# California panel approves historic plan to require solar panels on new homes



## Big Johnson (Jun 2, 2017)

California panel approves historic plan to require solar panels on new homes



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-state-may-require-them-new-homes/594364002/


Great idea?


----------



## Bull Trout (Dec 6, 2016)

Big Johnson said:


> California panel approves historic plan to require solar panels on new homes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


idk if it is a great idea, I am a fan of solar panels, I am not a fan of being forced to be a fan of solar panels


----------



## Peter_C (Nov 26, 2014)

WOW! The CPUC allowed that? (California Public Utilities Commission) Solar is kinda a no brainer with the rebates for new construction, although they rebates are dropping. Payoff is usually under 10 years and for high consumption households could be a 5-6 year payback, then pure savings. 

Energy independence is a good thing, and with the SoCal nuclear plant closing, and the desire for less hydro electric dams like Hetch Hetchy, solar is a good option. 

At least they put a clause in that solar is not for every home nor building. Otherwise they would be cutting forests down to install solar.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

I can already see what's coming. They'll mandate it and then they'll drop the rebates because they no longer need to entice you to go solar, you have to do it.

I don't think the govt should be able to force you to do something that is quite expensive, even if it pays back in 7-15 years.


----------



## parkers5150 (Dec 5, 2008)

its for new construction, so it's still a choice....


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Not exactly.


----------



## Big Johnson (Jun 2, 2017)

parkers5150 said:


> its for new construction, so it's still a choice....


And it’s a good thing it’s already super cheap to build or buy a house in CA.


----------



## Seven-Delta-FortyOne (Mar 5, 2011)

Typical short-sighted bureaucratic bullcrap.

They finally got around to realizing that maybe they shouldn't have harvested and wasted every last frukking drop of oil, but their solution is more corporate-manufactured garbage with end-of-life cycle issues.

What are they going to mandate in 30 years when there is no more lithium for batteries, the ground is toxic from all the lead and mercury and cadmium, and there is an enormous pile of unusable scrap that is all thats left of their fantastic "green" idea.

All paid for by you and me.


Idiots.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

They look like ****. That's enough for me to remove them after I get inspected. 


Mike.
_______________


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

You can bet your ass there's a solar lobby giving politicians blow jobs on the side side. 


Mike.
_______________


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

Reminds me of when the heat pump water heaters were required.

In the production jobs they got inspected then removed and set a few houses down the street....:laughing:


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> They look like ****. That's enough for me to remove them after I get inspected.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you're paying 40+cents per KWHR, which is what Tier two is now (no more Tier one, two and three, now just one and two) you'll be putting them back on. 

That's the real stick, being swatted with these insanely high electrical usage rates and it's all designed to get people to reduce their usage and to go 'green'. 

The genesis of all of this is the greenhouse gas emissions reduction act that mandated a drastic reduction in the states CO2 emissions. This in effect rules out the construction of a few big natural gas fired power plants that would tide us over with reasonable rates until the evolving technology could make a natural move to something truly sustainable. 

There is some good coming out of it; panel prices are dropping, the technology is improving (there's panels with microinverters now that eliminate the need for the giant inverters more commonly used), it's a good thing to decentralize power production and it has bolstered an emerging industry. 

What would really be great is if us Californians would flip the bird to Sacramento, and demand that all the money from the cap and trade ripoff stay out of Sacramento and go to budding small businesses in Cali to encourage development of all of the new electrical systems that are coming into the market, things like weed eaters, bikes, small and not so small cars, mini splits, etc.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Rio said:


> When you're paying 40+cents per KWHR, which is what Tier two is now (no more Tier one, two and three, now just one and two) you'll be putting them back on.
> 
> That's the real stick, being swatted with these insanely high electrical usage rates and it's all designed to get people to reduce their usage and to go 'green'.
> 
> ...




Anaheim has their own power plant. We are uniquely different than other cities. We don't pay Edison. In fact our electric bill is around 20 to 30% lower then other parts of the state. I didn't even qualify to save money. Because my bill was too low. 


Mike.
_______________


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Anaheim has their own power plant. We are uniquely different than other cities. We don't pay Edison. In fact our electric bill is around 20 to 30% lower then other parts of the state. I didn't even qualify to save money. Because my bill was too low.
> 
> 
> Mike.
> _______________


You're very fortunate.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Rio said:


> You're very fortunate.




I believe it's a Disneyland thing.


Mike.
_______________


----------



## Lee Sadd (May 1, 2018)

The tech has improved a lot. You will get people saying it's an eyesore like wind power, but if it's cheap and it works then people will invest. Especially when oil prices are fluctuating like they are at the moment.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

Will they be like Florida and not allow you to actually _run_ your home on the solar?


----------



## SLSTech (Sep 13, 2008)

Sorry but everyone has known that this was coming... at least in theory
Cali has always said they wanted to be net-zero by 2020 & this is what it takes - amazingly they are going ahead with it. Interestingly I don't see anything about wind also being allowed or other options
As for rebates - yep they will go bye-bye though with costs dropping as they have & the increased amounts that will probably knock down the prices even more 
As for the rest of the US, the Architects (AIA) has been promoting net-zero by 2030 along with the code guys (ICC) so heads up


----------



## Deckhead (Dec 9, 2010)

California is going to be looked at in history as one large insane asylum.


----------



## parkers5150 (Dec 5, 2008)

Deckhead said:


> California is going to be looked at in history as one large insane asylum.


sez the guy from Florida....


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

SLSTech said:


> Sorry but everyone has known that this was coming... at least in theory
> Cali has always said they wanted to be net-zero by 2020 & this is what it takes - amazingly they are going ahead with it. Interestingly I don't see anything about wind also being allowed or other options
> As for rebates - yep they will go bye-bye though with costs dropping as they have & the increased amounts that will probably knock down the prices even more
> As for the rest of the US, the Architects (AIA) has been promoting net-zero by 2030 along with the code guys (ICC) so heads up


I'd love for them to make a shingle that is the solar panel itself That way it'll look more more normalish and would cover the entire roof with smaller panels.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Leo G said:


> I'd love for them to make a shingle that is the solar panel itself That way it'll look more more normalish and would cover the entire roof with smaller panels.


That's what Tesla is touting. Now, whether they actually get production up to meet demand is another thing. Literally, they have thousands of pre-sold orders for their solar shingles.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

The last time there was a big demand for solar cells, there was a raw material shortage and prices shot up.


----------



## rrk (Apr 22, 2012)

I f your house has solar panels the Fire dept will not go on the roof to ventilate or fight the fire. No venting = limited inside deployment. Fire depts here now have strict rules fighting fires on homes with panels, basically once people are out do the best you can through windows/doors.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Will they be like Florida and not allow you to actually _run_ your home on the solar?


