# I can't believe I just bought a $38,000 (before massive subsidies) solar system!



## tradergordo (Sep 30, 2010)

Never thought this would happen, but the economics of it finally just seemed to line up.  Big federal subsidy, big state subsidy, big forced power company subsidy, combined with significantly lower cost per watt system pricing all finally added up to a good investment (for me, not the government, I figure I should cash in if I'm going to have to pay for this nonsense anyway as a tax payer).  

3.5 year's to break even.  Possible 9% compound annual rate of return on investment over 20 years plus inflation protection. 

My state = Pennsylvania, and for what its worth, I don't think the subsidies that make it worth it, will last much longer with fiscal belt tightening on its way soon.  No time like now to do it if you have the right roof (non-shaded, mostly south facing).  I don't know what the forum rules are, but if you want more info PM me and I'd be glad to refer you to my installer - he tells me there is a $500 referral bonus to BOTH PEOPLE which is pretty substantial.  I used the biggest and most reputable installer in the Northeast and these guys seem to be very professional.

At any rate, I've just gotten started in the process, signed the deal, but won't have it installed for probably 3 months (the paperwork is all very slow).  My electricity production is guaranteed for 20 years, all equipment has a full warranty for 20 years, and it should cover 100% of my annual usage (this is ON-Grid, with true ANNUAL net-metering (everything I produce over a full year is subtracted from everything I use over a full year).  They do complete online monitoring of the system, and I can check my system output whenever I want over the internet.  Its a 7.56 kW system that is projected to produce 9,300 kW/hrs annually (I only used 8,400 kW/hrs last year).

If any of you are from Ohio, I happen to know that their deal is pretty much equally good if not better (my brother in Ohio is looking into it).  They have an even higher state subsidy, although one other form of payback (srec's) over the longer term is not quite as good, they sort of balance out.

My house is probably going to look ridiculous (don't worry, I'll post pics), almost all roof space in the front will be covered with solar panels, even my attached garage roof.  

At any rate, I'm pretty excited about this, always wanted to be energy independent.  Not having to pay the man for heat or electricity is a beautiful thing!


----------



## begreen (Sep 30, 2010)

Awesome tg, sounds exciting. Have the camera handy and keep us posted.


----------



## btuser (Sep 30, 2010)

My wife would be all for it. She pays the electric bill.  What the square footage of the collectors?  How big is your house?


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Sep 30, 2010)

Putting your money where your mouth is!  I want to say thank you- people doing this keep the solar companies in business and developing improvements which might make it more affordable for all of us some day.


----------



## nate379 (Sep 30, 2010)

Sounds like a pretty large house or big family.  8400 kw in a year is ~700 a month.

I use about 250-300KW month, 1400 sq ft, 2 people.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 30, 2010)

The return on investment with all the subsidies sounds great for solar. Does PA have a exemption for the value of solar systems on the property tax? This is an issue in many areas where the increased property taxes just about equals the savings. 

A suggestion is to take a good look at your roof prior to the installation and if its not in excellent condition and fairly recent consider replacing it before the install. Inevitably they are making lots of penetrations and patching them, but the guarantees usually dont apply to roof leaks and fixing a leak a few years down the road with a solar system in place is a major project. My approach was to strip the roof, install EPDM underlayment (Grace weathershield) and then installed 25 year shingles. When I installed my hot water system, I flashed in all the roof penetrations under the shingles with the same material plus used roof boots for all my piping. With that combination, I am not worried about leaks.  

Do note in some jurisdictions, the building inspectors at the request of the fire department are requiring additional installation techniques including roof mounted disconnects and clear spaces along the sides of the roof for roof access. Its rare but worth checking into befofe the install. Note a guarantee of a code compliant installation does not cover these issues as it a local requirement not a code requirement. 

Before the hardware stores run out of them, buy a roof rake and extension poles. If it snows you will know why.


----------



## Dune (Sep 30, 2010)

I think your roof will look beautiful. I see a lot of systems going up around here and I aplaud every one of them. Thankyou very much for reporting the specifics.


----------



## Wallyworld (Sep 30, 2010)

tradergordo said:
			
		

> Never thought this would happen, but the economics of it finally just seemed to line up.  Big federal subsidy, big state subsidy, big forced power company subsidy, combined with significantly lower cost per watt system pricing all finally added up to a good investment (for me, not the government, I figure I should cash in if I'm going to have to pay for this nonsense anyway as a tax payer).
> 
> 3.5 year's to break even.  Possible 9% compound annual rate of return on investment over 20 years plus inflation protection.
> 
> ...



