# $9 heating and electric bill combined



## smwilliamson (Jan 30, 2014)

http://wabi.tv/2014/01/13/energy-efficient-homeowner-boasts-9-utility-bill/


----------



## bonesy (Jan 30, 2014)

Hmm.. seems like a no brainer, $4000 more for a home that will make that up on day one because you don't need a boiler, chimney, etc. Will also put money in your pocket each month due to such low utility bill.

So instead of spending $26,000 on a geothermal unit, I could've spent $4000 and had a home I could heat with a candle? Too good to be true? If it's that easy, don't you think everyone would be doing it?


----------



## Stevekng (Jan 30, 2014)

bonesy said:


> Hmm.. seems like a no brainer, $4000 more for a home that will make that up on day one because you don't need a boiler, chimney, etc. Will also put money in your pocket each month due to such low utility bill.


This kind of house construction is nothing new. I helped in the building of one back in the early 1970's. It was called an "envelope" house back then. The house also had geothermal heating and had a large open inside greenhouse to freshen the air because the house was so air tight.


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 30, 2014)

posted in wrong forum sorry


----------



## WoodPorn (Jan 30, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> posted in wrong forum sorry


 
Punk.......


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 30, 2014)

bonesy said:


> Hmm.. seems like a no brainer, $4000 more for a home that will make that up on day one because you don't need a boiler, chimney, etc. Will also put money in your pocket each month due to such low utility bill.
> 
> So instead of spending $26,000 on a geothermal unit, I could've spent $4000 and had a home I could heat with a candle? Too good to be true? If it's that easy, don't you think everyone would be doing it?


Try building a home without an approved central heating system in Massachusetts. In Maine you can get away with it.


----------



## moey (Jan 30, 2014)

Doesn't say anything about how many solar panels he has. Also wonder if the solar panel cost is included in the cost of home. Just sayin..


----------



## moey (Jan 30, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> Try building a home without an approved central heating system in Massachusetts. In Maine you can get away with it.



Well he could put two 1500w baseboards in and be done and call it central heating.


----------



## Don2222 (Jan 30, 2014)

Hello

No need for a wooden window sill that juts out! The wall is big enough for a nice planter!


----------



## moey (Jan 30, 2014)

Don2222 said:


> Hello
> 
> No need for a wooden window sill that juts out! The wall is big enough for a nice planter!
> 
> View attachment 125826



Also makes 02 for him to breath


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 30, 2014)

and he has some very aesthetic shelving on that house too! Just cause your home is energy efficient doesn't mean you have to live like you're in a shed. C'mon man, wheres your style?


----------



## Bioburner (Jan 30, 2014)

I think my garage has more windows. Reminds me of some old prison in Europe.


----------



## Don2222 (Jan 30, 2014)

Hello

The Tumble Weed House builders can make a home much more efficient than that. If you do not mind living in 100 Square Feet! !!
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/

It is also on wheels so if you get kicked off the property you can move on! No property taxes this way, which is much more expensive than heat!


----------



## chken (Jan 30, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> http://wabi.tv/2014/01/13/energy-efficient-homeowner-boasts-9-utility-bill/


He did a nice job. The only thing I don't like is that there are only a few tiny windows.

If you want an inexpensive house built to the passivhaus standard, for not a lot of money, look up GO logic homes. They are based out of Belfast, Maine and have won numerous national awards and been featured on all the eco house magazines, like Dwell. I believe they can design-build a turnkey home for about $150 a sqft, for triple-glazed giant German windows, R50/60 walls/roof and slab, etc. They heat with a single electric radiant baseboard, to satisfy the bank and insurance companies. Of course, a house that tight needs an HRV/ERV for fresh air exchange.

They've been building a 30 family community near Belfast, and they built the first passivhaus dorm in Unity, Maine. Lots of videos showing the whole building process.

http://www.gologic.us


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 30, 2014)

Bioburner said:


> I think my garage has more windows. Reminds me of some old prison in Europe.


back when you were doing hard time in foreign lands no doubt!


----------



## Bioburner (Jan 30, 2014)

No problem can't be solved that a suitable application of highly energetic material cant remedy.(some what politically correct version) Now back to cleaning a Countryside.


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 30, 2014)

chken said:


> He did a nice job. The only thing I don't like is that there are only a few tiny windows.
> 
> If you want an inexpensive house built to the passivhaus standard, for not a lot of money, look up GO logic homes. They are based out of Belfast, Maine and have won numerous national awards and been featured on all the eco house magazines, like Dwell. I believe they can design-build a turnkey home for about $150 a sqft, for triple-glazed giant German windows, R50/60 walls/roof and slab, etc. They heat with a single electric radiant baseboard, to satisfy the bank and insurance companies. Of course, a house that tight needs an HRV/ERV for fresh air exchange.
> 
> ...


thats still 225,000 for a 1500 sqft home! Yikes!


----------



## bearphishing (Jan 30, 2014)

hey smwilliamson im surprised you find that price so outrageous if you're from SE Mass. I find that price to be right on par with a lot of the houses around here.

Edit: I just looked at your site and saw the zip code for your company is Rehoboth. I live right near the town offices in town.....I didnt even know your business was right down the road


----------



## chken (Jan 30, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> thats still 225,000 for a 1500 sqft home! Yikes!


Yeah, not cheap, but have you looked at what you get? Triple-glazed german windows, that are huge! First rate timber frame, double and triple the insulation levels. Did you watch how they seal the place? It's easy to spend $150sqft on a new house, it's hard to find the highest quality passivhaus for that price.

I built my own house, ICFs, SIP panels, sealed all the joints, triple-glazed windows, ERVs, red cedar shingles, large-log timber frame, and believe me, it's hard to build a high-quality custom home for so little.


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 30, 2014)

bearphishing said:


> hey smwilliamson im surprised you find that price so outrageous if you're from SE Mass. I find that price to be right on par with a lot of the houses around here.
> 
> Edit: I just looked at your site and saw the zip code for your company is Rehoboth. I live right near the town offices in town.....I didn't even know your business was right down the road


Don't get me started. $225k to build a modest house is outrageous, once you've paid for the land and all of the other crap involved, site work, septic, utilities, taxes....a 1500 sqft house quickly becomes a half million. I'm kinda in the beginning stages of thinking about building....not that I really want to move but I'm curious about what my dream home would actually cost. I understand that a energy wise home may have more material or technology but if it costs twice as much and it's half the size I need...well, I'm goin to have to find a solution. You have to understand, I'm from Maine. My Dad and I built a weather tight freestanding garage that was twice as big as the home I live in now. In 1993 it cost us $27,000.00 frame to finish. I recently priced out the same structure at today's prices and it could be done for around 40k (provided I did all the building). That same structure could be be Passive Haus with some tweeking, should it really cost $180,000 more?

I just looked at some land up in VT and was budgeting that barn structure in a Passiv Haus design, I think I could get er done for $90k with land at 1500sqft, with 14 acres.

Funny hugh? I Have something like 200 Rehoboth customers yet I know nobody in Town. You must be down off Peck, Francic or Reynolds Street? My shop is down on 44, #51 Winthrop.


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 30, 2014)

chken said:


> Yeah, not cheap, but have you looked at what you get? Triple-glazed german windows, that are huge! First rate timber frame, double and triple the insulation levels. Did you watch how they seal the place? It's easy to spend $150sqft on a new house, it's hard to find the highest quality passivhaus for that price.
> 
> I built my own house, ICFs, SIP panels, sealed all the joints, triple-glazed windows, ERVs, red cedar shingles, large-log timber frame, and believe me, it's hard to build a high-quality custom home for so little.


Perhaps I'm being way too Yankee about the whole thing. I saw a cordwood home design in person that had walls rated to R40. The only thing they used that didn't come from the parcel the structure was on was plastic sheeting and hydrolic cement. The walls were 24" thick and gorgeous! See if I can dig up that photo...


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 30, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> Perhaps I'm being way too Yankee about the whole thing. I saw a cordwood home design in person that had walls rated to R40. The only thing they used that didn't come from the parcel the structure was on was plastic sheeting and hydrolic cement. The walls were 24" thick and gorgeous! See if I can dig up that photo...


Here it was...attended a cordwood building seminar here.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/07/19/garden/20120719-CORDWOOD-11.html


----------



## Bioburner (Jan 30, 2014)

I've seen some pictures of some nice cordwood homes in Europe. Some very old.


----------



## chken (Jan 30, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> Perhaps I'm being way too Yankee about the whole thing. I saw a cordwood home design in person that had walls rated to R40. The only thing they used that didn't come from the parcel the structure was on was plastic sheeting and hydrolic cement. The walls were 24" thick and gorgeous! See if I can dig up that photo...


I'm all for cheaper homes that are well built and well insulated. But a super insulated turnkey home for $150sqft is the cheapest I've seen by far. Of course you can do it for less if you do a lot of the work yourself.


