I’d like to go solar grid-tie in a few years but I want to reroof the house first. I don’t use much power now, just 150-165 KWh for 9 months and 250-270 in the summer months for my very modest 865 sq ft home But I want to also buy a electric car sometime in the future so I’d figure that in my installation also. I had a recent quote $8900 for a complete install on the roof but I do not know the details as I said I can’t do it until the roof is done. A neighbor has a 2 axis solar tracking pedestal and it’s something to see but I don’t know if I’d go that way.
cost of solar panels
- Thread starter FramerJ
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
Ideally you figure out the racking system and have the roofer install the mounts when they are reroofing, that way you do not have warranty issues when you install the solar system in a few years. Alternatively, you pay extra to install ice and water shield under the entire roof rather than just at the lower edge. If you install solar, in a few years, the penetrations from the solar mounts will self seal. Once ice and water shield is on a roof barring a tree fallng on it, its not going to leak, the shingles just act as UV protection for the shield plus no chance of ice damming leakage.
Tracking solar collectors are more of a kinetic moving sculpture than a financially viable solar system. Panels used to be expensive, so trackers reduced the number of panels needed, but with cheap panels its far better to install more fixed mount panels. Vermont had a special incentive for trackers made by an instate company so I see a lot of them in VT.
Tracking solar collectors are more of a kinetic moving sculpture than a financially viable solar system. Panels used to be expensive, so trackers reduced the number of panels needed, but with cheap panels its far better to install more fixed mount panels. Vermont had a special incentive for trackers made by an instate company so I see a lot of them in VT.
Last edited:
I’d pull the trigger on a grid tied install today if I had any kind of guarantee they wouldn’t change or do away with net metering in the next 10 years. I ended up settling on a off grid system I assembled with limited battery capacity (currently two flooded 8d’s from rural king) and just run my window ac on the panels during the day to avoid cycling of the batteries. I’ll let you all know when I get the wall receptacle wore out!
The downside is I don’t get use the panels to full capacity, the upside is I have 100% control over my system and it works when the power is out. 1.2kw worth of panels will run window ac and fridge no problem and batteries will run fridge for several hours if need be and I don’t have to listen to the generator...or feed it $6 gasoline.
The downside is I don’t get use the panels to full capacity, the upside is I have 100% control over my system and it works when the power is out. 1.2kw worth of panels will run window ac and fridge no problem and batteries will run fridge for several hours if need be and I don’t have to listen to the generator...or feed it $6 gasoline.
I don't know of any states that didn't grandfather all existing net metering systems when they made changes. When net metering is changed it usually only applies to new connections. CT just changed its net metering policy Jan 1st this year but all existing net metering systems are grandfathered in until 2039.
Are net metering guidelines set up by the State or by the electric co? I guess its different state by state.
Generally net metering legislation was forced on the public utilities in most states. Public utilities used to be pure monopolies where they generated the power and sold it with no competition. A law called PUPRA was passed to force them to buy power from 3rd parties and the utilities fought screamed and kicked to make it hard to do so. When the first grid tie inverters came onto the market from European markets, they rarely could be legally used as the utilities had very expensive and interconnection rules designed for large power plants and applied them to small renewable users. For a few years guerilla solar installs were being done but the utilities started to clamp down and started installing ratcheting meters that treat power in either direction as power bought from the utility. Guerilla solar could still work but the owner had to be careful to never generate more power than they were using or they would be paying for power that was going back to the grid.
Many states finally stepped in and passed net metering laws that forced the utilities to accept small generators and made special pared down interconnect requirements for small generators usually under set limit. In my state of NH, the net metering rules were designed to "prime the pump" for small renewables but the legislation had a cap on the quantity of renewable that would qualify for true net metering. With the big drop in panel pricing and the federal solar incentives, that cap was reached and the legislature and governor had swung conservative and although additional solar was allowed it came with strings attached which diluted the value of net metering by putting in differential rates between what a homeowner is paid for power going into the grid compared to power coming out. There are also some states that have allowed the utilities to transfer costs from the unit power rate to the fixed account rate. So for the typical solar owner, their monthly minimum bill has gone up while they are selling power for considerably less than buying back.
In my case in northern New England I use the grid as a seasonal battery. I store up power all summer to run my house and my plug in hybrid during the winter. I would need to reconsider things if net metering was modified but in theory I am grandfathered for my current systems.
BTW I do small combined heat and power plants to supply hospitals and businesses. They are set up to sell power to the grid on rare occasions. 18 months to get permission to interconnect is real fast and 2 to 3 years is typical. The owner also has to pay the costs to update outdated utility infrastructure in some cases designed nearly 100 years ago. Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars is typical unless a "3VO" upgrade is needed and then that price doubles. In many cases its not worth it and the project gets shelved until some other firm pays for the upgrades on their project.