How many years to break even,  if their were no subsidies?


----------



## tradergordo (Oct 1, 2010)

NATE379 said:
			
		

> Sounds like a pretty large house or big family.  8400 kw in a year is ~700 a month.
> 
> I use about 250-300KW month, 1400 sq ft, 2 people.



My house is around 2500 sq ft.  My energy use is low compared to neighbors, I do run some computer equipment 24/7, and a massive HEPA filter as part of a clean room (hobby/business), other than that, just the basics - I suppose central air in the summer is a large percentage of my total annual use (my wife always seems to be doing laundry which is probably another major use).


----------



## tradergordo (Oct 1, 2010)

peakbagger said:
			
		

> The return on investment with all the subsidies sounds great for solar. Does PA have a exemption for the value of solar systems on the property tax? This is an issue in many areas where the increased property taxes just about equals the savings.


My propery taxes are already very high, but this will not change them, it is treated like an appliance.



			
				peakbagger said:
			
		

> A suggestion is to take a good look at your roof prior to the installation and if its not in excellent condition and fairly recent consider replacing it before the install. Inevitably they are making lots of penetrations and patching them, but the guarantees usually dont apply to roof leaks and fixing a leak a few years down the road with a solar system in place is a major project. My approach was to strip the roof, install EPDM underlayment (Grace weathershield) and then installed 25 year shingles. When I installed my hot water system, I flashed in all the roof penetrations under the shingles with the same material plus used roof boots for all my piping. With that combination, I am not worried about leaks.



Yea, I'm really wishing they had those new lifetime shingles out when my roof was built 10 years ago.  My roof is in good shape and I'm not worried about leaks from the installation, they went into great detail about how meticulously they install everything with multiple levels of leak protection, its also warranteed, if a leak forms as a result of the install, they will fix it.  But I'm not really sure what will happen when my whole roof needs re-shingled.  Some people only replace the shingles that are NOT under the panels, they say because the sun does not directly hit them, they do not deteriorate like the rest of the roof, but who knows...


----------



## tradergordo (Oct 1, 2010)

Wallyworld said:
			
		

> How many years to break even,  if their were no subsidies?



If you factor the opportunity cost of the money, it would never break even.  On just a straight up savings on electricity every year basis, its possible to break even after about 17-18 years.  It definitely doesn't make financial sense without subsidies although it will once conventional electricity rates go up enough.


----------



## Dune (Oct 1, 2010)

I went to your blog. Kudos again.


----------



## nate379 (Oct 1, 2010)

Yeah I'd imagine A/C would suck some juice.  Don't need A/C here thankfully!  About the only thing I have that uses a moderate amout of power would be in the garage... welder, grinders, etc.



			
				tradergordo said:
			
		

> NATE379 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## benjamin (Oct 3, 2010)

Adios Pantalones said:
			
		

> Putting your money where your mouth is!



Correction: Putting OUR money where your mouth is.

I can't believe I just bought part of a $38,000 solar system either.  But hey, get it while the getting is good.


----------



## PastTense (Oct 3, 2010)

Can you give us some more financial details? If you are using 8400 KWH a year, say at $.15/KWH that is $1260/year, which is $4410 for three and a half years. I can't believe you are getting subsidies which cut the price to this level.


----------



## Wooddust (Oct 3, 2010)

benjamin said:
			
		

> Adios Pantalones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Things do break even faster with other folks carrying the load.


----------



## webbie (Oct 3, 2010)

I'm pleased that your fellow commonwealth citizens and our government have the foresight to help manufacturing and installation of these systems ramp up.

Up here we don't have enough subsidies to make it worth it - but those which do exist are VERY quickly bringing down the cost per watt! That means an actual payback is within reach at some point in the near future.

As a member of our towns energy committee, I have to suss these things out. In general, I warn against the idea of using PV as an option which makes economic sense. On the other hand, I am fully aware of how quickly the price per installed watt is coming down...and this is only because of the subsidies.

Germany has had a similar program for the last decade and installed enough PV to replace a couple nuke plants.

One could look at it either way - everything has hidden costs. Personally, I like the idea of all things going forward at the same time....and depending on technology and economics and the environmental aspects, the various products and methods will sort themselves out. This cannot happen without government help - because, for instance, 100% of nuke plants are government subsidized (effectively insured for free), etc.........