----------



## Bioburner (Jan 30, 2014)

I know of two all ICF homes. Would be a good idea for hurricane area too. I have ICF basement with r-60 walls. If I build again will give that option serious consideration.


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 30, 2014)

This was the barn we built, from this company. Love this company a lot. Been following them for years. Nicest people you ever met and they deliver a great value, all you have to do is pay them and start swinging the hammer

http://www.shelter-kit.com/about.php


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 30, 2014)

just so the thread doesn't get ash canned....if I build one I am going to install a pellet stove


----------



## Bioburner (Jan 30, 2014)

If I build again I would build a pellet stove with a smaller burn pot and burn rate of  1/2 pound an hour. Might do it anyway and take it with to TX or FL for those cool nights.


----------



## WiscWoody (Jan 30, 2014)

Bioburner said:


> I know of two all ICF homes. Would be a good idea for hurricane area too. I have ICF basement with r-60 walls. If I build again will give that option serious consideration.


My basement in northern Wisconsin is built with Logix ICF but I don't think it is close to R60.


----------



## Bioburner (Jan 31, 2014)

MN changed the standard as I was building and upped the thickness for the cement. Increased the cost of course. I don't think 2 more inches of reinforced cement would make a difference. Another reason MN is the third most business unfriendly state.  Have to use a Radon mitigation system on the sump as radon was really high. Now the air is measuring very low radon levels. Love the in floor heating.


----------



## WoodPorn (Jan 31, 2014)

I am pregnant with SMWilliamson's well insulated pellet baby.....


----------



## bearphishing (Jan 31, 2014)

Yeah I guess if you look at it like that and have the means of constructing yourself then yes, it is quite overpriced. I recently just moved to Rehoboth (I'm on Peck St and if you are ever on the road you will more than likely see the truck from my picture in the driveway) and I've noticed that people really keep to themselves around here which is not the worst thing. People move out here for privacy and a different way of life when compared to the surrounding towns. 

Well my name is Matt, and I might be in need of your services someday. I'm new to the pellet stove community but from this site alone, I have gained an unbelievable amount of knowledge from what others have experienced. Maybe I will pop my head in sometime soon to see if I could pick your brain a bit on some issues I'm having.


----------



## Stevekng (Jan 31, 2014)

WoodPorn said:


> I am pregnant with SMWilliamson's well insulated pellet baby.....


That's just not right


----------



## jebatty (Feb 1, 2014)

> Another reason [thicker concrete] MN is the third most business unfriendly state. Have to use a Radon mitigation system on the sump as radon was really high. Now the air is measuring very low radon levels.


I've always associated thicker concrete with being hard on business. And I do love lots of Radon, great for a naturally healthy environment, as Radon is very natural. Too bad the business unfriendly state made you get rid of healthy Radon. Your family will lose the glow you would have wanted to nurture.


----------



## WoodPorn (Feb 1, 2014)

jebatty said:


> I've always associated thicker concrete with being hard on business. And I do love lots of Radon, great for a naturally healthy environment, as Radon is very natural. Too bad the business unfriendly state made you get rid of healthy Radon. Your family will lose the glow you would have wanted to nurture.


WTF does this mean??


----------



## jebatty (Feb 1, 2014)

Just "agreeing" with Bioburner a couple of posts above.


----------



## DougA (Feb 1, 2014)

I used to have a 4x8' sign by the highway that was using $5. worth of electricity a month and lit only from dusk to dawn. The quarterly bill came to $50., which was $15. power and $35. admin BS. The rates in our area went up and it was billed monthly and the bill was $55. per month and still only using $5. of power. I pulled the plug and told them to stick it somewhere. Got a quote for a small solar panel, battery and lights. I thought $500. should do it, the kit was way over a grand! Nope.

My brother in law installed solar panels covering the entire south side of his 4,000+ sf. ranch house. I think it was 23 panels. Even with that, the power from the panels does not generate 100% of his yearly electrical needs. The gov't pays him $.82 KW yet the retail selling rate of power in our region is well under $.10 KW.  So he makes money by selling it for 8 times what he buys it for. If it wasn't for gov't subsidy, the panels would never pay for themselves.

In 1983, I built one of the first super insulated homes in the region. Double walls R45 and R60 in much of the ceiling.  IF I wanted to live without a toaster, oven, coffee maker, a/c, computers,etc., then maybe I too could live cheap using only my wood stove.

What I'm saying is that the story is a lot of BS.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 1, 2014)

Our goal is for solar electric + wood to meet 100% of our home energy needs. Annual electric was about 11,300 kwh, even after good effort at reducing usage. Our solar is estimated to provide 9000 kwh annual average, so our electric goal is 9000 kwh annual (general service, dhw, supplemental heat) starting with Nov 2013. We have renewed our effort to further reduce usage, BUT maintain quality of life. Quality does not, however, equal waste, and I am hopeful our goal will be realized.


----------



## DougA (Feb 1, 2014)

80% is about what I believe is normal and I have seen that number used many times.  It is workable, with a fair bit of effort (and wood heat), to be close to energy efficient in a specially built home with a family dedicated to energy self sufficiency in many parts of the US.  As soon as you get into areas of extreme heat or cold, the equation flies out the triple glazed window.  Running a/c is a hydro nightmare and no wood stove is going to help in a heat wave in July. There is no way you will ever convince the majority of people in the southern states that they can live without a/c in the summer. Even our home in Southern Ontario with all the insulation and fresh county air at night is impossible for us to live in during a heat wave when the humidity is high unless we turn on the a/c. 

The reality is that very few people (as a % of population) can heat with wood or pellets and few people can install solar in their residence. Without substantial government subsidies, solar is not realistic and all the numbers I have ever seen from science (not solar promoters) bear this out. The countries in Europe that have heavily subsidized solar & wind and now getting severe backlash as so many have proven to be unpopular due to the burden on taxes and the serious health concerns with wind turbines. Spain has halted major solar projects altogether due to the severe tax drain. 

Few homes in cities are built to work well with wood heat and few are oriented correctly to use solar in any meaningful way.  The stats that I found was that over 50% of the US population lives in apartments or multi-family dwellings, which make the use of either of these next to impossible.

I'm all for energy conservation but to be sustainable, it has to be done in a realistic, honest way that home owners can see the clear advantages without gov't intervention.  Adding insulation, getting rid of old a/c's, furnaces, fridges, etc. can be shown to pay for upgrades within a handful of years. Sadly, whenever the gov't gets involved, costs rise due to the stupidity and waste of all gov'ts. Not being political, just a fact that big gov't is a wasteful system. The switch to LED lights should have taken place years ago. If everyone got rid of all incandescent lights, a fair number of power plants in the US could be shut down tomorrow.

I'm not trying to put a damper on your effort to be energy efficient. I would like to see more effort made to help convince the 10's of millions who can't build an energy efficient house find the easy ways to be more energy efficient and save $$


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 1, 2014)

Doug, it is not clear to me that your couple anecdotes from southern ontario, and what you read about Europe justifies your global pessimism about solar.  Don't know what the solar resource, electric prices, PV installers, and incentives look like up there, but there appear to be a lot of markets in the lower 48 (not to mention HI) where rooftop solar currently has great payback at market rates for kWh, some of them without tax rebates.  But I suppose I'll let hearthers with PV discuss it with you....


----------



## DougA (Feb 1, 2014)

I'd be thrilled to see some real stats on payback when there are zero subsidies in New England, NY, MI, MN, etc. Have not found any other than the BS ones. Hydro rates in Ont are some of the highest in North America and where I am, is either the same or lower latitude than the states I listed. 

In our area, the payback without subsidy is so long that the panels will be well past their life expectancy.


----------



## Circus (Feb 1, 2014)

DougA said:


> Without substantial government subsidies, solar is not realistic and all the numbers I have ever seen from science (not solar promoters) bear this out.


 
Governments like to promote common good issues, to get votes, then make everyone ineligible, to get special interest money. Easiest way to squelch self interest is expensive qualifiers for a subsidy. Non qualifying solar schemes are cheap to build and work quite well


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 1, 2014)

Ok Doug.  Let's see.  Let's say that the install cost $X/Watt, and grid power costs $Y/kWh.  To achieve simple payback requires operating the system at nominal output power for T run hours, where T = 1000*(X/Y).  In most of the locations you mention, a flat plate facing south tilted to the latitude will have an output of roughly 1500 run hours of nominal output per year.  Thus T in calendar years is roughly (1000/1500)*(X/Y), or about 0.67*X/Y.

So, if your installed price was $4/W (a common value pre-rebate in many locations last year), and you pay $0.18/kWh for grid power, then your simple payback is: 

T = 0.67*4/0.18 = *14.9 years*.  This is less than the life expectancy of the panels (but prob not the inverters).