In California can run your home on solar, there's no law that says you have to be tied to the grid I believe.

Also battery back up systems are gaining in popularity out here because the utility companies are switching to TOU (Time Of Use) metering with the most expensive rates being after the solar system isn't working (later in the afternoon).


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

rrk said:


> I f your house has solar panels the Fire dept will not go on the roof to ventilate or fight the fire. No venting = limited inside deployment. Fire depts here now have strict rules fighting fires on homes with panels, basically once people are out do the best you can through windows/doors.


Out here there are regulations on where the panels can go so firefighters can go up on the roof to ventilate or for other reasons. Basically it's 3' from the sides and 3' along the ridge (think it's 18" on each side). 

In most Climate Zones in California now when one does a new house or a large remodel there has to be a minimum amount of the roof designated and shown on the plans to be 'solar ready'. There's also some other regulations related to that such as raceways for wires, jboxes by the solar and electrical panels, hook ups for electric vehicles, etc.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Leo G said:


> I'd love for them to make a shingle that is the solar panel itself That way it'll look more more normalish and would cover the entire roof with smaller panels.


As mentioned up the thread there are systems like that, not sure how cost effective they are compared to standard panels and also not sure how easy they are to troubleshoot and service in case of a panel failure. 

If it's an integrated tile it might be very difficult to switch out a defective panel.

There are also thin film systems that are being developed that will be sprayed on metal roofs, they have a way to go but if and when they work reliably might really be a game changer.


----------



## GitSum (Feb 27, 2008)

rrk said:


> I f your house has solar panels the Fire dept will not go on the roof to ventilate or fight the fire. No venting = limited inside deployment. Fire depts here now have strict rules fighting fires on homes with panels, basically once people are out do the best you can through windows/doors.


In California, a 3' 'pathway' is required along the eaves of the roof and another 3' adjacent to the panels. Also, a placard is required on the main service panel indicating where the roof can be accessed from


----------



## rrk (Apr 22, 2012)

GitSum said:


> In California, a 3' 'pathway' is required along the eaves of the roof and another 3' adjacent to the panels. Also, a placard is required on the main service panel indicating where the roof can be accessed from


As you can see in your picture the 3' space is very small for venting, especially when there is an overhang. A friend of mine who is a Capt on a paid dept will not send anyone on the roof deck at all if there are panels present. Also where previously they would pull the meter or disconnect it at the pole the panels would not be disconnected as easily.


----------



## GitSum (Feb 27, 2008)

So I could have a 3,000 square foot roof with a couple of panels on it and your friend wouldn't allow anyone on the roof?

That's ridiculous. Does he work for the Broward County Fire Department by chance? Certain jobs are inherently dangerous, that's why they earn the 'big bucks' (and pension that goes along with it)


----------



## rrk (Apr 22, 2012)

Says insurance will cover the loss.


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

GitSum said:


> So I could have a 3,000 square foot roof with a couple of panels on it and your friend wouldn't allow anyone on the roof?
> 
> That's ridiculous. Does he work for the Broward County Fire Department by chance? Certain jobs are inherently dangerous, that's why they earn the 'big bucks' (and pension that goes along with it)



Ability to probe roof with pike poles and other tools is an essential part of being safe when ventilating. As in Under the panels, they cant. A 3' walk way is about the same size as a 30-48" hole used to ventilate a roof...and potentially blocks egress on the other side also. All be fore slip and slide characteristics of the panels and even possible voltage-amperage dangers.

No FF has a problem with the dangers of the job, just stupid people making them do truly stupid things were the outcome is likely poor .... this is one of those IMO.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

GitSum said:


> So I could have a 3,000 square foot roof with a couple of panels on it and your friend wouldn't allow anyone on the roof?
> 
> That's ridiculous. Does he work for the Broward County Fire Department by chance? Certain jobs are inherently dangerous, that's why they earn the 'big bucks' (and pension that goes along with it)


You do realize firefighters aren't tremendously good at saving buildings, eh?

And at the point they are using pikes and saws to gain access thru the roof - the dwelling is a 100% loss anyway?

And entry via roof ain't gonna save a life - that moment has already passed.

So let the damned thing burn.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Proper venting is absolutely critical to save a building. It also helps keep firefighters in the building safer.

It helps control both heat build up and airflow through the structure, so it's a big help in fighting a fire.

Critically, it can help prevent flashover in an attic, which is catastrophic. Around here, model houses were built with glass side and a toaster element so firefighters could see the exact effect of venting a structure in various locations.


----------



## rrk (Apr 22, 2012)

When the embers from a nearby forest fire get trapped under a solar panel and the house burns down who will they complain to?


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Mandated to make your brand new house look industrial... 

Guess that's one way to boost the used home / renovation market... :whistling :laughing:

It's one thing if you don't mind the look and consider it a trade-off, but it's interesting that those that often tout it's benefits (i.e. - good for environment, sell overage back, cost savings, etc.), often don't own it themselves... can't seem to find many who do to give first hand accounts of the claims made... 

I'm all for newer tech, but not mandated tech... Does make you wonder how many on the California Energy Commission have solar on their homes...


----------



## NYgutterguy (Mar 3, 2014)

I've been dealing with a ton of homeowners with solar last few weeks due to the gutter damage caused by them. One yesterday and two today alone. 

They all speak positive about it. It's all over around here. Personally not my cup of tea looks wise and my electric bill is usually very low. Little bit surprised by the positive feedback. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## parkers5150 (Dec 5, 2008)

rrk said:


> When the embers from a nearby forest fire get trapped under a solar panel and the house burns down who will they complain to?


...what would be combustible under a solar panel?


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

NYgutterguy said:


> I've been dealing with a ton of homeowners with solar last few weeks *due to the gutter damage caused by them. *One yesterday and two today alone.
> 
> They all speak positive about it. It's all over around here. Personally not my cup of tea looks wise and my electric bill is usually very low. Little bit surprised by the positive feedback.
> 
> ...


Guess you gotta' factor that into the cost/savings equation as I doubt people are going to keep putting in insurance claims when they have deductibles...

The shingles concept above looks interesting, and depending on cost/maintenance, could be something to consider... but considering they've been at this for decades, if the claims were all they were cracked up to be, gotta' think they would have done more then the less than 1% of the US homes out there...


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

parkers5150 said:


> ...what would be combustible under a solar panel?


Nests of various sorts, trapped debris, etc...


----------



## FrankSmith (Feb 21, 2013)

I live near 400' windmills. I own a house that I used to live at with them close enough that you hear them if you sleep with the windows open. They don't bother me like they do some locals but...