So, kudos, Trader....one thing we can be sure of is that you did the math!


----------



## Wallyworld (Oct 3, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I'm pleased that your fellow commonwealth citizens and our government have the foresight to help manufacturing and installation of these systems ramp up.



Wouldn't the money be better placed on conservation, IE insulation for starters, windows doors etc. I assume its a grid tied system so what happens when the sun doesn't shine? Does he alter his lifestyle or do the utilities still have to plan for his huge electrical load? If they have to plan for his load wheres the saving for the taxpayers who pay for part of this system?


----------



## webbie (Oct 3, 2010)

Yes, Wally, the money is better spent on conservation which is exactly why vastly more IS being spent on that. I heard a call-in to a radio show the other day by a guy who worked at Andersen Windows - he said the entire company was about to be shut down, but is now thriving due to conservation credits! The same goes for a lot of similar industries.

Conservation doesn't make the news as much and people don't get on here saying "I caulked yesterday", but it is happening big time....examples:
1. The current tax credits and subsidies cover windows, upgraded heating systems and much more.
2. CAFE standards went up for the first time in decades

Here is just one of the Fed programs:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index

As you can see, it has a lot of conservation measures. Also, the PV and other such subsidies are usually limited (big time) to a certain pool of available money....so it's not like some giant pool of tens of billions being wasted. It is just enough to get the wheels of commerce turning, IMHO.


----------



## Wallyworld (Oct 3, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Yes, Wally, the money is better spent on conservation which is exactly why vastly more IS being spent on that. .


I have no problem with getting the solar industry jump started, if I had the money I'd do it also. What gets me is, the utilities still have to plan for his usage. So on a sunny day the generator is idling, on a cloudy day it has to put out, either way it costs the utility money, that we have to pay for.  If he was battery backed and had to live within his own electricity generation then it would be a no brainer. Like to see pics of the completed install, I'm sure its quite impressive.


----------



## webbie (Oct 3, 2010)

I think, Wally, it often turns out to be the other way around! As you know, the utilities have to plan for peak use - which always comes during a hot summer day.......or similar. So the solar would help in that way.

But I think the truth of the matter is that the % is so tiny......that it is a non-effect. It would be like complaining about the Nat. Gas and Heating Oil industry saying "they have to provide nat gas to my house if I want to turn the furnance on, but since I don't (use pellets or wood), they are screwed".

It really does not work out that way because all of these things happen very slowly.....time for everyone to adjust. Utilities, also, like conservation and all the other things which take off their peak load. I'm not familiar with the utility biz, but my guess is that they make more money from just plugging along with the existing plants...than they do going on a building streak. 

Obviously, every action has a reaction - but PV will phase in so slowly that it seems it would not impact the formula, just slowly reduce the need for new plants.


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2010)

How long would the payback on a sloar P.V. system be if all the subsidies and tax breaks and Corperate welfare were removed from competing sources of generation? How about if a carbon tax is imposed? 

Does anyone realize the actual lifespan of these systems and account for the decade or years of addition generation past the warrenty period?


----------



## Wallyworld (Oct 3, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I think, Wally, it often turns out to be the other way around! As you know, the utilities have to plan for peak use - which always comes during a hot summer day.......or similar. So the solar would help in that way..


Peak use for me is in the winter so what do I know  . I think PVs and heat pumps would be a great fit in the south. The sunny hot days you get your AC, once the sun goes down you no longer need as much AC. You have to start somewhere so I guess its a start.


----------



## benjamin (Oct 3, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> How long would the payback on a sloar P.V. system be if all the subsidies and tax breaks and Corperate welfare were removed from competing sources of generation? How about if a carbon tax is imposed?
> 
> Does anyone realize the actual lifespan of these systems and account for the decade or years of addition generation past the warrenty period?



I don't know, what will the lifespan of the typical current generation PV system be? I know that I have repaired and reinstalled several systems (mostly hot water) that were in use from one to five years before failure, abandonment, or disuse. Sure the PV panels are very robust, but what happens when an inverter gets fried, or the roof gets replaced? I doubt it will be economical to remove and reinstall an array of solar panels every 20-30 years, even with a carbon tax. The idea of replacing only the shingles that aren't under the panels is humorous, as is the idea that the installers will do an adequate job of sealing roof penetrations. Disregarding the importance of the common roofer led to Ronnie Reagan to be blamed for (or given credit for) taking the solar panels off of the white house, when in all likelihood it was some roofing contractor who didn't put them back up because he didn't have to. 