In your example, assume that your friend bought a few years ago from an expensive installer and got no rebates, let's say $10/W.  You say he is getting paid $0.82/kWh.  His simple payback would be:

T = 0.67*10/0.82 = *8.2 years*.  I am sorry that his panels will not last that long.


----------



## DougA (Feb 1, 2014)

"Non qualifying solar schemes are cheap to build and work quite well"

I'm not convinced. If you are off grid, then yes, I see no doubt that it beats propane, etc. hands down. If you are on grid, I'm still sceptical until I see proven data. 

I forgot to mention other problems. With my brother in laws installation, his home insurance company found out and they were immediately cut off and forced to find another company in a day - at much higher premiums. Also, when they have to replace the shingles on the roof (yup, coming up soon),  the contract stipulates that they must hire the installation contractor to unmount the panels, remove the entire system from the roof and then re-install everything after the roof is re-shingled. Just another way the contractors wring every drop of blood out of you.


----------



## DougA (Feb 1, 2014)

I know for a fact his payback, even at $.82 is something close to 15 years. Then add the re-roofing I just posted. Now, you're closer to 20. 

Your post is exactly why I am skeptical. The math does not work out in real life in any installation I have info on.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 1, 2014)

Doug - you have strong feelings and opinions, I'm not sure where they are coming from, and there is nothing wrong with feelings and opinions, except that the facts show they may be misplaced, at least in my situation, the only situation with which I have intimate knowledge.


> 80% is about what I believe is normal and I have seen that number used many times.  It is workable, with a fair bit of effort (and wood heat), to be close to energy efficient in a specially built home with a family dedicated to energy self sufficiency in many parts of the US.  As soon as you get into areas of extreme heat or cold, the equation flies out the triple glazed window.


This doesn't fit me. The equation has not flown out of the window. The year prior to out solar install we used 11,300 kwh, and that was after substantial effort to reduce usage. Our current goal is further reduction to 9000 kwh. In nine more months I will let you know how we did. The goal is household energy 100% wood and solar for heat and electric needs. We are dedicated to conservation, cutting costs closer to what's needed rather than wanted. We simply look at this as money in our pockets for other important things.

We live in an area of extreme cold (regular periods of -20'sF and -30'sF) and brief periods of extreme heat and humidity (1-2 weeks during the summer, +90F). Our home was built in 1956, not specially built at all, and we have added insulation and upgraded windows; 1500 sq ft + 1500 sq ft basement. Wood heat (4 cords of aspen) now meets 80% of our space heating requirement. I look to solar to fill in the 20% plus meet other electric needs for dhw and general service. No LP, NG, or oil fuels at all.


> Running a/c is a hydro nightmare .... Even our home in Southern Ontario with all the insulation and fresh county air at night is impossible for us to live in during a heat wave when the humidity is high unless we turn on the a/c.


I assume So Ontario was well populated before there was a/c. It is completely possible for people to live without it, always has been. Not everyone can afford a/c. I'm not suggesting that a/c does not provide great comfort. I'm glad you have the income to buy that level of comfort. We have no a/c and won't get it, although many of our neighbors have it and enjoy its benefits. I suspect most of them would say too that it is impossible to live without it.


> The reality is that very few people (as a % of population) can heat with wood or pellets and few people can install solar in their residence. Without substantial government subsidies, solar is not realistic and all the numbers I have ever seen from science (not solar promoters) bear this out.


I don't know the truth of this on a national basis. I know where I live a great many people heat with wood or pellets. Modern wood gasification boilers and furnaces are very low in emissions. Cost-wise they are competitive and from a cost of energy perspective they are significantly less expensive than all fossil fuel sources.

Solar is realistic without subsidies, and if subsidies and govt benefits for fossil fuel energy sources would be eliminated, solar would be even more realistic without subsidies. Solar subsidies are a tiny fraction of subsidies and benefits for fossil fuel energy sources. In a level playing field solar will win almost every time. In Minnesota a recent non-subsidized solar installation bid for $250 million was less expensive than bids for the same power fueled by fossil fuels, primarily natural gas.

A major issue impeding faster expansion of solar is a cultural mindset that the investment should pay off in just a few years. No coal, nuclear, or hydro power plant was ever built or would be built if it had to pay off in a few years. These are major investments with life spans of 30 years and longer. So is solar, and viewed properly in the long term solar, even at today's prices, is a very good investment.


> Few homes in cities are built to work well with wood heat and few are oriented correctly to use solar in any meaningful way.  The stats that I found was that over 50% of the US population lives in apartments or multi-family dwellings, which make the use of either of these next to impossible.


Probably true in part, but no one is suggesting that every residence have its own wood heating appliance and its own solar array. Heat energy from biofuels on a district basis is very feasible. Solar in large arrays of power plant capacities are the future.


> Sadly, whenever the gov't gets involved, costs rise due to the stupidity and waste of all gov'ts.... The switch to LED lights should have taken place years ago. If everyone got rid of all incandescent lights, a fair number of power plants in the US could be shut down tomorrow.


You can't have it both ways. Govt imposed energy standards have been the driver to more efficient lighting and the end of incandescent light. Not govt stupid and not govt wasteful. No govt = anarchy, and no society has survived as an anarchy.


> I'm not trying to put a damper on your effort to be energy efficient. I would like to see more effort made to help convince the 10's of millions who can't build an energy efficient house find the easy ways to be more energy efficient and save $$


Thank you, and I agree.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 1, 2014)

DougA said:


> I know for a fact his payback, even at $.82 is something close to 15 years. Then add the re-roofing I just posted. Now, you're closer to 20.
> 
> Your post is exactly why I am skeptical. The math does not work out in real life in any installation I have info on.



Ok.  Based on your additional info, we can estimate that his installation cost can be computed from 15 = 0.67*X/0.82.  Looks like it comes out over $18/W.  How does the math not work??  Also, most PV installers in the US will tell you to put on a new roof before the install.
Also keep in mind that all this is assuming *no* tax rebates....the rebates make the payback much more favorable.

So, it sounds like your BIL hired a very expensive installer, who happily put panels on a roof that was near the end of its life, and neither your BIL nor his installer called the ins co until after the job was complete.  I'm sorry about your BIL's situation, but what does that have to do with PV installs elsewhere in NA, esp ones that typically cost just 25% as much as his?

http://www.pv-tech.org/editors_blog...vitational_pull_pushes_national_prices_higher


----------



## jebatty (Feb 1, 2014)

> Doug: I'd be thrilled to see some real stats on payback when there are zero subsidies in ... MN.... Have not found any other than the BS ones.... In our area, the payback without subsidy is so long that the panels will be well past their life expectancy.


You won't be surprised to know that I was interested in payback on my system. I expected a longer payback than at the $4/watt install standard because I had to do a ground mount, underground wiring 280 feet to my house, etc., and my install cost came to $4.59/watt. All work was contracted, not done by myself. The cost is a real number. I get a 30% federal tax credit which reduces my cost to $22,400, or $3.21/watt.

Attached is a chart showing my payback at year 20, far less than the life expectancy of the panels. And most interesting, after 20 years the payback far exceeds a standard competitive investment. At year 30 the solar system is $16,000 ahead in present value dollar over a CD investment.

You may think 20 years is too long. Why? No one would build an infrastructure power plant of any kind without a lifespan of more than 20 years. If solar payback was 5 years, as it may be in some states with greater incentives, IMO no rational person would not put in solar if the site permitted it. And if not, the rational person would be an investor in an off-site large solar system serving many consumers. Solar pays.

Here are the assumptions for the calculations based on historical 20 year averages:
Average 5-year CD interest rate the last 20 years = 3.75%
Average inflation (discount) rate the last 20 years = 3.5%
Federal tax rate, current, not expected to change = 25%
Annual panel derate/yr = 0.5%
Current kwh rate ($0.108 x 1.06875 sales tax) = $0.115
Average annual energy cost increase the last 20 years = 5%


----------



## DougA (Feb 1, 2014)

I had a quick look at your link to PV-TECH http://www.pv-tech.org/editors_blog...vitational_pull_pushes_national_prices_higher
That is almost entirely made up of BofD from the Solar Industry. I have no use for anything spewed out from the industry that's sole purpose  is to advertise itself.

Please post me a link to something from Science/Academia that does not have a grant from the solar industry. I'm not being pessimistic when I'm asking for supporting documentation that is non-partisan, just want to get to the truth.

I will try to get to the rest of the answers when I get more time to look through the info. We've got yet another storm here and I've now plowed the 800' driveway three times and it'll need it twice again tonight.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 1, 2014)

DougA said:


> I had a quick look at your link to PV-TECH http://www.pv-tech.org/editors_blog...vitational_pull_pushes_national_prices_higher
> That is almost entirely made up of BofD from the Solar Industry. I have no use for anything spewed out from the industry that's sole purpose  is to advertise itself.
> 
> Please post me a link to something from Science/Academia that does not have a grant from the solar industry. I'm not being pessimistic when I'm asking for supporting documentation that is non-partisan, just want to get to the truth.
> ...