When they one up I concluded that it would be better to make every building that went up produce its own electricity than to have some people be forced to live next the the production source for everyone. 

It will end up there some day. The tipping point will get here and it will be so cost effective and non intrusive that everyone will choose to or be forced to do it when building.


----------



## bwiab (Mar 17, 2006)

The real question is how many executives at the cali energy commision got free teslas?

Elon Musk is jumping with joy... yay ... lets hear it for batteries...


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

California politicians don't do anything for nothing. Someone's getting stroked. 


Mike.
_______________


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

The middle class and in this case the lower class citizen in California has gotten a royal screwing in respect to so many things in California but especially anything to do with energy. We pay more for gas for our cars and probably pay the highest electrical usage rates in the country, it's over 40 cents a KWHR. a lot of the country is under 10 Cents a KWHR.

Some of the schemes to generate the alternative energy that is required to be used to feed the grid are incredibly stupid. At least the PV roofs are decentralized, are small scale and provide a direct benefit to the homeowner. 

Most of California is good for solar, lots of sun, not much if any snow (with the exception of the mountains of course but those are low population areas). The price point keeps dropping and the systems keep getting more affordable. Given time it will all go there anyway but the zealots who have the state by the short hairs at the moment don't want to wait, like true leftists everywhere, they want to force their agenda down everyone's throats.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

FrankSmith said:


> I live near 400' windmills. I own a house that I used to live at with them close enough that you hear them if you sleep with the windows open. They don't bother me like they do some locals but...
> 
> When they one up I concluded that it would be better to make every building that went up produce its own electricity than to have some people be forced to live next the the production source for everyone.
> 
> It will end up there some day. The tipping point will get here and it will be so cost effective and non intrusive that everyone will choose to or be forced to do it when building.



Not likely. Wind and solar have both been around and heavily researched and developed for decades, Don't look for either to be cost effective ever compared to Hydro or nuclear. The only way to make them cost effective is by making hydro and nuclear more expensive.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Rio said:


> The middle class and in this case the lower class citizen in California has gotten a royal screwing in respect to so many things in California but especially anything to do with energy. We pay more for gas for our cars and probably pay the highest electrical usage rates in the country, it's over 40 cents a KWHR. a lot of the country is under 10 Cents a KWHR.
> 
> Some of the schemes to generate the alternative energy that is required to be used to feed the grid are incredibly stupid. At least the PV roofs are decentralized, are small scale and provide a direct benefit to the homeowner.
> 
> Most of California is good for solar, lots of sun, not much if any snow (with the exception of the mountains of course but those are low population areas). The price point keeps dropping and the systems keep getting more affordable. Given time it will all go there anyway but the zealots who have the state by the short hairs at the moment don't want to wait, like true leftists everywhere, they want to force their agenda down everyone's throats.


The more solar you add to the grid system the higher the cost of the electricity will be. Sound off? But it's true.

It doesn't matter how much PV electricity you pump into the system, the fixed costs don't change. Even if they don't have to run the generators as much because the external PV systems are generating the bulk of the electricity they still have to own, run and maintain them. The lines are still there along with the employees. This is only a benefit to the electric company, the people providing the extra PV electricity are only getting paid wholesale prices and usually will not be allowed to be paid more than their generation bill is. You will still be required to pay for the other costs such as line fees, distribution costs, and the connection fee. You're bill will never be zero and you won't ever get money back. Those days are gone.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Leo G said:


> The more solar you add to the grid system the higher the cost of the electricity will be. Sound off? But it's true.
> 
> It doesn't matter how much PV electricity you pump into the system, the fixed costs don't change. Even if they don't have to run the generators as much because the external PV systems are generating the bulk of the electricity they still have to own, run and maintain them. The lines are still there along with the employees. This is only a benefit to the electric company, the people providing the extra PV electricity are only getting paid wholesale prices and usually will not be allowed to be paid more than their generation bill is. You will still be required to pay for the other costs such as line fees, distribution costs, and the connection fee. You're bill will never be zero and you won't ever get money back. Those days are gone.


There's some valid points here, at seminars I've attended on the subject it's been said that there's an upper limit to the number of structures that can have PV and be grid tied or the grid will become unstable.

Having said that there's also a lot of good points to going with a PV system, depending on where one is and how the site is. With a battery backup one can be set up not to have any concerns with black outs (incidentally there are rumors that this summer could be a bad year for them in California for a number of reasons). As it stands now there is no law requiring one to be tied to the grid. There are many houses and other structures in the back country where it's cheaper to 'cut the cord' and be entirely off grid.

It's also a good thing to decentralize large utilities as much as possible, makes the whole system more stable and survivable. There's already been attacks on our grid and the more dispersed our energy generation sources are the better.

There's also the possibility as battery systems become more affordable, which is happening little by little, that with a sufficient number of houses tied to the grid with battery backup the whole system ends up functioning like a giant dispersed power plant. With the sophistication of computers and software this is a definite possibility that is getting more and more attention and this could solve a lot of potential problems.


----------



## HomeArt (Oct 2, 2017)

I think it is. It's cheap and it works. And it would be a shame not to use all that sunshine.


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Makes you wonder, if it's as good as it advertised, reliable and actually ends up saving money, why isn't it a requirement for all government buildings?


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Rio said:


> There's some valid points here, at seminars I've attended on the subject it's been said that there's an upper limit to the number of structures that can have PV and be grid tied or the grid will become unstable.
> 
> Having said that there's also a lot of good points to going with a PV system, depending on where one is and how the site is. With a battery backup one can be set up not to have any concerns with black outs (incidentally there are rumors that this summer could be a bad year for them in California for a number of reasons). As it stands now there is no law requiring one to be tied to the grid. There are many houses and other structures in the back country where it's cheaper to 'cut the cord' and be entirely off grid.
> 
> ...


There are many instances of people trying to cut the cord to the grid by being offline and the state govt comes in and forces the people to connect because you can't live without electricity. They don't want people to be off the grid, they want/need you to be connected so you pay your "fair share" or some horsechit like that. They will actually condemn your house because you aren't connected.

I'd love to have a large solar system on my house. But my roof is east west and I don't have enough land to put panels on a ground structure.

I would probably do a UPS system. Where the sun and the grid charges the batteries and if power goes out there isn't even a blink.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

KAP said:


> Makes you wonder, if it's as good as it advertised, reliable and actually ends up saving money, why isn't it a requirement for all government buildings?


Panels last about 25 years. Batteries between 7-12. Electronics are the linchpins, they can last weeks or decades.

If you have a good system that is sized right you can keep your electric bill down considerably. You need to understand that you need direct sun to run it. Living in places with lots of clouds isn't going to get you very far. Living in desert country is a great place for solar.