No doubt PV is an amazing technology that holds huge promise for our energy future, but I'm terribly skeptical of the current round of government subsidies. And I don't like the technology being steered by bureaucrats.


----------



## benjamin (Oct 3, 2010)

As far as peak power is concerned, I have no inside utility knowledge, and certainly no utility likes net metering, but solar Photovoltaics would have to be one of the least objectionable sources for them.   

True, the yearly peak load is usually in winter in the northern part of the country (PV produces slightly more power in cold temps, but there's less sun in the winter) but the daily peak demand mostly coincides with the production from PV.  PV production is also much more consistent and predictable than wind.


----------



## webbie (Oct 3, 2010)

My solar hot water system, which I installed in 1979, was working fine when I sold that house in 2005.
However, I think it is fair to use design lives of 20-25 years for most of this type of equipment. In terms of payback, 15 years plus is too much, IMHO......I think a rough rule is to make at least a 10% ROI, which compounded would be a 7-8 year payback (as with Trader)


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2010)

From what I understand, P.V. panels can last for thirtyfive years. Inverter fries, buy a new one. Anyone putting a new roof on and not using 40 or 50 year shingles has always surprised me, since the labor is the same and the better singles are only a little more expensive. I don't see the problem with re-installing a 38,000 system anyhow, if need be. Pretty funny blaming a roofer for something Ronnie did. 

Seriously Ben, my electric bill now is $3500 or more a year. If a $2000 dollare inverter fried, and I was otherwise getting free electricity, why wouldn't I buy a new one? Same with the roof. Weak argument.


----------



## benjamin (Oct 3, 2010)

I'm just going by experience on this one. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single solar system that has been in operation for more than five years.  I can think of a dozen or more that I pass regularly that have been installed in the last five years and a dozen or more that came and went.

I don't know whether to give Ronnie the credit for sound fiscal management or not for removing the solar panels, but do you think it would have payed off to have a government contractor remove and reinstall hot water panels on the white house with each roofing job?  If you were to offset your $3,500 annual electric bill with PV (according to the .gov calculator I used) you would need around 28KW of panels which would cost around $90K and I'm guessing need a little more than a $2K inverter.  However if you had $90K plus invested, it would probably insure that they got put back up with the new roof.   

True, it is a weak arguement, but that arguement is strong enough when people are looking at the price to maintain a system that has marginal payback. There are so many ways to get around these drawbacks, but they're often overlooked, in part because of the rush for "free government money". 

On the other hand, it's pretty hard for passive solar features to deteriorate or fail to work.  I think it was "In Hot Water" who said something about overglassed solar homes from the 70's, but I have never seen evidence of one.  I've never met anyone who was disappointed with the passive solar features they've added to a house.


----------



## Dune (Oct 3, 2010)

benjamin said:
			
		

> I'm just going by experience on this one. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single solar system that has been in operation for more than five years.  I can think of a dozen or more that I pass regularly that have been installed in the last five years and a dozen or more that came and went.
> 
> I don't know whether to give Ronnie the credit for sound fiscal management or not for removing the solar panels, but do you think it would have payed off to have a government contractor remove and reinstall hot water panels on the white house with each roofing job?  If you were to offset your $3,500 annual electric bill with PV (according to the .gov calculator I used) you would need around 28KW of panels which would cost around $90K and I'm guessing need a little more than a $2K inverter.  However if you had $90K plus invested, it would probably insure that they got put back up with the new roof.
> 
> ...



I hear ya. If I could run a welding machine on passive solar, I probably wouldn't be interested. You might be a little off on your calcs by the way. The only place in the country with higher electric rates than Cape Cod, is Hawaii, AFAIK.


----------



## benjamin (Oct 3, 2010)

Yeah, the calculator used something like 11cents per KWH for MA, which I thought was way low, but I try not to argue with the man.


----------



## tradergordo (Oct 4, 2010)

These panels have an estimated useful life of 45 years.  They are guaranteed to produce 80% or more of spec output for 25 years (or they will be replaced free of charge, the panels are made by a publicly traded company with a 2 billion dollar market cap).  By the way, the panels removed from the White House by Reagan were used until 2005 at Unity college - although they were not photo-voltaic, it was a simple water heater collector system).  Also, GW Bush installed new solar panels on the white house grounds (not the actual white house).