I thought you'd like that link.....

Ok, I found a reputable source for relevant pricing info.  The blog post is summarizing info from a major report prepared by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab under a govt contract.  I consider it to be a Science/Academia source.

You declare my info source (LBNL) partisan and BS.  Now you request I find another one.  That's not how it works....now its *your* turn to come up with a more reputable information source that indicates that PV installers are charging far more than $4/W. (I suspect the IRS will be interested in this info). So much more that all PV technology is BS.  Or tell us where my simple payback (or Jim's nice Net Present Value) math is incorrect.

Be safe in the storm.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Feb 1, 2014)

Bioburner said:


> I think my garage has more windows. Reminds me of some old prison in Europe.


Id go with bigger and more windows and some kind of insulated closable shutters inside. On the few winter days(and nights) thats cloudy and cold you could close them up for the better insulation. 98 % of the rest of the year you could enjoy the light and the view.


----------



## DougA (Feb 2, 2014)

OK, this is the first quote I found doing a simple Google search:

"Let's Be Realistic About Solar Economics Today
*Solar electricity still costs more than fossil fuel electricity.* Despite the fact that sunshine is free, it is still economically impossible to invest in a photovoltaic (PV) system and beat the per unit price advantage utilities have achieved for power generation through economies of scale and the low cost of traditional fossil fuel technologies. The installed cost per watt for PV technology continues to go down, but it has not yet reached a competitive level. This is why the simple payback calculation will consistently yield a discouraging result when used to analyze the return-on-investment for a residential renewable energy system."
Source: http://www.ecw.org/wisconsun/learn/learn_payback.shtml

They go on to say:
*"Increasing energy efficiency remains the most cost effective way to reduce the impact of fossil fuel use."*

I certainly don't disagree with that and I doubt anyone would. An added perspective is that buying new fridges and a/c units helps the economy in America, compared to PV units that are primarily made in China.  Helping the US economy helps all of us by lowering taxes and lowering the debt, in addition to helping the environment.

Next is the Minnesota Dept of Natural Resources Solar Payback Calculator: 
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/energysmart/solar_payback_calculator.htm
This should be somewhere near you jebatty.  I used Minneapolis with $.12 KWh for electricity rate since that's the national average number I could find (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state) plus 25 KW system, $4. PV cost /watt, zero rebates and 2% inflation and price increase with zero maintenance. The payback is 21 years or 3% ROI. If I got 3% ROI on any investment, I would fire the fund manager. My wife got 16% last year for her retirement fund and it's a conservative fund.  Last year, the DJIA was 25.41% The returns for stock markets in the past 5 years are: DJIA 12.95%; S&P500 15.20% NASDAQ  21.33%. I've done a some searching for the current cost of solar panel systems and I can't find an accurate number.  Either the information is outdated (see burning cutlery below) or industry BS.  I want something that takes into account the recent costs with imposed anti dumping charges, inspections, and especially the cost of panels if they were manufactured without gov't rebates or incentives.  I strongly suspect that you cannot buy panels that have not been made without gov't assistance. I used the $4. provided because I can't refute it (yet). So, really, if you are getting 3% ROI and could have got 13% by putting your money into DJIA, you are losing 10% /year for the last 5 years. That's a BAD investment looking just for a $$ point of view.

In your chart, you are using a 5% increase in electricity rates but 3.5% inflation and 3.75% investment. All of these are BS. No one can project the increase in hydro prices but tying it to the rate of inflation would be more fair.  The avg. rate of inflation in the US for the past 5 years is 1.736%, so I used 2% for both. 

Even though I believe the payback is closer to 30+ yrs without gov't incentives, the bottom line is that I consider 21 year payback to not be viable for the vast majority of people. You disagree and that's your choice but the general public agree with me and that's why so few solar installations are being constructed, even with gov't rebates. It has just not become widely accepted. If it were a 10 yr. payback, everyone would be doing it, don't you think?  No doubt the fiasco of fed $$ into failed solar mfgs. and the conviction of China for dumping solar panels on the US market has had some impact. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-10/u-s-sets-anti-dumping-duties-on-china-solar-imports.html

Here's another consumer installation: http://burningcutlery.com/solar/ 
Great site with lots of info. Their cost was $9. KW prior to any gov't rebates. Only after you add in all the rebates of 65% of the total cost did they manage to work out a payback of 12 years. Without rebates, the payback becomes impossible. Also, they clearly show photos of snow covered panels, which can be cleared if you are willing and able. In my brother in laws case, he's 62 and in ill health. That's an added cost (or lack of power & $$) if you have to hire someone to clear them. Also, it a fairly dangerous job with a fair expectation of problems. 

The other factor is the value or cost of the system both through it's life span plus at the end of it's life. As my brother in law found out, it costs a great deal to remove the panels and reshingle when they are installed on a roof. There is also the upkeep and maintenance. He's already had 2 panels that have become defective and were replaced under warranty but once the warranty expires, the panels become expensive to replace. The BIG concern I have is the rapid changes in the industry with new technology making the old systems cost in-effective and the resulting disposal of them. I don't know anyone who does not believe that we will see significant changes in the industry in the very near future. Investing significant $$ in a system today IMHO is just not wise IF you are already have easy access to the grid. 

Lastly, using a PV system is only viable when can rely upon power from the grid to provide power when there is no sun or unless you invest substantial $$ in a battery system. Both solar and wind power generation have real drawbacks. In our area, the high cost of electricity in the winter is early morning (7-9 am) and early evening (5-7 pm). Exactly when solar panels are producing nothing. Funny that. So, if your panels are producing power at non-peak times, when no one is home, how much value does it really have when you use the power at other times?

BTW, I have no idea what the breakdown of costs were for my brother in laws system. I have not been to his house in 2 years and not spoken of the system since them. I do get to hear 'things' when my wife talks to her sister though. I know he almost fell off the roof when shovelling snow off the grid.  I've got 2,000 sf of flat roof facing south and the solar salesmen (vultures) have called on us a few times. I had a long discussion one and the guy knew very, very little - just how to make a sale. I am not anti gov't but as I stated earlier, IMHO, gov't money is better spent on people reducing their power usage though conservation than supporting PV or wind turbines.  In Ontario, there's been a HUGE outcry over the thousand plus wind generators that have been installed and property values near them have plummeted.  That's another discussion entirely. 

I will jump when the price of PV systems come down to a realistic level and the output comes up to a realistic level. Until then, I use as little power during peak hours as possible and keep the wood stove running hard.

Back to you


----------



## DBoon (Feb 2, 2014)

DougA said:


> So, really, if you are getting 3% ROI and could have got 13% by putting your money into DJIA, you are losing 10% /year for the last 5 years. That's a BAD investment looking just for a $$ point of view.



For what it's worth, I just checked the annualized total return of the Vanguard S&P 500 Index fund from 11/13/2000 (inception) to January 31, 2014.  It is 4.10%.   I suspect that if I could go back 20 years it would not be much better.  And this is not a guaranteed return.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 3, 2014)

Doug - Your DJIA numbers are interesting but bogus. You use the same numbers that my brokerage company uses to convince me how much money I'm making. And conveniently the broker talks big during boom periods but falls silent when the market falls. When inflation is taken into account and the focus is on real rate of return, constant value dollars, and using your DJIA averages, you better fire your fund manager right now:


> Doug: If I got 3% ROI on any investment, I would fire the fund manager. My wife got 16% last year for her retirement fund and it's a conservative fund. Last year, the DJIA was ...


because* "The historical DJIA average real return is just 1.9% per year."* http://johnvashonblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/real-djia-returns-adjusted-for-inflation-startling/ And even this 1.9% real rate of return is an overstatement because it fails to take into account taxes which still must be paid on that return.

I've computed the real rate of return on my chart using 20 year averages as a basis for valuing the investment. And the rate of return on a home solar system is tax free. Over the long term a 3% tax free ROI, and just about guaranteed as good as anything can be guaranteed, always beats the market.

Your argument reminds of the run-up in real estate values. I recall over a 3 year period the market value of our home jumped 35% in one year, 25% the next, and another 15% the third year. Every rational person knew this was bogus. Yet the funny money and greed drove a feeding frenzy. Then all *ell broke loose and the housing market along with the economy tanked with great fears of total collapse.

