Interesting facts about solar power

[CardsFan]

At the time we built out house, we installed a solar hot water system. 4 years later we put in a PV system that reduced our electric bill from $80 - $120 down to $16 - $50, depending on the season.



The federal & state tax credits made the payback period 3 - 4 years, otherwise it would have taken over 25 years.

And would you have made the investment with a 25 year payback?
Why should my taxes subsidize your savings?
Not being personal, just have general, philosophical problem with tax subsidies of this kind.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[ERD50]

...
The federal & state tax credits made the payback period 3 - 4 years, otherwise it would have taken over 25 years.

Agreeing with CardsFan, but I'll put it a little differently:

The payback is still 25 years. The tax credits didn't change the payback, it's just a shell game of moving the expense from one budget line to the other.


It's like those 'zero pollution' vehicles - heck no, the pollution is moved to another place.

-ERD50

 

[Fermion]

I just put four 270 watt solar panels on our homebuilt RV roof here in Seattle. I paid $800 for the panels. I paid $600 for a Midnite Classic 150 MPPT controller and $600 for two Lifeline AGM batteries (125AH each).

$2000 in the 1080 watt max system. Today in the sunshine I measured 755 watts peak, which was quite surprising, seeing as how my panels are flat mounted and the sun is not directly overhead at this time of year at this location.

On a overcast day I was still measuring 200 to 250 watts. In pouring rain I was getting 60 watts.

If I average just 2000 watt-hr per day, that is equivalent to running my Honda EU2000 generator for an hour and burning up 1/4 gallon of gasoline ($0.75) Payback for the system would be around 6 years (at which point the Lifeline batteries would need replacing but the solar and charge controller should still be fine). I am getting no subsidy.

 

[CardsFan]

+1!!
It is amazing how many people fail to grasp this simple concept.

 

[mpeirce]

There was a related article in the paper here today.

Earlier this year, Ohio put in a 2 year freeze on "renewable energy standards" and surprise surprise, there was "a steep drop in projects in Ohio".

It's all related into a scheme to force more use of solar, even though it's of questionable economic value given current technology. "The market value of one Ohio solar renewable-energy credits went from a peak of about $400 in 2011 to a current price of $48"

Evidently without government forcing folks to install these systems, there is little demand for them.

Solar energy gets cloudy in Ohio | The Columbus Dispatch

More on the bill:

Senate Bill 310, puts two-year freeze on Ohio's renewable and energy-efficiency standards - Columbus Business First

 

[Theseus]

In considering the business case of renewable energy I found these two articles from The New York Times to be enlightening. The first, from 11/23/14 Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels provides an overview of the declining price of solar and wind energy over the last half decade. The second, published just yesterday on 4/18/15 Solar Power Battle Puts Hawaii at Forefront of Worldwide Changes relates to the struggles of utilities to adapt to the emerging model of larger numbers of self-producers in Hawaii. I find that interesting, as it is perhaps a micro example of what to expect in future years in the continental US should renewable costs continue to decline.

In my opinion I see governmental incentives as providing encouragement for early adopters of the technology. That is something that has historically been applied to lead to technological advances that have the potential of making improvements for the common good. I did myself have a site survey completed on our property five years ago, with an eye on installing grid-tie solar with a goal of having a net-zero ongoing electrical utility bill. When I had that initial site survey completed, it indicated an approximate 17 year payback, and I deiced not go ahead with it at that time for that reason, the high initial cost of investment, and the concern cited in previous posts regarding the value potential buyers may or may not place on an installed system. A quick review does indicate that waiting has likely reduced the initial cost of installation significantly. I’m still not jumping on the bandwagon though, as much as I’d like to become more self-sufficient and less economically bound to increasing utility rates. I’m geeky enough to like the idea, but still pragmatic enough to need a better business case to proceed – and if the articles above are any indication of things to come, that day may be approaching faster than many of us expect.

 

[CardsFan]

One could make an argument that government incentives slow the development process, since the subsidies allow the developer to make a profit and increase sales without improvements.
Recall how fast plasma and LCD TV's were improved and how fast the prices dropped. Supply and demand drove the research and development, not government incentives.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[ERD50]

While this isn't practical yet I think it will be a game changer in ten years. Imagine large skyscrapers with clear solar windows.