----------



## tradergordo (Oct 4, 2010)

PastTense said:
			
		

> Can you give us some more financial details? If you are using 8400 KWH a year, say at $.15/KWH that is $1260/year, which is $4410 for three and a half years. I can't believe you are getting subsidies which cut the price to this level.



My electric rate is $.1686 /kWh * 8423 (actual use in the last 12 months) = $1420
After subsidies, the initial cost to me for the solar system is just under $15,600.
The rapid return on investment is due to srecs which should end up being the biggest subsidy of them all.  I should generate about 9.3 srecs per year, they are currently worth about $300 each, so that's $2790 per year.  I should get a check for the srecs almost every month, for at least 10 years and probably longer.

So we are talking: $15,600 / ($2790 + $1420) =  3.7 years

However rate caps come off on our utility company on Jan 1 2011.  No one knows for sure what the new rate will be, but I believe it will be close to or above $.20/kwh within a year (yes, I know these are very high rates compared to the rest of the country, I hate it, and that is why I'm doing something about it).  Anyway, using the .2 number you get that 3.5 year payback.  There is of course an assumption here that the srecs will be worth what they are currently worth for at least 3.5 years - I think this is a very reasonable assumption because the utility companies are forced to buy more of these every year and if they don't buy them they are fined by the state at a rate equal to 200% of the free market value of an srec (average market price over last 12 months).  Of course this crazy srec program is causing higher utility rates for everyone else that doesn't have a solar system - but that's another story (like I said, if the government is going to do silly things with money that end up costing the taxpayer, you might as well try your best to benefit from it if you can, I just hope a future populist uprising doesn't come along and burn my house down, heh).

To answer some other questions - the inverter is the major expense going out into the future, they are normally waranteed for 10 years, mine is waranteed for 20 years, but I've been told they typically die in 13 to 17 years.  This thing is a 155 lb. beast that can cost as much as $4,000 today (hopefully in 20 years prices will have come down a lot like they do with most technology).


----------



## Wallyworld (Oct 4, 2010)

benjamin said:
			
		

> On the other hand, it's pretty hard for passive solar features to deteriorate or fail to work.  I think it was "In Hot Water" who said something about overglassed solar homes from the 70's, but I have never seen evidence of one.  I've never met anyone who was disappointed with the passive solar features they've added to a house.


Now you've met one  . I would never do a passive solar house again. While I like the light and the sun in the winter, I'd spend my money on closed cell foam rather than the envelope system I have now. 2 walls of glass with a 1foot  airspace in between, that hot air circulates thru a floor of cinder blocks. It doesn't work very well, I doubt I get enough heat out of it to pay the electric bill for the fan blowing the air. I also have Solar domestic hot water, 2 3 by 8 panels, been there since 1990, never had an issue, works great. I'm presently building a collector into a south facing wall of my new shop, can't wait to see how much it contributes to a 30 by 34 well insulated shop . radiant floor hooked to a homemade 9 by 15 collector. I'm hoping it keeps the space above freezing.


----------



## eba1225 (Oct 4, 2010)

Trader,

Good for you.  I have looked and looked but couldn't get a 'realistic' ROI of less than 10 years as the initial cost was very high.  Are the ones doing the installation local to your area?  I am in your area and would like to talk to then to see what they have to say.

If you would be so kind, PM me with their name and address.

Erik


----------



## benjamin (Oct 5, 2010)

Wallyworld said:
			
		

> benjamin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I stand partially corrected. I've never seen an honest to goodness double envelope house, but that one sounds like active solar to me?

According to this article, the former white house panels were re-installed at Unity College in 1991 and decommissioned in 2005 (no reason given?). So they ARE NOT still in use or producing useful anything but publicity. Not that they couldn't be endlessly refurbished and reinstalled (been there, doin that), but at some point they have to be productive, not just another political football. 

http://www.unity.edu/NewsEvents/News/UCChinaSolar10.aspx

I'm not saying that the technology is good or bad, it is a lot better than it was thirty years ago, and some of it worked great then. But it is marginal, and wasteful if not installed and maintained correctly.