From the same source quoted above: *"Take the 12 year period from 2000 to 2012. The DJIA moved from 11,497 to 13,104 for an increase of 14%. But after inflation of 25% during the same period, the real return was negative with a loss in purchasing power of 13%!"*

I am very comfortable with my tax free ROI. I have nearly erased the cost of energy as a factor in my life. And I now need to quote my son: *"Solar is a good hedge against inflation. Financial independence is just having more coming in than going out. I see the wisdom in controlling outflow. Outflow can be predicted/prevented by securing a supply of necessities. Once the supply is secure, the effect of the economy as a whole has less influence on the individual. No need to worry about the markets if your necessities are met."*


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 3, 2014)

Doug, your first link from Wisconsin is from *2004*, and assumes a $10/W after rebate install price.  The current no-rebate price is 2.5X better than they used.  Your final link is from a *2007* install that costs more like $8/W.

As for snow....in my area and much of the midwest, the 3 months of winter have only about 10% of the annual solar resource.  Not removing snow might hurt your bottom line about 10% or so.  And a lot of folks up there remove snow from their rooves with long handled snow rakes, from the ground.  Safe if you can handle the rake.  Sounds like you could give your BIL some useful advice if he talked to you.

And everyone here would agree with you that energy efficiency comes first, and has better payback than PV.  We disagree with you that PV is a viable strategy, in some markets, often using available rebates, to further reduce (fossil) energy use.

Unsurprisingly, this discussion has devolved into one not of whether PV pays for itself, but whether it beats Wall Street.  Jim covered the real earnings issue: PV returns are inflation corrected if you assume elec tracks inflation. And tax free.

If your wife made 16% on her IRA last year, this suggests she is 50:50 bonds and stocks, and the bonds were flat while the DJIA was up more like 30% with dividends.  I would expect savvy investors to consider their investment in PV to be equivalent to a bond investment, zero risk, low guaranteed return, or perhaps better like an I-bond, and to adjust their asset allocation accordingly.


----------



## Ehouse (Feb 3, 2014)

Circus said:


> Governments like to promote common good issues, to get votes, then make everyone ineligible, to get special interest money. Easiest way to squelch self interest is expensive qualifiers for a subsidy. Non qualifying solar schemes are cheap to build and work quite well[/quot





Circus said:


> Governments like to promote common good issues, to get votes, then make everyone ineligible, to get special interest money. Easiest way to squelch self interest is expensive qualifiers for a subsidy. Non qualifying solar schemes are cheap to build and work quite well




+1


----------



## DougA (Feb 3, 2014)

The figures for DJIA, etc. came from this site: www.measuringworth.com/DJIA_SP_NASDAQ/
I used: December 31 2008 to January 2, 2014 If this info is inaccurate, let me know and I will report it. Otherwise, what you guys are blabbing about with lower #'s  is garbage. I clearly said that my wife's return was 16% in a conservative fund. It's her $$, she's retirement age so her option. 

To me, this has little to do with comparing PV to other investments. It has everything to do with PV being far too expensive for the value received. A 20+ yr. payback IMHO stinks and I can't find any data anywhere that says you get a faster payback unless gov't money is used. Actually, I can find a lot of information that the payback is much more than 20 yrs with gov't funding.

When i used the chart, I adjusted the cost to $4. - exactly as I stated.


DougA said:


> 25 KW system, $4. PV cost /watt, zero rebates and 2% inflation and price increase with zero maintenance



Yes, the information is old but the chart works perfectly once you have made the adjustments.




woodgeek said:


> And everyone here would agree with you that energy efficiency comes first, and has better payback than PV. We disagree with you that PV is a viable strategy, in some markets, often using available rebates, to further reduce (fossil) energy use.



Agreed EXCEPT that I disagree with gov't rebates. I would also agree that in more southern areas, PV may indeed pay for itself without rebates and certainly for off-grid, PV is the number 1 choice.

Circus quote again: 
Governments like to promote common good issues, to get votes, then make everyone ineligible, to get special interest money. Easiest way to squelch self interest is expensive qualifiers for a subsidy. Non qualifying solar schemes are cheap to build and work quite well

Yup, agree there too. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, a conservationist and half way to an environmentalist. I still DO NOT want gov't rebates on PV. Rebates create an artificially high price and demand that is timed to only work with rebates. Let the industry work harder to bring prices down where it can sustain itself.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 3, 2014)

DougA said:


> I'm a bleeding heart liberal, a conservationist and half way to an environmentalist. I still DO NOT want gov't rebates on PV. Rebates create an artificially high price and demand that is timed to only work with rebates. Let the industry work harder to bring prices down where it can sustain itself.



Based on your BIL's experience, I would feel the same way.  But I think you are describing the situation in Ontario.  Or Spain 5 years ago.  Or Solar DHW in the US 35 years ago (or today for that matter).  There can be bad incentives that make for messed up markets and vulture contractors (your word).

Sounds like you are in support of PV if it were cheap enough to reach grid parity (cheaper that current market grid power) w/o subsidies.  We are trying to tell you that that has already happened in several markets in the US.  Right now that $4/W installed, pre-rebate, (which you seem to think is in doubt, despite coming from a 'Science/Academia source without industry funding') will get you there. You want ROI?  Go read about PV in Hawaii or the desert Southwest.  And of the $4/W, the panels themselves are now just $1/W!  The rest is permitting and installation (and inverters).  That can vary immensely WRT local COL and govt bureaucracy, as described in the LBL link above.

Are we saying that your BIL didn't get took?  No, he got took by a shady installer who only exists b/c of the messed up incentives up there.

Lastly, I think you moved the goalposts from 'payback' to 'beats Wall Street'.  Very few people have 100% of their cash in index funds....most have a good chunk (or all of it) in bonds, CDs etc.  Jim is arguing that those folks could do better to move some of that chunk into PV, and assuming they get a good installer and quote, beat the returns at equally low risk.


----------



## DougA (Feb 3, 2014)

Are you referring to: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-rele...the-u-s-continues-to-decline-at-a-rapid-pace/  ???

If so, this is what I read: "The report indicates that the median installed price of PV systems completed in 2012 was $5.30/W for residential and small commercial systems smaller than 10 kilowatts (kW) in size and was $4.60/W for commercial systems of 100 kW or more in size. " 

plus "The study also highlights the significant variability in PV system pricing. For example, among PV systems less than 10 kW in size and completed in 2012, 20 percent of systems had an installed price less than $4.50/W while another 20 percent were priced above $6.50/W.
This variability is partly associated with differences in pricing across states, where the median installed price of PV systems less than 10 kW ranged from $3.90/W to $5.90/W in 2012. "

I did some further research and made a few calls to see what my cost would be. Hadn't done that in a few years. With the gov't rebates via mandates to the electrical utility to buy my power at 10 times the cost of wholesale power and 4x the cost of retail power, I can indeed buy a system that will pay for itself in 6 years. The installed price is indeed just below $4./W.  If you remove the rebates (at least in my case) the payback is 24 years.  That still does not account for the rebates that have gone to the manufacturers directly. In Ontario, the gov't (of the time) signed a contract giving Samsung ONE BILLION DOLLARS to build a plant in the province. The contract cannot be cancelled without huge cancellation costs. Ya think I like that??  I still cannot find anything that shows me that a residential PV system, properly installed without any gov't rebates will pay for itself in anything under 20 years in the northern states/southern Canada.

Here's the best link that summarizes my opposition perfectly:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/29/blame-solar-for-sky-high-ontario-power-bills/
Quote, "In 2013, solar projects caused electricity bills to be about $550-million higher than they would otherwise have been." This does not even account for substantial rebates elsewhere in the system, only the cost of power. Is it fair that my neighbours pay for my solar system? Is it fair that I make a profit off my neighbours who do not have a roof that will work with a PV system? That bothers me A LOT.

Another link with firefighter's concerns: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/winds...se-dangers-ontario-firefighters-say-1.1700070


----------



## DougA (Feb 3, 2014)

I just wanted to add the whole comparison with DJIA is not about where to invest money. My assumption is that very few of us have the cash on hand to buy a complete solar system. The comparison is that you need to factor in the cost of borrowing that money. And if you are borrowing it, are you not farther ahead to invest it and end up with enough money in 20 years that you can buy a whole PV system with cash and still have lots left over to buy a car. 

This discussion has prompted me to check into the current cost and payback as mentioned in my last post. I have sent in my info to see IF my address qualifies for the gov't program. If it does, I will have to wrestle with the moral dilemma of whether my neighbours should pay me to use solar.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 3, 2014)

On the contrary, having to borrow the money makes the whole deal much harder to turn a profit. I think there are plenty of folks with the cash on hand to buy a solar system, and trying to find safe, inflation hedged investments. 

Sounds like ON is using a different model than the US to promote solar.  The $1/W panels I buy from China do not have a US rebate hidden in them. The other $3/W goes to US-based installers, accountants and inspectors.  And then I sell my kWh to the grid for the same rate they sell kWh to my neighbor. The only go'vt involvement is a tax rebate that might pay me back upfront for $1-2/W.  From the gov't point of view, it might also look like a good investment.