----------



## Deckhead (Dec 9, 2010)

I wanna make a steam generator for electricity. Just something small but think it'd be cool to make.

As far as requiring people to perform "good investments", that's insane. That is not a small investment either. If you were going to build, now you either can't or have to reduce the cost of the home by 50k. 

Government knows no bounds how to irresponsibly spend money, and they get to tell people what good investments are? Meet my new accountant... He's a crackhead.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

It's only fair that we use your rooftop for solar energy for the grid that we will make you pay for anyway even though you are producing enough for yourself. Think of the poor quasi public utility company.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

Leo G said:


> ..........If you have a good system that is sized right you can keep your electric bill down considerably. You need to understand that you need direct sun to run it. Living in places with lots of clouds isn't going to get you very far. Living in desert country is a great place for solar.


Living in cloudy climes isn't a death knell for solar. You can make it work even if you rarely see the sun. It's just more expensive.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

And that's not what I said. If you have to put up 3x as many panels your ROI is going to be stretched out considerably. If you've got the room and the money, you can make it work anywhere.


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Leo G said:


> And that's not what I said. If you have to put up 3x as many panels your ROI is going to be stretched out considerably. If you've got the room and the money, you can make it work anywhere.


Pretty sure most government buildings aren't blocked by trees, etc. 

Again, if it actually saves money, etc. why aren't they required to have them?... would go a long way to bolstering the argument for them and the claims not to mention the imposition (tax?) on new homeowners...


----------



## Peter_C (Nov 26, 2014)

Leo G said:


> Panels last about 25 years. Batteries between 7-12. Electronics are the linchpins, they can last weeks or decades.


Panels carry a 25 year warranty along with most individual inverters like Enphase (The best way in my opinion to install a solar system for home use). Life expectancy is closer to 50 years for the panels and even then it is not the electronics failing, it is the glass covering them that becomes obscured. 


Leo G said:


> If you have a good system that is sized right you can keep your electric bill down considerably. You need to understand that you need direct sun to run it. Living in places with lots of clouds isn't going to get you very far. Living in desert country is a great place for solar.


Denver Colorado is actually one of the best places in the USA for solar. Cooler is better for solar. Most cloudy places like Seattle actually work very well for solar. Germany is not known for it's sun yet has the largest solar grid installed. They have actively pushed to get rid of nuclear power. 


Deckhead said:


> As far as requiring people to perform "good investments", that's insane. That is not a small investment either. If you were going to build, now you either can't or have to reduce the cost of the home by 50k.


How much do you think a PV system costs? For an average home you are looking at $10K-$20K. Which of course is paid back in typically less than 10 years and then becomes pure savings. On a 15 year loan to build you are still coming out ahead even with the interest accrued upfront. Also the home becomes more desirable. Realtors taut the solar systems, and it is already common on new construction to help them sell. 

Simple fact: In CA the electricity cost to consumers has doubled every 10 years. (Maybe not in Disneyland though.)



480sparky said:


> Living in cloudy climes isn't a death knell for solar. You can make it work even if you rarely see the sun. It's just more expensive.


A solar system will produce it's highest production on partly cloudy days often clipping if using appropriately sized inverter(s). So oversize your inverters if it is often partly cloudy in your area.



KAP said:


> Pretty sure most government buildings aren't blocked by trees, etc.
> 
> Again, if it actually saves money, etc. why aren't they required to have them?... would go a long way to bolstering the argument for them and the claims not to mention the imposition (tax?) on new homeowners...


They are required to have solar on a majority of government buildings. Counties also hold to this structure. Schools are getting net zero systems all over the place. Solar saves the tax payers money :thumbsup: Remember the coal museum that got solar?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/06/kentucky-coal-mining-museum-switches-to-solar-power.html


> *"We believe that this project will help save at least $8,000 to $10,000 off the energy costs on this building alone," *Robinson told WYMT.
> 
> The museum is owned by Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College. Robinson said *the savings would go back to the school and its students. *
> 
> ...





Leo G said:


> There are many instances of people trying to cut the cord to the grid by being offline and the state govt comes in and forces the people to connect because you can't live without electricity. They don't want people to be off the grid, they want/need you to be connected so you pay your "fair share" or some horsechit like that. They will actually condemn your house because you aren't connected.


Very true as they do require you to be on grid AND have a garbage service. This is mostly a city or county requirement though. 



Leo G said:


> I'd love to have a large solar system on my house. But my roof is east west and I don't have enough land to put panels on a ground structure.


West happens to work great for Time Of Use systems. You can tilt them sideways a little to gain more mid day sun. A good solar company could be paid to design the system for a reasonable fee, then you can self install. 



Leo G said:


> I would probably do a UPS system. Where the sun and the grid charges the batteries and if power goes out there isn't even a blink.


Do it! 



KAP said:


> Makes you wonder, if it's as good as it advertised, reliable and actually ends up saving money, why isn't it a requirement for all government buildings?


It takes time to implement such a large task. There are a lot of government buildings. The White House again has solar panels both PV and Thermal. 
http://www.green.ca.gov/buildings


> Under the leadership of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., California has undertaken an ambitious effort to green the state’s buildings and *save taxpayer dollars* in the process. In 2012, Governor Brown issued a sweeping executive order directing all state agencies, departments, and other state entities to reduce their grid energy use by 20 percent by 2018 (compared to a 2003 baseline).


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

> Do it!


Don't have the room. I'm not putting east/west facing panels for a system. To much wasted sunlight.


----------



## Deckhead (Dec 9, 2010)

I have 2 separate clients who did it on their beach houses. One was 40k the other was 75k not including the leaks that he ended up chasing.

Both like them but aren't ecstatic about it. It saves the bigger house about 50% on his bill and the smaller one about 60%.


----------



## Deckhead (Dec 9, 2010)

That isn't even the problem I have with it though. The problem I have, is not having the freedom to dictate what I put on my house. Free market my ass...


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

KAP said:


> Makes you wonder, if it's as good as it advertised, reliable and actually ends up saving money, why isn't it a requirement for all government buildings?


If they did, they'd just raise property taxes 25% to pay for the initial investment.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

480sparky said:


> If they did, they'd just raise property taxes 25% to pay for the initial investment.




Not in Cali. The voters made it impossible to raise property taxes. Prop 13 enacted in the 70's. 


Mike.
_______________


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

_"Under the leadership of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., California has undertaken an ambitious effort to green the state’s buildings and *save taxpayer dollars* in the process. In 2012, Governor Brown issued a sweeping executive order directing all state agencies, departments, and other state entities to reduce their grid energy use by 20 percent by 2018 (compared to a 2003 baseline)."