----------



## DaveH9 (Oct 9, 2010)

That's great, another solar electric system will be coming on line. PA is a hot spot right now, but that won't last forever. Good to get in when the getting is good. CT is hot right now for solar hot water. We are seeing almost 60% covered with the ARRA grant and the fed tax credit. I quoted a guy this morning that is replacing a solar hot water system from 1980. Worked flawlessly for 30 years. I installed mine in 1991, it is running just fine. I had to turn the boiler on last week, but I can pretty much just use solar from equinox to equinox. Now solar preheats the water before it goes through the boiler.

PV has a great reliability record, with no moving parts. It was designed for remote locations where maintenance is expensive. Like satellites, ocean buoys, remote communication towers, etc. Reliability or longevity should not be not a big worry for homeowners.


----------



## mbcijim (Oct 12, 2010)

I just built a 200KW system in Pennsylvania.
Cost $1,094,000
Expected electrical generation 220,000KW/year.  Where it's located it's worth about $.10/KW or $22,000/year. 
That's almost exactly 2% return before subsidies.

Federal & State Subsidies almost exactly $700,000.  So my cost after subsidies is about $400,000 or about 5.5%.  
OP, did you get a sunshine grant?  Do you know that you will get a W-2 at the end of the year and owe federal taxes on your sunshine grant, FYI?  Since I did it corporate the depreciation outweighs the taxes, but it is an issue on the residential system, but I digress.

The inverters were $120,000 or about 11% of the project cost.  I think I have 14 if my memory serves me correctly.

One of the things that surprised me was that the system degrades from the moment it's installed.  In the beginning it's about 1% a year.  

The way I profit from this system is the sale of SREC's - or Solar Renewable Energy Credit, as 5.5% is unacceptable in the private sector.  The SREC is government created and nothing more than a mark in a spreadsheet.  Pennsylvania issued a mandate that the utilities must use so much percent solar each year and it goes up every year.  The utilities can buy the SREC's or create their own.  So far they've been buying them.  Right now they are transferable between Ohio, Pa and Maryland I believe.  NJ is stand alone and can't transfer them beyond the border.  There is a law introduce in the PA Senate that will put the penalty for the REC at $160.  That would make the REC worth $150.  The OP is correct right now they are worth about $300.  Although I question how a small residential system can get the commercial price?  I pay about a 3% commission on my REC, but I should generate 270 or so.  I'd expect to pay a lot higher than 3% if I had a very small system.  I entered into a contract through 2015 to a public utility.  That is the only way these large systems will get built.  My biggest concern with solar is will the SREC go away.  Long term they will generate a huge increase in the cost of power.  I don't expect the existing mandate to stay in place.  What the government created the government can take away.


----------



## Danno77 (Oct 14, 2010)

I tried to buy a solar system, but they would only sell the right to name a star. Not quite what I was looking for.


----------



## Dune (Oct 15, 2010)

mbcijim said:
			
		

> I just built a 200KW system in Pennsylvania.
> Cost $1,094,000
> Expected electrical generation 220,000KW/year.  Where it's located it's worth about $.10/KW or $22,000/year.
> That's almost exactly 2% return before subsidies.
> ...




Kudos to you sir, and thanks for reporting your progress here. Your project is inspirational.


----------



## ihookem (Oct 17, 2010)

Wouldn't a solar hot water panel be much more efficient and save more energy than a solar panel that makes electricity? I am interested in a solar hot water for summer and to some degree winter for DHW. I guess I could also use the extra hot water to heat my basement. Also, where can I find a plan of some sort to do this?


----------



## benjamin (Oct 17, 2010)

Radiantec is a an excellent place to see some of the different ways you can integrate solar hot water and a little space heating.  

If you're interested I'd sell you a complete used five panel system that Radiantec sold two years ago.  

OR, if you want to do it ALL yourself go to Gary's site builditsolar.com for lots of great ideas, or contact me and I'll tell you some more that are even more out there.


----------



## tradergordo (Jan 6, 2011)

Well I said I'd post a pic when it was installed.  Took 3 months but they finally got the panels up there today.  Congrats to anyone in PA that got in while the deal was hot.  Subsidy has now dropped by 40%.  The do-it-yourselfer could still make out well $ by importing panels direct from China (Suntech Power or EGing) and doing the work themselves but it is a very big undertaking.


----------



## btuser (Jan 6, 2011)

Looking forward to some numbers.


----------



## tradergordo (Jan 25, 2011)

btuser said:
			
		

> Looking forward to some numbers.