A fully transparent solar cell that could make every window and screen a power source | ExtremeTech

That's actually kind of interesting. I wasn't going to even look, as there have been so very many of these "Transparent Solar Cell BREAKTHROUGH!!!!" headlines in the greenie web sites, I get kind of desensitized. For geeky fun, search the word "breakthrough" on one of those sites Man, we should all be energy independent now for pennies a day with all these 'breakthroughs'!

But this report is a little different. It is the plastic window that acts as a kind of light-pipe and concentrator to direct light to the edges of the window, and solar cells are only placed at those edges. Efficiency is very low now, but it could have some promise? Windows aren't at the best angle for collecting solar, but if this material itself (w/o the solar cells) isn't much more expensive than normal glazing, it doesn't make much difference. You'd only add as many solar cells as needed to collect that amount of light.

There was a related article in the paper here today.

Earlier this year, Ohio put in a 2 year freeze on "renewable energy standards" and surprise surprise, there was "a steep drop in projects in Ohio".

It's all related into a scheme to force more use of solar, even though it's of questionable economic value given current technology. "The market value of one Ohio solar renewable-energy credits went from a peak of about $400 in 2011 to a current price of $48"

Evidently without government forcing folks to install these systems, there is little demand for them.
...

Right, if solar was as cost effective as some people are telling us, all us financially literate posters would be jumping on it, but few are, and no one that I know of that didn't get the subsidy (other than for off-grid applications - RVs and vacation homes, etc).

Another thing about these 'par costs'. If solar is to get to high % of grid, then the intermittent nature means you need to add an equivalent amount of peaker plants, or storage. Add that cost to solar, and it rises substantially. And if solar isn't a high %, does it really matter?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

One could make an argument that government incentives slow the development process, since the subsidies allow the developer to make a profit and increase sales without improvements.
Recall how fast plasma and LCD TV's were improved and how fast the prices dropped. Supply and demand drove the research and development, not government incentives.

Yes, Yes, Yes!!!!

I've been making that argument for years. I worked on emerging technologies, and this is obvious to me. It is the improving technology that makes it affordable, and that increases sales, not the other way around.

For the most part, technology can only move so fast. Engineers need to learn along the way. We could not have made the leap from an 8080 to a quad-core i7 just because someone threw money at it. Each step, the tech gets better, making it valuable to a larger base. And that keeps going, step by step.

Yes, incentives slow the process, they don't speed it up. If a company has a market for the current tech, due to artificial demand based on subsidies, the company has less incentive to improve the tech - they can sell it as is!

Good to see someone else understands this simple fact!

-ERD50

 

[ArkTinkerer]

I admit to jumping to the end of this thread but how many of the payback calculations figure in the lost opportunity for those funds? Normal engineering economics usually include a calculation where you compare the gain of the investment compared to buying something like a government bond covering the same period. So, if you are looking at a 25 year payback, you have to recover more than the money you put in, you have to recover what you put in plus what you would earn on a "safe" investment. I haven't seen any of these payback calculations include this.

 

[ls99]

Some practical experience with solar panel at my camp with no utitlity power at all.

I have 2 140 W panel mounted vertically under short eaves. And a three panel harbor freight on the the roof set at about 65 degree angle. With typical 6 to eight inch snow cover this winter a few times up to a foot, the roof mounted panels were totaly covered much of the winter, generating zero output.

The the vertical panels one on a south east wall and the other at on West northwest wall kept working, their bottoms are about 12" above adjacent roof lines of addons.

I do not measure power use, do use camp frequently year around. Most lighting is LED or 12 Volt fluorescents plus a 3 KW modified sine inverter for microwave, electric drill, power saws etc, Ipod touch and cellphone charging. Always had enough juice for my needs. Four marine batteries of about 95 AH each in parallel. Battery voltage never dropped blow 11.9 Volts even avter several totally cloudy days. Typically they stayed at 12.3 even with heavy uses.

And never ran any of my generators all winter. Last Saturday the was the first time I cranked one up.

The takeway:

Roof mounted panels unless mounted vertical and at least 12" off the roof surface are useless in the moderate snowy environment such as SW PA. The roof mounted panels will be moved on to a vertical wall, some output is better none.

Sunlight reflected from adjacent surfaces and snow covered roof does add to the power utput. Someday I might actually make some measurements. At this point it is a very low priority.