_Talk about propaganda, what a crock..........


----------



## FrankSmith (Feb 21, 2013)

hdavis said:


> Not likely. Wind and solar have both been around and heavily researched and developed for decades, Don't look for either to be cost effective ever compared to Hydro or nuclear. The only way to make them cost effective is by making hydro and nuclear more expensive.


The day will come. I see it as a good thing. If you want electricity make electricity. I am all for as much self sufficiency as possible.


----------



## Peter_C (Nov 26, 2014)

Rio said:


> Talk about propaganda, what a crock..........


Do you know any BIG business that are running solar with a $3,000+ a month bill? If you do, does it save them money? If you aren't familiar with the savings what are you basing your comment on?

Solar works, and the bigger the bill, the more it saves. Not propaganda and not a crock. Study up on solar and you might be surprised by how much it can save. Not one of the customers I have set up with a solar system has ever said it wasn't saving them money. 

I need to walk that statement back on at least two houses. As this system isn't saving them money anymore...their mansion is gone! Solar system survived the fire though.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Not in Cali. The voters made it impossible to raise property taxes. Prop 13 enacted in the 70's.
> .....


It's easy to skirt that. Just raise vehicle registration costs. Bump up sales tax.

Never fear. When it comes to squeezing you in the 'nads for more money, the gubbamint has the process covered.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Peter_C said:


> Do you know any BIG business that are running solar with a $3,000+ a month bill? If you do, does it save them money? If you aren't familiar with the savings what are you basing your comment on?
> 
> Solar works, and the bigger the bill, the more it saves. Not propaganda and not a crock. Study up on solar and you might be surprised by how much it can save. Not one of the customers I have set up with a solar system has ever said it wasn't saving them money.
> 
> I need to walk that statement back on at least two houses. As this system isn't saving them money anymore...their mansion is gone! Solar system survived the fire though.


It doesn't save you anything til your ROI is satisfied. And the closer the system is matched to your needs, the longer it will take to close the ROI.


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

Leo G said:


> It doesn't save you anything til your ROI is satisfied. And the closer the system is matched to your needs, the longer it will take to close the ROI.


Since the average HO sells in 13 years, that's also an elusive ROI... 

It's a saleman's trick almost akin to timeshare sales... it all looks good on paper, but not in actual practice...


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

What I've always wondered is the people who say their electric bill has been reduced by 80%. But they lease the panels, how much does the lease cost per month and why aren't they including that cost as their electric bill?


If your electric bill was $100 and you save 80% then you have a $20 electric bill. But if the lease is $85 a month, you're actually paying more. But I haven't a clue on how much the lease rates are. I know most people don't outright buy the system.


----------



## Deckhead (Dec 9, 2010)

Leo G said:


> What I've always wondered is the people who say their electric bill has been reduced by 80%. But they lease the panels, how much does the lease cost per month and why aren't they including that cost as their electric bill?
> 
> 
> If your electric bill was $100 and you save 80% then you have a $20 electric bill. But if the lease is $85 a month, you're actually paying more. But I haven't a clue on how much the lease rates are. I know most people don't outright buy the system.


The 2 clients I have that got them bought them and paid a buttload of money. Like, could have bought a new truck kinda money.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

Oh ya, the panels are about $1-1.50 per watt. So a 280 watt panel is about $300 or more depending on the tech.

Plus if you are doing a grid tie, you would usually go with the micro inverter. And that means each panel has it's own inverter that feeds into the others and that goes to a junction that connects to the grid. Each one of those components is an additional charge, plus whatever labor to get it installed. Plus your insurance on the home will likely go up.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

When I was referring to propaganda it was in reference to the governor bragging about how much money the government is saving the California taxpayer while at the same time completely hosing us with the highest electrical rates in the country, not to mention the highest gas prices. We pay more for gas here than they do in Hawaii for goodness sakes.

Both of those are incredibly regressive taxes on the poor among us who can't afford a PV system for their house (if they had a house, they are much more likely to be renters) and also who are very unlikely to drive a Prius or other gas sipping vehicle. Getting hammered with a utility bill that costs so much money that one can't run the air conditioner is not caring for your constituency, seeing your money get sucked dry every time you go to fill up is not caring for it at all. 

The idea that he's up there on his stump bragging about how much money him and his cohorts are saving the state while totally screwing so many Californians is sickening.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Rio said:


> When I was referring to propaganda it was in reference to the governor bragging about how much money the government is saving the California taxpayer while at the same time completely hosing us with the highest electrical rates in the country, not to mention the highest gas prices. We pay more for gas here than they do in Hawaii for goodness sakes.
> 
> Both of those are incredibly regressive taxes on the poor among us who can't afford a PV system for their house (if they had a house, they are much more likely to be renters) and also who are very unlikely to drive a Prius or other gas sipping vehicle. Getting hammered with a utility bill that costs so much money that one can't run the air conditioner is not caring for your constituency, seeing your money get sucked dry every time you go to fill up is not caring for it at all.
> 
> The idea that he's up there on his stump bragging about how much money him and his cohorts are saving the state while totally screwing so many Californians is sickening.


Please read this and let me know what you think.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table5_a.pdf


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

It says that I pay the 2nd highest in the country. Dammit.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

In the end, the numbers used at the consumer level don't reflect actual costs. The full cost of maintaining and improving distribution will still be paid, and even if power plants aren't needed during peak solar generation, they can only be idled and ready to come on line.

The actual cost comparison is incremental cost of producing 1kw on the grid vs loaded cost of 1kw off the solar system.

Right now, it's robbing Peter to pay paul with hidden subsidies.


----------



## Peter_C (Nov 26, 2014)

Leo G said:


> It says that I pay the 2nd highest in the country. Dammit.


Maybe you will start thinking about that solar now? :laughing:

My friend in Hawaii has the highest rates in the nation and since he likes his A/C he always raves about his solar system.


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

hdavis said:


> Right now, it's robbing Peter to pay paul with hidden subsidies.


Basically yes. It's getting closer to a zero sum system. Everything I've seen is really 'ideal' in terms of cost being equal over 25 years. Alot oif speculation as to future market costs. The money side of it is a very complicated financial tool/system. With a 25 year commitment for the financial system to pay off. Lets face it many marriages don't last 25 years 

This whole solar gig, just like it was back in the late 70's and early 80's is an emotional sale, being part of a movement or just cool trend to through money at. If you have the disposable income to gamble-play with, Great! If you are in the Dallas Fort Worth area and want to dispose of your income like this, LET ME KNOW! I'll hook you up with a truly reputable company and awesome salesperson. ROTFL I gladly pocket the $1000 referral, thank you very much. Personally I find that kind of finders fee indicative of many things. Mostly this current tech is certainly not free market mature and just viable yet, with gov regulations. Without it's a rich tree huggers adventure in out doing the environmental 'Jones' across the street. Until the manufacturing and tech becomes more competitive and viable for a greater number of consumers.