So after the panels went up, I couldn't turn the system on until it was inspected and then another wait for my utility company to come out and install a second meter for net metering.  The system has been online now for 3 full days. First 2 days, the panels were partially covered in snow and produced 38 kw hours of power (not bad considering).  But yesterday the snow had all fallen off (which happens even when it never gets above freezing, we were at 0 degrees yesterday morning) and the system produced 40 kw hours of power!  For the dead of winter, that number surprised me, beyond my expectations (40kw per day is 14.6 megawatts annualized).  Didn't think I would have a net surplus of energy in the winter but it definitely looks possible to have a surplus in any given month. So I had hoped that I would never have to pay for electricity again, and it looks like that will happen and then some.   My utility jacked their supply rate up by 42% I will get compensated at 10 cents per kw h for any net annual surplus.


----------



## Dune (Jan 25, 2011)

That is a most awesome report. Do you have enough surplus to recharge a Volt?


----------



## DaveH9 (Jan 25, 2011)

PV modules produce more power the colder they are. You might get more per hour in the winter, but less per day because of the short day. What a nice installation.


----------



## tradergordo (Jan 26, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> That is a most awesome report. Do you have enough surplus to recharge a Volt?



I'm extremely interested in electric cars but definitely hesitant about the first generation.  From what I've been reading, Ford is going to blow away the volt with their electric car late this year - the electronics are very impressive, it even has a built in teaching program that shows you as you drive, how to get the most efficiency out of it. Lots of bells and whistles:
http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/electric-vehicles/batteries/ford-focus-electric-ev-review/

I do worry about the cost of those batteries over time, and I'd much rather have a 200 mile range than a 100 mile range.  I will watch with interest.


----------



## Dune (Jan 26, 2011)

I hear that. There are a few other models out there as well that should be available this year or next. A couple more japanese and a few european options as well. G.M. kind of blew it with their 40 mile electric range, hopefully they will figure that out, before they get crushed. The thing with the battery replacement cost is that it is offset by not ever having to fix; ignition, exhaust, carberation/fuel injection, radiator/hoses/waterpump,  fuel tank, lines, filters, oil change, engine maintainence, etc. Electric motors are incredibly robust and should last for millions of miles.


----------



## tradergordo (Jan 26, 2011)

Dune said:
			
		

> I hear that. There are a few other models out there as well that should be available this year or next. A couple more japanese and a few european options as well. G.M. kind of blew it with their 40 mile electric range, hopefully they will figure that out, before they get crushed. The thing with the battery replacement cost is that it is offset by not ever having to fix; ignition, exhaust, carberation/fuel injection, radiator/hoses/waterpump,  fuel tank, lines, filters, oil change, engine maintainence, etc. Electric motors are incredibly robust and should last for millions of miles.



Yea, despite apparent complexity given the high tech nature of the electric cars, they are actually quite a bit less complex than a gas car.  I love the idea of never again having to worry about gas, fuel filters, fuel pumps, fuel lines, fuel injectors, evap systems, canisters, catalytic converters, rusting mufflers, exhaust leaks, air filters, throttle bodies, pcv valves, spark plugs, O2 sensors, Mass Air Flow Sensors, timing belts, oil changes, oil leaks, burning oil, engine compression, etc. 95% of "check engine light" issues would be GONE.  Electric motors are beautiful in their simplicity.  These cars are also surprisingly efficient too, 4-5 miles per kilowatt hour:
http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf

So say you drove 10,000 miles a year (I drive twice that unfortunately), with a gas powered car that got 30 miles per gallon and you used $3 for the cost of a gallon of gas, the cost would be 10,000 / 30 * $3 = $1000.   With an electric vehicle that got 5 miles per kw hour, and 10 cent per kw hour cost of electricity, you are talking a cost of: 10000 / 5 * $0.10 = $200.  So that's $800 per year in fuel savings alone for the average American.  Since I drive twice that distance, I'd be saving $1600 per year, and that doesn't take into account that I might be able to get a large chunk of my electricity for "free" from the solar panels, which could mean an electric car could save me over $2000 in fuel costs every year.  But then again I could probably find a very nice used fuel efficient gas commuter car for around $8,000, compared to possibly $35,000 for a new electric car!   Perhaps a year or two from now the electric cars will sell for $25,000 with a government incentive maybe bringing the price down to $21,000.  Even with the fuel savings, and that big discount it might not make financial sense...


----------



## Dune (Jan 26, 2011)

Thing is though, Gordo, the usable lifespan of the electric is much longer than a gas model, so that should help defray the initial cost.