 

[John Galt III]

In my RV travel, I have seen many wind tower farms in the West. Many are in open plains, and I cannot imagine much hazard caused to birds. Wind power complements solar energy very well, they say. Plus you've got no solar power at night, while the wind can blow 24 hrs/day.

I've seen those windmills while driving south into Texas. They sure are ugly (IMHO) and have an eerie sort of post apocalyptic aura to them. But Texas is now, as of Jan, 2015, apparently, getting 10 % of its electricity from them, which is a good thing.

 

[Mulligan]

While this isn't practical yet I think it will be a game changer in ten years. Imagine large skyscrapers with clear solar windows.


A fully transparent solar cell that could make every window and screen a power source | ExtremeTech


Unfortunately my home state of Nevada has a 3% cap for solar power. It seems like this is a protection for NVEnergy (Berkshire Hathaway). Most utilities have a monopoly because they are so heavily regulated.


Sandoval, NV Energy mum on net metering after meetings with solar officials - Las Vegas Sun News

A lot of the Utes, are now focusing on increasing the monthly base charge to protect the integrity of the system, by making sure the solar people are help paying for the infrastructure needed for when they are occasionally using the grid.
Being one who enjoys receiving the nice dividends utility preferred stocks kick out, I applaud that. But as an additional protection, I only buy "cloudy area" utility preferreds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[meierlde]

A lot of the Utes, are now focusing on increasing the monthly base charge to protect the integrity of the system, by making sure the solar people are help paying for the infrastructure needed for when they are occasionally using the grid.
Being one who enjoys receiving the nice dividends utility preferred stocks kick out, I applaud that. But as an additional protection, I only buy "cloudy area" utility preferreds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Actually where the electric industry has be dis-integrated (de-regulated) you find bills have 2 components 1 for energy and one for distribution. Do this and much of the problem is solved, you pay rooftop owners for the energy they supply but not the distribution charge. The utility still gets the distribution charge for the energy when some other consumer uses it, so the rooftop solar owner is in exactly the same position as a generator delivering energy to the utilities substation.

 

[candrew]

I agree with you about ending the subsidies for solar power, but at the same time I'd want to end subsidies for nuclear and carbon-based power....

+1

 

[ERD50]

Some practical experience with solar panel at my camp with no utitlity power at all.

I have 2 140 W panel mounted vertically under short eaves. And a three panel harbor freight on the the roof set at about 65 degree angle. ....

The takeway:

Roof mounted panels unless mounted vertical and at least 12" off the roof surface are useless in the moderate snowy environment such as SW PA. The roof mounted panels will be moved on to a vertical wall, some output is better none.

Sunlight reflected from adjacent surfaces and snow covered roof does add to the power utput. Someday I might actually make some measurements. At this point it is a very low priority.

Very interesting. At first, I was thinking, vertical? That's not efficient. But here is a case where you are off-grid, so you are much more interested in effectiveness (getting the job done under all conditions), than efficiency (maximizing total annual output). Many people (and most 'journalists' it seems), don't understand the distinction.

About the sunlight reflecting off snow - I can't quantify it either, but it is a big deal. We have a 3-season room, no HVAC, but well insulated, and decent windows. On a cold, but sunny day with snow on the ground, it can get 30-40-F higher than ambient in there. Not nearly so much gain when the snow is off the ground.

-ERD50

 

[Theseus]

I agree with you about ending the subsidies for solar power, but at the same time I'd want to end subsidies for nuclear and carbon-based power....

+1

I would tend to agree with that, level playing fields that are at ground level, rather than the various ones being propped up at some dizzying artificial level. It is understandable why initial seed money might be distributed in some fashion, whether it be consumer rebates, industry subsidies, or direct involvement in R&D for critical needs, but for consumer-driven goods and services, at some point the marketplace can decide well enough on its own.

60 Years of Energy Incentives, Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy Development

 

[ampeep]

Vertical panels? A co-worker was involved with streetlight poles that had a flexible PV material wrap. They had built-in batteries and were off grid - seemed like a good idea where there's lots of snow or typhoons.

A few years back, researched PV streetlight panels for installation on Guam which had to withstand 170 mph winds. A few mfrs could build them, but at 4x the cost.