The firefighting thing is really funny. :laughing: You know how many FF's Officers and chiefs said they wouldn't send their people into buildings with truss construction, back in the 80's. All that and this does is modify the tactics and remove a few options for ventilation and general fire attack. Really not a big deal


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

hdavis said:


> Right now, it's robbing Peter to pay paul with hidden subsidies.


Every, and I mean EVERY source of power is subsidized.

In fact, just using your "it's unfair" hypothesis from earlier where you professed such great love for hydro and nuclear -- there would have been no way in Hell that nuclear power would ever have gained a foothold in this country. 100% researched and funded by the US government.

Boulder Dam and TVA - 100% funded by Government (our) money.

It goes on yet today. 
And I bet the coal companies bitched about it plenty back in the 50s when nukes were first brought online too.



> _In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) *from 1973 to 2003*. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US $26 billion._


Not to mention all the special congressional acts that provide cheap financing and insurance to coal and nuclear power companies.


----------



## Lettusbee (May 8, 2010)

I live in perfect location for solar. But, I have to be connected to the grid by law.

Only reason I even want solar. Is for grid independence. So I'm not spending my money to go solar. 



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Lettusbee said:


> I live in perfect location for solar. But, I have to be connected to the grid by law.
> 
> Only reason I even want solar. Is for grid independence. So I'm not spending my money to go solar.
> 
> ...


So connect but don't use. Or am I missing something?


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

KAP said:


> I'm only going by what you're posting as an actual user, but I guess my question would be, if it's generating 120% of your electrical output as you stated, what good is a perpetual kWh credit if you never use it? So even if it's wholesale, the electric company never really has to pony up on their end, and at the same time, are still charging you a grid fee to boot... So you, in essence, are being used as a free generator for the electric company at your expense... and their absolute worst exposure is giving you a credit on your bill for any usage... even if it was a check, which apparently it's not, they aren't paying more than wholesale to you as a supplier and all the maintenance is on you once the warranty goes out (and any associated costs until it does - deductible, whatever)... with the battery costing $10K as you stated, that also blows a whole into it... quarterly/yearly (depending on where you live) maintenance costs to keep the panels clean to keep them optimized, damage to gutter systems from snow sliding off (as has been posted by NYGutterguy), nesting, etc.
> 
> Also doesn't take into account the thousands in interest on a $30K loan if you financed it... scenario only gets worse as the subsidies go to the way-side...
> 
> ...


Yup.


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

GitSum said:


> The 120% is a cushion


The way you posted it, it sounded like a qualifier... so then, since you've had it for more than a year what is the realistic number? Of all that I've read on it, they generally tout savings of anywhere from 30-50%, but you've put out a number of 120% so I'm trying to understand and get a realistic number based on reality and not marketing.




GitSum said:


> The panels will degrade over time, a figure that is commonly used is 1% per year.


So then by definition, your output and thus costs increase over time then correct? This doesn't take into consideration down the line costs, like the battery you referenced, never mind if the solar company will still even be in business (they don't have a strong track record) to back up any warranty claim...

What company did yours?




GitSum said:


> Before solar, I participated in an incentive from our electric utility. They installed devices on our air conditioners (we have 2) which would allow them to shut off their power during periods of high electrical demand. In return, we would get a couple hundred dollars credit each year. The day our system went live, that got canceled.
> 
> We just added an indoor sauna that uses a 20 amp electric heater that is getting used quite a bit. Things like that. I really don't expect our electrical usage to go down and instead of trying to add panels down the road, I preferred to have the largest system that I could have installed right now, especially since the Federal Government is picking up 30% of the bill


If you're paying the bill, you should be able to use as much as you want... Al Gore does... :whistling




GitSum said:


> Regarding maintenance - None, no one has their panels cleaned - they get cleaned when it rains. And, this is S Cal, no snow.


That may be the case where you live but was mostly referring to the market overall itself, which maintenance and weather conditions vary from location to location. From what I've read, even where you are at, cleaning is recommended by the companies at least every 6 months, and they also recommend hiring a company to do it as things can go wrong if you don't know what you're doing, and use the wrong kind of water... the companies wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market for the service...

There seems to be a lot of solar panel cleaning companies in California, even listed on the website you referenced... https://www.energysage.com/supplier...nology_types:Solar+PV&q=solar++panel+cleaning


First one listed has a video on it... 












GitSum said:


> Regarding the costs, I was getting about 1% interest on the money that I had in the bank, I paid cash (better investment) and the cost of the system cannot be used to increase my property taxes.


Well, if all you're doing is leaving your money in a bank to earn 1%, I guess that makes sense for you... but your average person is going to finance it, and the overall costs need to be taken into consideration... 30K cash could earn a heck of lot more interest with other vehicles...




GitSum said:


> I am not sure where you're getting that the solar companies are subsidized?


Does not the manufacturer and dealer/installation company share in the subsidy? Like you said, the Fed Gov is footing 30% of the bill, and both companies benefit from that...

GitSum said:


> especially since the Federal Government is picking up 30% of the bill





GitSum said:


> Maybe some panel manufacturers were once upon a time but around here there are dozens of contractors that will bid on a job using a variety of equipment. For example, my panels are made by LG, the inverter is from Solar Edge


My understanding is there aren't a lot of US panel manufacturers anymore as most of it is imported from China...




GitSum said:


> Now if I was only paying $.09 per kWh for electricity - would I go solar? NO, it would take over 17 years to just break even. I am not in it to feel good about 'going green', I am in it to save some green ($$$)


Well, that's where I think most are coming from... a mix of cost / environment benefit... the sweet spot just isn't there yet.... 

I really do appreciate you being willing to share your personal purchase details in discussing it to give another perspective... :thumbsup:


----------



## Peter_C (Nov 26, 2014)

What people are not calculating into the figures are that utility rates rise. In California it was calculated the bill doubles every ten years. So if today it is $350, in ten years it will $700. The ROI is far quicker using the proper formulas, which are highly complicated. One customer had a ROI of only 5 years. Best investment one could possibly make. 100% guaranteed with zero possibility of the stock market affecting it. 



Most of the systems I helped people acquire were for a zero bill, and every system was installed with Enphase individual inverters. Never used a lease, but they do have their place. Sonoma County has S.C.E.I.P for financing, which goes on your property taxes and therefore the interest is a write off. 