----------



## begreen (Jan 26, 2011)

Lifespan and parts costs. Brakes should last much longer with regenerative braking. No oil or coolant changes, no plugs, injectors, to plug or foul. No belts, fuel pumps, coils, etc to replace. Over the life of the car this should make a significant difference in the cost of ownership I would think.

PS: TG, thanks for the update. Now I really have solar envy.


----------



## tradergordo (Aug 1, 2011)

My house was just featured in a local news piece:
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/green/Make_Money_by_Going_Solar__Philadelphia-126442243.html
(I'm not the person interviewed, I didn't even know about this until after it aired, they filmed when we were not home)


----------



## ihookem (Aug 23, 2011)

Be green, you totally have a point on the electric car. That is why I always wondered why a chevy electric car cost 37k. Should cost less than a gas car. You forgot the no pollution controls.


----------



## amateur cutter (Aug 24, 2011)

ihookem said:
			
		

> Be green, you totally have a point on the electric car. That is why I always wondered why a chevy electric car cost 37k. Should cost less than a gas car. You forgot the no pollution controls.



As an automotive tech, I think electric cars should be way more durable & long lived than gasser's. The problems though I think are going to come in materials not resistant to rust/corrosion, especially in the "rust belt" states. If the manufacturer's will address these issues, a 20 year old elec. car should be like buying a 5-8 year old used gas car with 150,000 miles on it. I'm betting they won't do it though. They need to sell new units too badly to make the quality for the long haul. A C


----------



## begreen (Aug 24, 2011)

ihookem said:
			
		

> Be green, you totally have a point on the electric car. That is why I always wondered why a chevy electric car cost 37k. Should cost less than a gas car. You forgot the no pollution controls.



The Chevy Volt is not a pure electric car. It is an electric car with a very sophisticated generator backup system that greatly increases its cost, but also greatly increases its range and utility.


----------



## Mr. Kelly (Dec 17, 2011)

Hey Trader...

How is that system working out for you, now that you're nearly a year in?   

Plus, your installation company was a PA one?  The warranty on the equipment was mostly from the manufacturers, correct?  

Any problems or concerns, thus far?

Hope all is going well.


----------



## tradergordo (Dec 19, 2011)

Mr. Kelly said:
			
		

> Hey Trader...
> 
> How is that system working out for you, now that you're nearly a year in?
> 
> ...



There have been a few interesting developments.  First, the SREC market in PA has completely cratered, so that part of the income stream from solar for Pennsylvania is pretty much gone for now (you never know when the politicians will re-jigger things).  But for me anyway, the investment still makes sense from a pure economics perspective, even without SRECs it will pay for itself over 10 years.  After that its pure profit for many years (or decades) to come.  The price of electricity has already been hiked twice since I signed up for the solar system, this just makes my benefit even better.  

As for the system itself, it has been performing beautifully, producing more than 100% of my electric demand.  So far the panels have produced over 9 megawatts of power.  My utility company (Peco) reimburses me at the retail rate for any surplus, so I pretty much have no utility bill whatsoever anymore.  

Sort of unrelated (any PECO customer can sign up for it) I also signed up for their "Smart AC Saver" program where they can shut down my AC if they need to to keep the grid from crashing during peak demand - this supposedly triggered 2 times over the summer but I only noticed once, and they pay me $150 a year for this.  So with the solar surplus and the AC saver credits, and the woodstove, my total bill (which includes natural gas) has been zero (since April 2011 my grand total utility bill (gas + electric) have shown "total amount due = 0").

Warranty is from the equipment manufacturers, everything is covered for 20 years.

For what its worth, I'm not sure my results are typical.  I have a roof that faces 10 degrees east of dead solar south and gets full sun all day.  I know a few other people that have solar systems on less than perfect roofs and they don't see the same results as me, also I pretty much bought the biggest system I could fit on my roof which makes a difference (I figured if the government was payin', I might as well go all in). 

For do-it-yourselfers out there who happen to have land, building your own ground based solar system is more attractive now than ever.  Chinese panels are so dirt cheap that the US government is looking into putting tarrifs on them (so called "anti-dumping" legislation) - yes leave it to our government to prevent things from getting too affordable!  But at any rate, you can import these inexpensive, high quality panels yourself direct from China (SuntechPower is the leader but there are other quality manufacturers including eging), and build your own ground based system for the lowest total cost ever available, you also get a 30% federal tax credit.

-Gordo


----------

