more effective at a community level vs each individual residence taking into account varied usage patterns and such.

Either that, or I'm wondering if it's better to undersize my solar system (if I decide to get one). There must be a way to figure out optimal sizing for the year, rather than base on monthly average consumption. For example, size solar to ensure grid consumption stays w/in Tier 1 pricing and then maybe some percentage of tier 1 consumption.

My solar build out is being quoted with Hanwha Q-Cells.

Korean company, German RD, manufacturing in US/Malaysia/China/Germany.

I'm comfortable with that, as Hanwha is a sizeable company and their US headquarters is here in California. I don't think they will go completely out of business during the term of the panel warranty.

I think the other off-grid/power outage/reliability concerns are overblown. Right now, I'm connected to the grid with no backup. After the Solar install, I'll still be connected to the grid with no backup. No net change--my power will continue to be as reliable as my power grid, barring some equipment failure on my end at the panel that prevents me from receiving grid power.

The way I look at it, I'm buying a machine that basically prints off nine $20 bills for me a month for the next 25 years. Will it require maintenance? Some, I guess. Will it possibly break down? Possibly. But so does my car, and those risks don't dissuade me from having the benefit of owning a car.

Maybe if the break even point was 20 years, the benefit to risk wouldn't be worth it. But with a break even at 5.5 years, the risk of the system failing and the warranty being completely unhonored is really low. If the system makes it to 5 years and 7 months, I will have been out nothing other than the time it takes me to submit an online quote, watch over the install, and the time value of my $12k sitting tied up.
For every month after 5 years and 7 months, I'll just be putting $180 into my pocket. That's like 20 really good burritos a month, free. Who doesn't like burritos?

DO SOLAR PANELS WORK IN A BLACKOUT?

If your solar panel system is connected to the grid, it will shut off in the event of a blackout. This is to prevent emergency responders and electricity utility repair people from being injured by your panels sending power back to the grid.

However, there are certain inverters you can buy that provide backup power in a blackout when paired with a battery.

Link

You'd need a transfer switch to hook up your generator for power out situations, you don't want to backfeed the solar inverter or power grid.

Best bet is battery walls, remember if the power is out, once the sun goes down, your panels are generating no energy, you need a stored source, or as you said a generator.

The goal of your Solar system is to produce more electricity than you need in the day to reverse the meter and sell back to PGE and pay for your night time power use.

It's a great idea, and advances in tech for inverters and batteries have really improved the option as viable,

Right now fuel costs worldwide are stable and low, a change in the political climate could change that, making having your own power source a very good investment.

At some point power bills may rival home mortgage payments.

Konata, I think the disconnect from the grid problem isn't a technical issue, as whole house transfer switches have existed for a while now (for generators, as you mentioned).

I think the issue is with the utility provider not allowing it.

With a whole house generator, the generator is not intended to put power back into the grid. You typically don't do "net metering" with a generator like that--its strictly for emergency use only.

Here, with net-metered Solar, you submit a connection request with the utility provider after install and inspection. Basically, for the privilege of being able to do net-metering and feed power back into the grid, you have to agree to the utility provider's rules. It's dumb, but it's their rules--they want reliable access to your solar power, and they want safety for their line workers. In exchange, they pay you for your power.

If you didn't want the benefit of net-metering, there's nothing stopping you from installing a whole house transfer switch as you would a generator, installing a bunch of panels and an inverter, and throwing the switch on to solar only during the day time. The idea with a transfer switch is that you are either on self-generation or grid power, but never both. With net metering, your self-generation is feeding power into the grid while you are still connected to it, and for that privilege, the utility gets to decide what safety measures it requires.