The reality is chasing Tier 1 doesn't make sense financially. Instead you work to keep the customers out of the higher Tier 2 and Tier 3, leaving them with a $40 bill a month. 



For someone that plans more electrical power needs we would oversize. That would be for things like a Hybrid electric hot water heater, heat pumps, whole house fans, electric supplemental heat, A/C, etc.


Edit: Duh, solar system also sized for an electric vehicle. After all Tesla is a California company! For many in the San Fran Bay Area an electric commuter vehicle can be a HUGE factor in the ROI. Gas at one point was $4.20 a gallon. We are headed there again...


----------



## GitSum (Feb 27, 2008)

KAP said:


> The way you posted it, it sounded like a qualifier... so then, since you've had it for more than a year what is the realistic number? Of all that I've read on it, they generally tout savings of anywhere from 30-50%, but you've put out a number of 120% so I'm trying to understand and get a realistic number based on reality and not marketing.


Regarding production, my system is sized to produce 19,900 kWh per year and the 'production guarantee' kicks in if the output drops below 18,507 kWh. I don't remember the exact number after the first 12 months, but it met the goal. I just checked my inverter and for the 2017 calendar year, the system produced 21.08 megawatts which would be 21,000 kWh, so it is over the projections. Keep in mind, they model the output based on historic weather patterns so it's not a specific, fixed number, it's a range, and I only care about the low end of the range - the rest is gravy





KAP said:


> So then by definition, your output and thus costs increase over time then correct? This doesn't take into consideration down the line costs, like the battery you referenced, never mind if the solar company will still even be in business (they don't have a strong track record) to back up any warranty claim...
> 
> What company did yours?


Output will decrease over time as the panels degrade. 20 years from now, the output should be down a little less than 20%

No batteries - not worth the cost at this time. 

I don't anticipate my 'solar company' going anywhere. They are an electrical contractor out of San Diego that has been in business since 1938. 

http://www.baker-electric.com/




KAP said:


> From what I've read, even where you are at, cleaning is recommended by the companies at least every 6 months, and they also recommend hiring a company to do it as things can go wrong if you don't know what you're doing, and use the wrong kind of water... the companies wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market for the service...
> 
> There seems to be a lot of solar panel cleaning companies in California, even listed on the website you referenced... https://www.energysage.com/supplier...nology_types:Solar+PV&q=solar++panel+cleaning


About 4-5 months after the panels were first installed, I did clean them. But looking at the output the next several days, there really was not much improvement. The numbers speak for themselves. The output is meeting the production estimates - if it is not broke, don't fix it.

Also, 'panel cleaning' depends on who you talk to - here is another link to look at:

How To Maintain And Clean Rooftop Solar? Don’t!




KAP said:


> Does not the manufacturer and dealer/installation company share in the subsidy? Like you said, the Fed Gov is footing 30% of the bill, and both companies benefit from that...
> 
> My understanding is there aren't a lot of US panel manufacturers anymore as most of it is imported from China...


No - the manufacturer/dealer/installer, as far as I know, get nothing. The 30% Federal Tax Credit is for the person who OWNS the system. If you get involved in one of the lease deals where some company like Solar City owns the panels and then sells you the electricity at a slightly lower rate than what the utility company will charge and banks the rest, I would imagine that they would get the credit. (Since I mentioned Solar City, I forgot that they did get some sort of tax credit in New York for building a plant there). Also, the 30% isn't a rebate, it is a credit. When you file your Federal taxes for that year the system was installed, the 30% gets subtracted from the amount of money you owe them for that year and it can carry over into multiple years

From what I understand, solar panels are becoming a commodity - it really doesn't matter who makes them. Sort of like computer ram. At the very top of the heap is Sun Power. They have the best panels, best warranty, only certified contractors can install for them and they cost the most. One of the reasons why I went with Baker Electric is they are also a certified Sun Power dealer and I had them bid two systems for me. The Sun Power system was easily $10k more than my system with LG Panels and Solar Edge inverters - basically your paying for the warranty

I can easily pull up a web page and look at the output of each individual panel, they are even color coded. If something goes wrong, a panel isn't producing, it would stick out like a sore thumb. I had one 'issue' in the roughly 17 months they system has been installed. The inverter showed a line voltage error. I was able to pull up a chart and could see that every afternoon the incoming AC voltage from the power company was slowly dropping and would get down in the 220v range and at one point dipped below that which triggered the error. Called up Edison and they fixed something at the local station - it was totally their fault. (I just checked the voltage and it's still good)

Here is a very popular website where you can get an idea how much energy can be produced from panels on your roof, based on historical weather data for your area

Type in your real address and it will pull up a google map shot of your house and a local weather station. When you get to the "System Info" page you can see off to the right where you can draw the outline of your roof and that will fill in the system size. (this is a govt web site, no one will call or follow up on your info)

module type = premium
array type = fixed roof
system loss - leave it at 14
tilt - is the slope of the roof
azimuth - is which direction your roof faces. For example, my south facing roof actually faces 195 degrees

If you are thinking of using two roofs, run it through twice and combine the results

https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/


Pics are:
System output for 2017

Active display showing the output and condition of each panel

Chart showing incoming AC Voltage for the week


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

It's going TOU, all the ads one hears are touting battery backups as a way to avoid the higher rate.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Find a prius with a pooched engine cheap, and use it for your battery bank....


----------



## GitSum (Feb 27, 2008)

TOU isn't really that bad - it depends on your situation. After the first 12 months on solar, I used SCE's rate comparison tool and it indicated that we would actually save $687 a year by switching to TOU so we did. I just ran their tool a couple of weeks ago and it now indicated I would save $68 a year by going back to the domestic/tiered rate plan.

Since they are forcing new customers to use TOU rates, it made sense to me since I had the option to not use TOU, to switch back - so I did. 

I looked into the battery backup situation last year. Due to the size of my system, I would need TWO of the Tesla Power Walls. And there are strings attached to their 'incentives'. The batteries are not just for your personal use, they are also to help the power company. 

*The Powerwall must meet a ‘cycling’ requirement where they need to fully discharge at least 52 times, or put 687 kWh per year back on to the grid.*

The bid I received from Baker for the batteries was $9,100. It started at $20k before state and federal incentives! Too much money at this point, and our power hardly ever goes out


----------



## Peter_C (Nov 26, 2014)

hdavis said:


> Find a prius with a pooched engine cheap, and use it for your battery bank....


Too small, as the Prius batteries are tiny. I have rebuilt a couple battery packs. Plus the engines don't ever blow up, instead the cars get crashed! Might as well get a running one and use it as a generator though, since they can be modified into one of the quietest, most fuel efficient generators around :thumbsup:

Batteries for energy storage are often massive golf cart types. They can require more maintenance though if they are a flooded cell. Battery technology was squashed by BIG OIL. Tesla is back to leading the charge though. 