In the ON deal, how long will they pay me $.82/kWh, forever, or does it phase out?


----------



## DougA (Feb 3, 2014)

The .82 was for the full 20 yr. contract and is now gone, due to public outcry. The Premier (same as Governor) quit when the sh*t hit the fan. The current deal is .42 for a 20 yr. contract. At the end of 20 yrs. you either buy batteries or sell the system as scrap. The utility has the right to unhook you at the end of the contract.  To be fair, the .42 is almost identical and perhaps better. The panels are better now and the cost is less than half of what they were.
So, I pay $30K for a system and then the taxpayer is on the hook for $60K total in the last 12 yrs. The taxpayers are already under water for the program. From the article: "By the end of 2014, solar will be costing Ontarians $1.25-billion per year – while generating a paltry 2% of Ontario’s total electricity requirement."  Maybe you get an idea where my anger comes from.



woodgeek said:


> I think there are plenty of folks with the cash on hand


 I didn't realize that people were so wealthy now. lol


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Feb 3, 2014)

DougA said:


> I didn't realize that people were so wealthy now. lol


Lots of older retired folks out there making squat on their investments. .25% saving accounts ect . Anything with a return in whole numbers looks good nowadays.
And every $1 saved in reduced bills is another part of $1 in all the associated taxes and fees. For wage earners its even worse, as they need to earn $1.50 or more for every $1 they get to bring home.


----------



## DougA (Feb 3, 2014)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Lots of older retired folks out there making squat on their investments. .25% saving accounts ect . Anything with a return in whole numbers looks good nowadays. And every $1 saved in reduced bills is another part of $1 in all the associated taxes and fees. For wage earners its even worse, as they need to earn $1.50 or more for every $1 they get to bring home.



Yes & no. Lots of retired people are afraid to put their savings into a fund and feel safer in an almost zero interest bond. It's their choice but our choice is a balanced fund that makes half as much as the DJIA with a lot less risk. It is a sad fact though that they counted on a reasonable retirement and got shafted by Wall St. greed.
The second part is my argument against gov't funding for solar installations. The industry needs to survive without tax money. I'm no tea party person but lower taxes is a big thing. We're paying a ton higher taxes in Canada than you are in the US. It hurts when everything I buy except food is 13% HST at time of sale PLUS higher income taxes that are mostly from gov't mismanagement.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Feb 3, 2014)

DougA said:


> I'm no tea party person but lower taxes is a big thing. We're paying a ton higher taxes in Canada than you are in the US. It hurts when everything I buy except food is 13% HST at time of sale PLUS higher income taxes that are mostly from gov't mismanagement.


Thats the beauty of being off grid or offsetting utility costs with PV or even a wood stove. Here in Pa we have a boatload of taxes on utility bills. When you eliminate the bill you also eliminate all the taxes. Sometimes eliminating utility bills has a good return vs watching inflation and near zero earnings eat up your savings.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 4, 2014)

DougA said:


> The .82 was for the full 20 yr. contract and is now gone, due to public outcry. The Premier (same as Governor) quit when the sh*t hit the fan. The current deal is .42 for a 20 yr. contract. At the end of 20 yrs. you either buy batteries or sell the system as scrap. The utility has the right to unhook you at the end of the contract.  To be fair, the .42 is almost identical and perhaps better. The panels are better now and the cost is less than half of what they were.
> So, I pay $30K for a system and then the taxpayer is on the hook for $60K total in the last 12 yrs. The taxpayers are already under water for the program. From the article: "By the end of 2014, solar will be costing Ontarians $1.25-billion per year – while generating a paltry 2% of Ontario’s total electricity requirement."  Maybe you get an idea where my anger comes from.



Sounds like the model that Spain was using to promote PV, including the outcome.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 4, 2014)

Doug, I won't argue your situation in Ontario. But you can't generalize and use that to argue that solar does not pay generally. I laid before you a real situation, black and white, and you argue with that and struggle to discount the truth. I'm not asserting my situation is for everyone. Some are in a better (state and utility incentives, etc.) and some worse (no net metering, etc.) situation than I am. My system does payback with a real rate of return that is very attractive when compared to other investments.

All I have is the US federal 30% tax credit. I don't know if there was any rationale for the US picking this number, but it may relate somewhat to estimates that the real cost of fossil fuel electricity is 170% on average of what US residents pay for electricity when the external costs of fossil fuel electricity are considered. If that is the rationale, and if my electric rate was 170% of what it now is, that is, $0.196/kwh, and if I had no federal tax credit at all, then with a cost of my system at $32,000, beginning kwh rate of $0.196/kwh, the economic payback for my system would occur in year 17 rather than year 20, a faster payback, and my rate of return has increased. One could argue that the incentive is less than it should be. 

Please remember that you brought up your wife's 16% return on her retirement account as an argument to support your position that a fund manager should be fired if a 3% ROI was the investment return, the implication being that much better ROI's were available elsewhere than on a solar system. If you would look at the Dec 29, 2003 - Dec 30, 2013 DJIA, a 10 year period you would find that the DJIA rose from 10,405 to 16,470, but you also would find this increase to represent a 4.5% rate of return before inflation and before taxes, and if only inflation was considered, the rate of return is barely above $0. 

I would never argue that it is impossible to get a better return on other investments than on solar. My position simply is that solar pays in my situation, it is a near guaranteed return, near risk-free, and on average it will out-perform or at worst be competitive with most if not all other investments after inflation and taxes over the long term. I also would argue that the federal tax credit incentive partially compensates for the real cost of fossil fuel electricity, a cost which the public now pays in health, environmental and other losses, but a cost which I am more than alleviating through my contribution of solar electric. And I also would argue that it is fair to compensate me with the tax credit, other tax payers paying the burden (in which I share as a taxpayer for credits given to others), because I am saving the public money in excess of my tax credit.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Feb 4, 2014)

Iv seen stock fortunes disappear overnight. I dont think that is possible with a solar system. Never heard of one being stolen or destroyed by market forces,possibly a hailstorm is the worst peril. Should be able to get insurance for that.


----------



## Circus (Feb 4, 2014)

Here's 5 years of numbers from 100 sq ft of disqualified solar air heaters.   $300 worth of polycarbonate, sheet metal, four shopping bags, black paint and insulation, cut my heating bill in half. One LP fill per year instead of two. This week a 400 gallon LP fill cost $2800.
Disclosure: _Some savings was from a disqualified solar water heater. _
As for PV, Can the Micro inverter manufacturer shut you down with the web site you use to monitor your PVs? I noticed home monitoring is unavailable.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 5, 2014)

> ... possibly a hailstorm is the worst [solar] peril. Should be able to get insurance for that.


Since our solar is ground mount in a field, forest or grass fire also is a risk. Homeowner's insurance on accessory buildings covers the ground mount solar, and no additional insurance cost for us as the coverage limit more than handles the value of the garage + solar.


----------



## ihookem (Feb 9, 2014)

I read almost all the posts. It turned into a solar argument, not that I care. Owner claimed a 9 dollar heat and elevtric bill. That is just an all out lie. My gas bill is 9 bucks if I use nothing and my electric bill is 8 if I use nothing. So, I'm at 17 buck if I use nothing. I did however have a 17 dollar gas bill last month, my lowest in 20 yrs.  My electric was 73 bucks. I use about 500 kw per month. 450 in summer when I don't need air and the sunn don't set till I go to bed. I think it is very odd that they would put in a 7k dollar furnace for a few days a year. And also 30k for solar cost more than 5 bucks a month for elevtric. True, the elecric bill wa only 5 bucks for joice but that is very deceiving with the solar pnels. I don't know why this stuff gets in the news at all. Some  people buy into it cause they hate the gas and el electric co. so much they will cut their throats to spite them. I think 75 bucks for electric is darn cheap, especially since 18 of it is my pump to get heat to my house from the wood boiler.  I am however interested in solar, but not for electricity. I want a type of panel that will heat air or water to pump into my house to supplement my wood burner. Not that my wood boiler needs supplement. I just see it as easier to spend a grand or something to heat water and pump it in the house and through a HX with a fan running on it so it will heat my basement and therfore heat my house a bit better. If it works, I may add on and heat my first floor.  I read the way he built his house. I think I built mine better. Here is why. He insulated his walls very weird with 2x6 walls. He said he sprayed the interior part of exterior was with foam . 1" I suppose. Then pumped in fiberglass. I put 4" of closed cell in my 2x6 walls and sprayed against the sheathing. This leaves 1.5" of dead air space between foam and drywall for about an R 4 or 5. Now I have R 28 for foam, R 4 air space, R 2 from brick, and another R 1 from OSB and drywall. A R 35 or so wall - a bit where the studs are. I figure an honest R 30. I have most my windows with storms or an extra home made 1/8" glass. for a storm. I have at least R 60 in the attic.  I caulked my walls before I raised them. No air gets under the bottom plate. All plates are caulked. Even between my energy heel rafters are foamed and sealed so no air gets in except where the attic vents are. I still use 4 cords of hardwood to heat my house. Any suggestions on how to  make a solar panel to heat water, run it in the house, through a HX for heat. I believe solar is better to use for heating water.