Many states finally stepped in and passed net metering laws that forced the utilities to accept small generators and made special pared down interconnect requirements for small generators usually under set limit. In my state of NH, the net metering rules were designed to "prime the pump" for small renewables but the legislation had a cap on the quantity of renewable that would qualify for true net metering. With the big drop in panel pricing and the federal solar incentives, that cap was reached and the legislature and governor had swung conservative and although additional solar was allowed it came with strings attached which diluted the value of net metering by putting in differential rates between what a homeowner is paid for power going into the grid compared to power coming out. There are also some states that have allowed the utilities to transfer costs from the unit power rate to the fixed account rate. So for the typical solar owner, their monthly minimum bill has gone up while they are selling power for considerably less than buying back.
In my case in northern New England I use the grid as a seasonal battery. I store up power all summer to run my house and my plug in hybrid during the winter. I would need to reconsider things if net metering was modified but in theory I am grandfathered for my current systems.
BTW I do small combined heat and power plants to supply hospitals and businesses. They are set up to sell power to the grid on rare occasions. 18 months to get permission to interconnect is real fast and 2 to 3 years is typical. The owner also has to pay the costs to update outdated utility infrastructure in some cases designed nearly 100 years ago. Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars is typical unless a "3VO" upgrade is needed and then that price doubles. In many cases its not worth it and the project gets shelved until some other firm pays for the upgrades on their project.
Interesting. Thanks for the response. I appreciate your time.
I dont understand the aversion to solar and why it has to be made complicated. Well, actually I do. Its all about the money and the utility provider is going to get theirs and I dont have a lobbyist with an office at the State capital. Minimum monthly fees, grid-connection fees, infrastructure upkeep fees, or whatever. I know I wil still be using the grid so there is a cost, but I will be paying for that when I sell the power I produce for cents on the dollar
There is a dark side to this story.
www.energyandpolicy.org
Utilities' Anti-Solar Campaign and Misinformation Debunked
Utility companies along with the Edison Electric Institute have launched a multi-year anti-solar campaign to weaken net metering policies across the country
www.energyandpolicy.org
The Koch families support ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), one of their many targets is pulling back solar legislation or opposing new legislation.
Net metering and incentives were intended to "prime the pump" for solar. It was a chicken and egg situation, solar panels were very expensive ($10 a rated watt) until the demand went up and the demand would not go up until the price of solar and the barriers to installation were dropped. Solar is now theoretical at parity with other sources , yet the pump priming continues. Many entrepreneurs figured that out several years ago and make a bundle "renting" people's roof via PPAs and leases. Solar should be at the point of standing on its own but there is now an industry that has grown accustomed to incentives. It makes sense that some of the incentives for new installations need to be trimmed and possibly phased out. It doesn't make sense to throw roadblocks with little or no technical basis in the way of additional home solar.
A little bit of solar on the grid is not a bad thing but as Hawaii and California has learned there is such a thing as too much solar on the grid unless changes are made to the grid and that usually means large batteries, pumped storage if its available and demand pricing. If the utilities would focus on long term planning for more renewables it would be the way to go but most are just trying to make money on past business practices. Berkshire Hathaway has figured it out, they bought a couple of utilities and adding renewables as fast as they can. They still need to move power around and maintain the equipment to do so, and they are making good money doing so.
Net metering and incentives were intended to "prime the pump" for solar. It was a chicken and egg situation, solar panels were very expensive ($10 a rated watt) until the demand went up and the demand would not go up until the price of solar and the barriers to installation were dropped. Solar is now theoretical at parity with other sources , yet the pump priming continues. Many entrepreneurs figured that out several years ago and make a bundle "renting" people's roof via PPAs and leases. Solar should be at the point of standing on its own but there is now an industry that has grown accustomed to incentives. It makes sense that some of the incentives for new installations need to be trimmed and possibly phased out. It doesn't make sense to throw roadblocks with little or no technical basis in the way of additional home solar.
A little bit of solar on the grid is not a bad thing but as Hawaii and California has learned there is such a thing as too much solar on the grid unless changes are made to the grid and that usually means large batteries, pumped storage if its available and demand pricing. If the utilities would focus on long term planning for more renewables it would be the way to go but most are just trying to make money on past business practices. Berkshire Hathaway has figured it out, they bought a couple of utilities and adding renewables as fast as they can. They still need to move power around and maintain the equipment to do so, and they are making good money doing so.
Well said. Starts to be an issue around 10-20% energy, depending on seasonal and load factors. But the US average is currently sneaking up on 3% of total generation... and so the anti-solar folks are doing real harm.
I think the utilities also have an incentive to discourage rooftop solar so they can build their own (grid-tie, unbuffered) solar plants themselves for profit.