 

[bld999]

Speaking of payback term, here is an article about the "mortgage burning party" for Hoover dam, with a payback period of 56 years. Of course this was a tax subsidized plant.

Hoover Dam--It Will Be Paid Off in Full Today - latimes

Today the Six Companies would be expected to "Design-Build-Operate-Finance" and lastly, indemnify BuRec of every risk anyone could imagine.

I suppose the fair accounting as ERD50 mentions would include costs for peaking plants in the case where Lake Mead is no longer high enough to do the deed.

Hoover Online • Digital Archives

 

[ls99]

Vertical panels? A co-worker was involved with streetlight poles that had a flexible PV material wrap. They had built-in batteries and were off grid - seemed like a good idea where there's lots of snow or typhoons.

A few years back, researched PV streetlight panels for installation on Guam which had to withstand 170 mph winds. A few mfrs could build them, but at 4x the cost.

AFIK Guam gets no snow. In my case vertical panels are bolted to a building's wall. If the wind is strong enough to blow my building away there is not much need for solar panels.

In my case as ERD50 noted Effectiveness is far more important than maximum efficiency. BTW getting batteries recharged with the early morning sun (low angle) and using power in late afternoon early evening (low angle sun) again is very practical.

Mid day power use is minimal or very short bursts for Inverter use of power saw, drill etc. I did spend a good bit of time analyzing power use types and times BEFORE mounting the vertical panels. My Harbor freight 45 watt panels were the first to be installed on the roof for one or two LED lights early on. Was good enough for that purpose oriented for nearly optimal fall and spring solar noon.

Conventional theories are of little use when one depends entirely on solar panels for power. I hate to run generators as they disturb the peace and quiet regarless of how welll muffled, and I hate lugging gas cans. Just a personal peccadillo.

 

[ERD50]

...

I suppose the fair accounting as ERD50 mentions would include costs for peaking plants in the case where Lake Mead is no longer high enough to do the deed.

From what I understand, most hydro act as their own peaker plants. I was reading up on this recently, and came across comparison of utilization rates for different power source. IIRC, ~ 80% for coal, 90% for nukes, and obviously low numbers for the gas turbine peaker plants. But I was surprised to see hydro at some low number like 25%.

Turns out, they keep it low so it can be used for peaks. So it runs at some low % of max all night, which allows the head to build, and then they are ready for daytime peaks, and can go full throttle if needed. In some cases, they pump water back up at night, so it is available for the daytime peak.

That works out well, but hydro has other environmental issues, no free lunch there at all.

-ERD50

 

[meierlde]

AFIK Guam gets no snow. In my case vertical panels are bolted to a building's wall. If the wind is strong enough to blow my building away there is not much need for solar panels.

In my case as ERD50 noted Effectiveness is far more important than maximum efficiency. BTW getting batteries recharged with the early morning sun (low angle) and using power in late afternoon early evening (low angle sun) again is very practical.

Mid day power use is minimal or very short bursts for Inverter use of power saw, drill etc. I did spend a good bit of time analyzing power use types and times BEFORE mounting the vertical panels. My Harbor freight 45 watt panels were the first to be installed on the roof for one or two LED lights early on. Was good enough for that purpose oriented for nearly optimal fall and spring solar noon.

Conventional theories are of little use when one depends entirely on solar panels for power. I hate to run generators as they disturb the peace and quiet regarless of how welll muffled, and I hate lugging gas cans. Just a personal peccadillo.

My big concern about solar panels is hail. Hail has destroyed the roofs of neighboring houses 3 times in 25 years (twice on my house then a metal roof was put on). Just yesterday in nearby places up to 1 inch hail was expected. What would the insurance on the solar panels cost if you insured them against hail? No one talks about this but in Tx it is a big thing.

 

[ls99]

RE: Hail. I think you just made another case for vertical mounting. Easy enough to cover up if hail is expected. Like windows, a piece of plywood will suffice.

 

[CardsFan]

RE: Hail. I think you just made another case for vertical mounting. Easy enough to cover up if hail is expected. Like windows, a piece of plywood will suffice.

If those of us in fly over country put plywood over our windows every time hail was predicted, that would be all we would do for two months a year.

 

[ls99]

A good case for actually useable working and functional shutters, instead of the decorative plastic crap many houses sport.. Open and close as needed. In central europa they are found on most old houses.