----------



## DougA (Feb 10, 2014)

There was a news item yesterday but I can't find the clip to post a link. The guy made a large box that was only 6" or so deep , painted everything black inside, then put a number of black aluminum downspouts inside and hooked it up so that cold air from the house was going in the bottom and hot air was coming out the top. It would be easy to make and cheap. 

My house is heated with passive solar from 24' x 12' windows facing south. If you calculate the overhang correctly, you get tons of sun during the winter and very little during the summer. Works great on sunny days and our great room will easily get to 80*. The problem is that heat does not store well. Even with many tons of insulated cement floor, block walls, etc. once the sun has set, the chill is noticeable very fast.  Theory is one thing, practicality is another. The other problem is that even with thermal windows & curtains, the R factor stinks compared to insulated walls. So, even though we get lots of heat on sunny days, we lose it on dark days and at night. For us, the windows are an extension of the home to our large property, so the aesthetics outweigh heat loss. The heat for our wood stove feels great but it pales in comparison to sitting in the living room on a bitterly cold winter day and having the sun heat your body and mind.

I used to heat water with solar and gave up. It did not perform well enough for the added PITA. If you use exterior panels, you need an exchanger with a tank and hookups. 

My plan for 2014 is to try to build a masonry heater to replace my old VC stove and that will be able to accommodate a water heating circuit. Wood is much more reliable than sun.

BTW, we now have 2 quotes in for a 10 KW solar panel system. I will report back in a week or two. The numbers I get are still not that great, even with the gov't paying me four times the rate of electricity. It is clearly not a great deal but I will have to crunch numbers more. It may be an OK deal if you look at everything without any bias. Problems so far are added insurance costs, high cost of loan for equipment, etc. I spoke to two people who have 10 KW systems and one is getting $100. or so per month in the winter on a gov't contract paying them $.80 kw, the other says that he gets zilch for most of the winter. The bank doesn't care if it's sunny or not, they want their loan payments regardless. The one advantage I did not realize is that when the utility cuts off the contract at the end, you are still guaranteed to get the rate they charge you for hydro. In our case, as I posted earlier and as others have said, the utility has the upper hand because they can nail you on incidental charges that in our case represent nearly half the monthly invoice.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 10, 2014)

Doug, a few things to think about:

1) Passive solar and heat: you are correct, air heats quickly but has very low heat storage capacity, so when the sun goes down, so does the heat. But this also means that your house is losing the heat, i.e., heat loss. Adding thermal mass (masonry) will not help very much, because your house is still losing the heat. Also, masonry has low specific heat, takes a long time to heat up, and of course releases that heat slowly. The low heat intensity and short period of winter sun will do little to heat the mass, little heat will be taken up by the mass, and you may barely notice any benefit. Sunny Fall and Spring may do much better than Winter.

2) Thermal windows & curtains do have a low R factor which stinks compared to well insulated walls. But as you say, aesthetics are important. With windows, you get what you pay for. The point I want to make is that really good windows are available, R12 and better if you want to pay for them. Aesthetics plus comfort ruled the day for us. We paid plenty for our 24' feet of glass across the front of our house, plus many more windows, all with R8 rated glass. While well insulated walls are better, these windows were about 3-4x the R value of other windows then available, and after 20 years still perform as well as when they were installed: no frost, no condensation, no cold air wash, warm to the touch on the inside even when it is -20F and colder outside. They block heat (infrared) from escaping to the outside when it is warm inside and cold outside, and block heat from coming into the house in the summer. 

3) I have no objection to a masonry heater, but keep in mind that your house heat loss still will rule the day. You will need btu input to match your heat loss, masonry will not give you more btu's, although it may help to even out the btu swings if you have excessive btu input at one time of the day and less at another time. But just like concrete in-floor radiant, it will take a long time to heat the mass and the heat is released very slowly. If you need 35,000 btuh before the masonry heater, you will need 35,000 btuh after the heater.

4) Many of us will be interested in your solar quotes for a 10kw system. You and I may disagree on the payback, as you tend to look at short term stock market performance for comparison while I use long term (20 year) average inflation rate, CD interest rate (low risk), and rate of increase in US utility rates. For every stock market period you pick with high returns, I can pick a same period when you would have lost money. The stock market is very risky, unless you are very smart or very lucky, and I know I am not lucky and as to smart, no comment. I see solar as long term (30 and more years), very low risk, very strong hedge against utility rate inflation, and a real rate of return that beats the market over the long term. And I don't have to be smart or luck to get the return, it just pays every hour the sun shines and I don't worry or spend any effort to realize the benefit. Not too shabby in my book. You might call me a fiscal conservative and environmental liberal.

5) Solar "zilch" over the winter will depend on your local insolation and the vagaries of year to year weather. A good solar dealer/consultant, or perhaps even you with good research, can tell you how you will do during the winter, on average. Yes, winter production will be down compared to summer. So, depending on local conditions, the question is: do you get more annual production by optimizing for winter, for summer, or somewhere in between? My system is optimized for summer. I'm new at the game and in a year (or longer to account for averages) I will let you know. I used a consultant for my system design, as I did not feel comfortable working this all out by myself. [You can even out by a system which tracks the sun, both E/W and N/S. I opted not doing this because the cost was very high, added production did not "pay" over the long term, plus maintenance time and cost on mechanics in our very cold, snow and ice climate was not for me.]

6) For me during this 1st year of operation, production Nov-Dec was 60-65% of estimated, Jan was 80%, and so far in Feb is 115%. I would be very happy to see my first year meet or beat the average, but it could as easily fall below the average. I'm in the game for the long term.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 10, 2014)

I would crunch the numbers assuming the govt breaks the contract, and drops to say 21 cents, in a few years.  I think requiring the system pay for itself during cloudy winter is unreasonable....have to look at annual average numbers.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 10, 2014)

Doug,

I'm going to make a cynical prediction....your quotes will come in 'just ok' in terms of ROI with a 41 cent/kWh subsidy, and well over the $4/W that is possible south of the border.  I think the feed in subsidies tend to drive installers to charge more so they can 'get' part of the subsidy.


----------



## Circus (Feb 10, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> I think the feed in subsidies tend to drive installers to charge more so they can 'get' part of the subsidy


 
8 years ago my fridge cost $1000 minus a $300 tax credit. 7 1/2 years ago I bought it after the credits expired for $600.


----------



## DougA (Feb 10, 2014)

Woodgeek, agree with both. When my BIL got his contract I argued that the gov't would break it but it is with the utility, so I can't see that happening. The installers are making a lot of money and cannot be avoided. Both the contract and the home insurance requires a registered installer.

jebatty, we agree that the windows are the big loss and I have already upgraded mine less than 10 years ago to the best so that's not going to happen again for a long time. I could get more heat gain by painting my floors and walls black but that is not going to happen either. Passive solar is great when it's sunny and that's all I can count on. The masonry heater is to replace the wood stove and the advantage to me is that it is more of a continuous heat. As you stated, it's much slower to heat up but our stove is on from fall to spring so that's no change. If the sun comes out, we can open a few windows in the winter, no big deal. Since I am wanting installation on a flat roof, there are extra costs for racking. I am disappointing that the racking angle is permanent. I'd love to change the angle every spring and fall but not sure it can be done without rigging up something. It seems counter intuitive to me that they all suggest an angle of 30* but the racking is 15* but they will order 25* if I want it. Troubling. 

I will not get into the financials again. We disagree and there's no use in discussing it. If you were right on the financials, there would be solar on every home that it would fit on.  It bothers me that the bank rate for a solar loan is much higher than for a car. If someone defaults, a car can be sold in hours, over 1/2 the cost of solar is labor which is gone on day one. It may turn out that the deciding factor for/against might be the fact that I get the sales taxes back and the depreciation rate allowed has now risen to 50%, so very fast write-down at the start.


----------



## DougA (Feb 13, 2014)

OK, rec'd a good (good, as in quality) quote this afternoon. One other one expected soon but the $$ and details will be very similar.

10KW  system mounted on a flat roof and supported by racking at 15* angle. The racking and ballast add about $2K to the system but the advantage is that there are no holes drilled into the roof. 40 panels at 250 watts each with enphase microinverters, all installation, racking, all permits, all electrical, all hook-ups, software to view instant performance - complete turn-key system is US$31K. The only things to add are 13% taxes (refunded but see note), insurance which is under $200/yr and a $5/monthly charge from the utility for an accounting fee plus cost of borrowing $$. Yes, they sell systems that are a few thousand cheaper but the difference is the guarantee. For $2.5K less, I can get a cheaper system with an inverter warranty of only 12 years, no software and no warranty on labor. For the difference, the decision is easy for me.