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
I have been following ERCOT demand and supply graphs. The past few times I have seen the patter of wind generation peaking during night and solar of course during the day. Is this predictable enough rely on.
Combined Wind and Solar
Keep in mind many states forced utilities to sell off their generation years ago, the utilities no longer own the power plants, they just act as a middleman to distribute the power from the generators to customers. Therefore they can not install solar or wind but they still oppose distributed generation.
I just read an article about how dairy farmers in NY and other east coast spots are turning off their anaerobic digestion system generators because the paltry payment of 3¢ per kw was too low to maintain their equipment. They need at least double that amount to break even. In VT the return is much higher and therefore sustainable.
I had my solar system installed in December 2021. I do not have all the system specifics but it is similar to the one you were quoted with 20 REC panels. I am in Northern NH and GSS did the install. I love the system. In the winter months I have an electric bill due to the sun being low in the sky and behind some trees a lot, but since April the electric company owes me money. I paid 27k and change so 23k sounds about right. The company handled every detail… they contacted the city for permits, electric company for the new meter and dealt with the rebate paperwork. I have no regrets and love my system! I now use my minisplits for heat and it saves me a ton on propane heating costs along with the electric bill savings. So far I produce between 700kwh and 1.1mwh a month. Only thing I would change is I would have gone with ten more panels to help with making more power during cloudy and rainy days and a battery backup to supplement night time power usage… but that is just me. These are additions I will be making in the future. I think its one of the best investments in my home I have made.
So do you include your SREC sales in the payback?. There is active but low paying SREC market in NH, takes a bit of paperwork to set up but it covers my monthly charges for the privilege of being hooked up to gird with 4.6 KW of panels enrolled.
Woodsplitter67
Minister of Fire
Bro.. you need to change your anniversary date.. You should never sell any of your credited electric. My anniversary was September which ment that ALL of my electricity generated and credited all sumer is sold to them at a.lower rate. That ment at the end of September I get a check from them and am now purchasing power from them. I changed my anniversary date to March because April is a break even month, I consume as much as I generated. All summer I build a credit, over the winter I use my credit and buy the time march rolls around my credit is gone and there is nothing for them to credit me.. Your system payback is slower because your generating power and selling it for less than what its actually worth and purchasing power at a higher rate. You should never get a check from them., I hope I explained that well enough without making it overly confusing..
I have had a surplus for many years in Nh and never tempted to sell my credit. I get the letter every year but they are paying a really low rate. The only reason I might sell is if I am selling the house as the credit stays with the house.
Buddy who got me convinced to go with panels lives in WV. His net metering agreement stipulates that he must be a net consumer (on an annual basis) and it resets December 31, any surplus on the books at that point is forfeit. Kinda of a raw deal but he sized it so he generally uses up his summer surplus before he forfeits any.
I have to admit with surplus solar I have let a few energy thieves sneak into the house. I have two outdoor cameras with IR illumination that is in 24/7. I think the total camera is 200 Watts each. I could probably go inside each one and disconnect the IR LEDs and save a lot of power. I also have refrigerator that I think has a problem with a defrost timer, I just need to spend the time to empty it and check out the timer but it keeps things cold so I dont mess with it. I probably could roam the house and find a few other phantom loads but with surplus its easier not to deal with it 
In New York state, there is really a divide between low cost electricity (north and west) and high cost electricity (south and east). If you go much east of Utica, NY power prices are much higher, and also much higher along the Hudson River and down into NY City and Long Island. Also, 85% of the power for Central, Northern and Western NY is generated renewably (wind, solar, or hydro) or by nuclear. There are transmission line capacity constraints from the cheaper power areas to the more costly power areas.
When I sell my excess solar PV back to the grid at my net metering reset date, I typically get between 2 and 4 cents per kWh (average avoided cost), so I could understand a 3 cents per kWh for the dairy farmers. I think it should be higher, but that is probably the "market" rate. A higher rate would certainly do a better job of dealing with manure than storing it in a pond and then spreading it over fields (mostly) uncomposted, as seems to happen a lot around here.
Vermont used to be about 70% nuclear until they shut their nuke plant down. I am guessing that the retail power rates are higher there since the shutdown, hence the reason the farmers get a better rate for their bio-gas generation.
VT get most of its power from Canadian Hydro, they have very generous incentive programs for renewables including cowpower funded by the ratepayers. Several large windfarms did get built but they were in rural areas and made a lot of enemies. It has been tough to get any new ones permitted for several years.
The cowpower plants only make sense on very large diary operations, thecowpower digesters reduce the volume of dairy waste that needs to go on the fields and the farmers can recycle a lot of the cellulosic waste back for cow bedding.
The cowpower plants only make sense on very large diary operations, thecowpower digesters reduce the volume of dairy waste that needs to go on the fields and the farmers can recycle a lot of the cellulosic waste back for cow bedding.
Similar threads