The gov't program is guaranteed to pay me US$.35 KW for 20 yrs. The average income based on other 1 yr old identical systems & installations is US$3,700. per yr. (based on 2013 numbers) which means a payback, before cost of insurance and bank loan of 8.3 years. As soon as you add the cost of borrowing at the quoted rate of 6.5%, the payback jumps to 13 yrs. based on the numbers I get. 

*If I was getting the same rate that the utility is charging me for power and if I have to borrow the money to buy the system, the payback is unworkable.
*
So, going back to my original post in this thread *"If it wasn't for gov't subsidy, the panels would never pay for themselves."*, I am correct for our location in Southern Ontario. The quote rec'd is just over $3./KW fully installed, which is well below the $4. said to be a fair price. I am not allowed to install them myself to qualify for the rebate plan. 

I have not included the 13% taxes in any of this info. The taxes must be paid but eventually (many months/yrs later) they get returned to me as a rebate on your taxes that are payable in income from the panels. IOW, under the gov't plan, you are creating a solar power small business so that you get the taxes back but then, you must pay taxes on the income it generates AFTER all of the deductions and expenses are covered. Cost of borrowing money is an expense.  The downside is that once you have paid it off, you are taxed at about 30% of the income generated by the panels. In addition to that, there is a lot of paperwork to remit quarterly returns to the gov't.  For simplicity, I have not included the 30% taxes on the income into the calculation because it was already such a bad business investment if you look at it strictly as an investment.  If you want to argue that I can't make money by investing in something else, I have removed that from the equation. The cost of money is real, it does not grow on trees. 

*I have not made a decision on whether we will proceed or not*. I can get a loan for less than 6.5% if I remortgage or use a line of credit with the house as collateral. The interest rates are guaranteed to rise within a year or two. So, even if I can get a lower rate today, it will likely be at least 6.5% avg. over the lifespan of the loan. The 6.5% is a realistic number to work with. If I just got a loan for the equipment, the 6.5% will be fluctuating and will be much higher before the loan is paid off.

So, there are the numbers.   Can't say that I am overly surprised. I am not sure whether PV is something I want to invest in at this stage of my life. If I was 20 yrs. younger, the decision would be a lot easier.


----------



## Where2 (Feb 13, 2014)

DougA said:


> I am not sure whether PV is something I want to invest in at this stage of my life. If I was 20 yrs. younger, the decision would be a lot easier.



My father and I live in the same neighborhood in FL, and took the same course in solar energy in 2011. He too shares your sentiment about his present age versus payback, although he eagerly helped me with my PV install. If I own my house in this neighborhood as long as he has owned his (50+ years), I'll have invested in one new roof, five lawn mowers and my PV system will have paid itself off with interest. According to my Ted 1001, I used 12kWh today. According to Enphase, I generated 17.4kWh. After reading my electric meter tonight, my electric bill is presently hovering under $25 for my all electric house at 3 weeks into the billing cycle.


----------



## DougA (Feb 13, 2014)

Huge difference in where you live. The identical installation as what I'm looking at generated .27 kw today and 2.3 kw so far in Feb. That's ridiculously zilch. AND, to top that awful result, today was a gloriously sunny day in S. Ont. My passive solar had our house in the high 70's while it was low 20's outside. That's the problem with sun, angles and latitude. We're on the same latitude as just north of Boston and just north of the CA/OR border.

Since it's a public site on Enphase, here's the link: https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/pv/public_systems/QhBp163210/grid/months


----------



## Where2 (Feb 14, 2014)

DougA said:


> Huge difference in where you live. The identical installation as what I'm looking at generated .27 kw today and 2.3 kw so far in Feb. That's ridiculously zilch. AND, to top that awful result, today was a gloriously sunny day in S. Ont.



Thanks for the link, I counter your "zilch so far in February" with the 385kWh that system collected in January. My particular favorites are January 14, 21, and 28. Was there something particularly sunny about Tuesdays in Southern Ontario? Or did someone at the school pulling out a rake and clearing the panels on Monday evenings in January? Was January a particularly dry and snow free month? (I honestly don't know, but I would like to understand it better since my next system will be at 46°N latitude, and I will not be around to rake that system in the middle of winter).


----------



## jebatty (Feb 14, 2014)

Doug, with all of our exchanges, some comments which might help you make a wise decision.

1) Make sure you are getting the 250w Enphase inverters, not something less. And note that the 250w inverters have maximum continuous output of 240w, or 240 x 40 = 9,600 watts total system rather than 10,000 watts. 

2) 





> The gov't program is guaranteed to pay me US$.35 KW for 20 yrs. The average income ... is US$3,700. per yr ... which means a payback ... of 8.3 years. As soon as you add the cost of borrowing at the quoted rate of 6.5%, the payback jumps to 13 yrs. based on the numbers I get.



When I look at $0.35kwh and annual income of $3,700, that equates to estimated annual production of 10,700 kwh. My system is rated at 6.89kw, but the microinverters nominally max at 6.5kw. My estimated production for my location is 9000 kwh/yr. Your system is nearly 50% larger than mine (9600 vs 6500) but estimated production is only about 20% higher. Check again your estimated annual production. Your local climate conditions may be less sunny on average than where I live, thus explaining the lower production. 

3) 





> I am not sure whether PV is something I want to invest in at this stage of my life. If I was 20 yrs. younger, the decision would be a lot easier.


I am 66, my payback occurs in year 20, and I likely will not live long enough to see the payback. But payback is not the primary reason for my decision. Rather the reasons include: a) IMO doing the right thing, b) fixing the cost of my future electricity and hedging against inflation, c) reducing monthly cash expenses to allow better future planning.

=====

My highest daily production so far was 34.6 kwh on Feb 11 with a sun zenith of a bit less than 30*. The system was at about 6,300 watts for almost 2 hours, and although the sky looked clear the satellite photo showed a haze over the entire region all day. February estimated monthly production is 22 kwh/day. So far in Feb I am at an average of a little above 25 kwh/day, which is making up some of the below average production in Nov - Jan.


----------



## DougA (Feb 14, 2014)

I am going to make a call to see if the system in the link is indeed covered in snow.  As I stated, it was very sunny yesterday and it's been very sunny for quite a few days in Feb., so their numbers seem consistently odd.  To be fair, I want real numbers and climbing up to the roof to shovel snow off is not something that should need to be done. I would not expect this at a school, just like I though my BIL was nuts to risk his life & limb climbing their roof to do it.  We have had quite a lot of snow. There's a good foot + on the ground and the same on our roof. That should only cover 10% or so of the panel, since it is lifted off the roof by the racking.
jebatty, you are higher latitude than me, so anyone in our area should be getting more production in the winter but you may indeed have much less cloud and snow. They have not given me an exact model number for the Enphase Microinverters, but they are one per panel, so it must be 250w. The output is shown as 10.0kW DC to 8.6 kW AC but the cheaper system shows 10.0kW DC to 10.0kW AC. I questioned that and was told that the micro as opposed to the string inverters were superior. Still not clear to me as 10kW is a lot more than 8.6kW.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Feb 14, 2014)

My electric bill is $16.50 before i use any electricity at all.


----------



## DougA (Feb 14, 2014)

Got an answer back. The PV installation I posted the link for is indeed covered in snow. The office can see much more detailed info than what is on-line.

BTW, my last electric bill for Jan. is $411. I heat the main area with wood but can't reach the large office area which is electric heat. Out of the $411, only $185 is actual electrical use, the rest is debt retirement, delivery charge (BS), taxes, etc.  Part of that is to pay off the all of the rebates that have been given out to solar and wind projects. 
That's what I meant when I posted that I was not wanting to be a hypocrite by having my neighbors pay for my solar system.

I had a discussion with myself (lol) yesterday about whether it would be something to consider going off grid. Unlike jebatty, if I reduce my electrical use down to essential only, I will still have a bill of $1200. per year, just to be hooked up The result of my conversation with myself was that it was a crazy idea. Beyond reasonable conservation, extreme cutbacks are not saving enough $$ vs. lifestyle changes. To go off-grid is not economically feasible.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 14, 2014)

I've seen DC to AC derating, but I don't understand that exactly with regard to my system. 26 x 265w = 6.89kw DC on the panels. The Aurora micro-inverters are rated at 250w continuous AC, or 6.5 kw continuous for the array, and 96+% efficiency. So I suppose 265WDC output x 96% = 254WAC. Your output "10.0kW DC to 8.6 kW AC" varies quite a bit from my system. I don't know enough to explain this.


----------