This is why driving innovation is so important. There is no reason someone can't invent a safe cheap method for storing electricity. Hydrogen cells have some potential, but the flux capacitor is where it is at :laughing:


----------



## TimNJ (Sep 7, 2005)

SmallTownGuy said:


> Something like 40 states now have net metering. That is - the ability to sell power that you - an independent entity - generates, back to the utility.
> 
> Already there are outfits that rent commercial rooftops, install solar arrays and sell power at a larger scale than a single residence might produce back to the grid.
> 
> No substitute like profit for motivation.



SRECS in NJ.
There are companies moving in with solar that are installing acres of panels on farms to sell power to the electric companies and collect those SRECS.
Leasing companies doing the same on individuals houses (Rip off if you ask me).

Military base here has solar on all the housing and almost all the office buildings.


----------



## TimNJ (Sep 7, 2005)

See if this link works

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0643733,-74.5846157,1173m/data=!3m1!1e3


OK. 
That's about 60 acres of panels that you see on farm land that's about 2 miles from my house.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Peter_C said:


> Too small, as the Prius batteries are tiny. I have rebuilt a couple battery packs. Plus the engines don't ever blow up, instead the cars get crashed! Might as well get a running one and use it as a generator though, since they can be modified into one of the quietest, most fuel efficient generators around :thumbsup:
> 
> Batteries for energy storage are often massive golf cart types. They can require more maintenance though if they are a flooded cell. Battery technology was squashed by BIG OIL. Tesla is back to leading the charge though.
> 
> This is why driving innovation is so important. There is no reason someone can't invent a safe cheap method for storing electricity. Hydrogen cells have some potential, but the flux capacitor is where it is at :laughing:


The solution will be found, stuff that's unimaginable becomes the norm time after time, room temperature super conducting, maybe PV charged fuel cells, the foundation for a post internal combustion engine is being firmed up every day. All of in the construction industry are part of it just in the use of cordless tools.

All of this new technology should be developed, designed, produced and distributed here along with offering the systems elsewhere. That's where it so disappointing when a blind eye was turned to the super tube(s) which were offered for a fraction of the price and an even smaller fraction of the time than that stupid, obsolete before it's even started (as well as bankrupt) bullet train.


----------



## SLSTech (Sep 13, 2008)

Lettusbee said:


> I want to be able to use them in a blackout, but from what I've heard from others in our area, since you are connected to the grid, you can't use them in a power outage.
> 
> So what's the point of "upgrading" to solar?


Ok you have a few options & the one that kills people in a blackout is a grid tied only system - just like they don't want a generator directly attached to the grid, you cant with the solar. Your best bet is a disconnect with some sort of battery for use at night (or a generator) for when that happens For more on this - you might check out the series I did about 7 years ago (& yes much has changed since then) http://thehtrc.com/2011/going-off-grid-in-21st-century-what-does-it-realistically-take 

the 120% mark is generally the max someone can purchase for rebates & also to have insurance cover if something goes wrong - i.e. fire to replace


----------



## B.D.R. (May 22, 2007)

I didn’t read all of the posts. So I hope I’m not duplicating anyone’s post. 
Here in the beautiful province of British Columbia, where solar isn’t the best solution because of the lack of sunshine during the winter months. 
The government has eliminated any incentive for people to install it. 
BC hydro doesn’t want to pay people for extra electricity that they feed back into the grid. 
There currently isn’t enough solar power in the province to power a cruise ship at port. 
They need to step up their game and get their priorities straight. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

B.D.R. said:


> I didn’t read all of the posts. So I hope I’m not duplicating anyone’s post.
> Here in the beautiful province of British Columbia, where solar isn’t the best solution because of the lack of sunshine during the winter months.
> The government has eliminated any incentive for people to install it.
> BC hydro doesn’t want to pay people for extra electricity that they feed back into the grid.
> ...


I would not fare well in your province during winter.

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-sunshine.php

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Canada/British-Columbia/sunshine-annual-average.php


----------



## rrk (Apr 22, 2012)

In the county where I live they spent nearly $30m for solar panels on multiple public buildings, never finished the project. Companies went bankrupt, credit prices went down, brand new equipment was considered obsolete, poorly designed systems etc. I read recently it will cost $88m to get these systems up and running correctly and there is no guarantee if they will ever save the money as was promised.

I know someone who has a warehouse with panels on it and the best he can do is have $0 electric use bill, the extra goes back to the power co. who has raised the distribution rates on him. That he said will always be there. 
He leaves his lights on 24/7 now instead of letting the power co make money off of him. He installed them 10 or more years ago and half of the panels have failed and had to be replaced under warranty but he has to pay for labor to reinstall them


----------



## KAP (Feb 19, 2011)

rrk said:


> In the county where I live they spent nearly $30m for solar panels on multiple public buildings, never finished the project. Companies went bankrupt, credit prices went down, brand new equipment was considered obsolete, poorly designed systems etc. I read recently it will cost $88m to get these systems up and running correctly and there is no guarantee if they will ever save the money as was promised.
> 
> I know someone who has a warehouse with panels on it and the best he can do is have $0 electric use bill, the extra goes back to the power co. who has raised the distribution rates on him. That he said will always be there.
> He leaves his lights on 24/7 now instead of letting the power co make money off of him. *He installed them 10 or more years ago and half of the panels have failed and had to be replaced under warranty but he has to pay for labor to reinstall them*


Hidden costs...


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Really, that just points out that the numbers aren't risk adjusted. The longer the horizon, the more risk.


----------



## B.D.R. (May 22, 2007)

SmallTownGuy said:


> I would not fare well in your province during winter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




February starts getting a little rough. 🤬
That’s why BCers go to Arizona in the winter. 
Upside is, it rarely below freezing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

The power company will lobby to get panels installed on the promise of reduced rates, bills that are zero, incentives to get it done.

And as soon as they have the capacity they want they will change the rules to make it so they are back to making money on the panels you bought. Killed the incentives, reduced what they pay for your electricity, change the rate structure so the panels you bought to save money will now cost you money.

Pretty sure that's what they did in Arizona.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Politics is always a risk. Anything you sell onto the grid could be taxed, for instance.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

This is just like the energy star savings program and CFL and LED light bulbs.

The promise was if you bought these more expensive appliance or bulbs your electric bill would be reduced and the grid would be saved once again from being overloaded.


Well, they got their reduction so the grid won't be overloaded, but as soon as all of those energy saving devices were implemented the electric companies started to cry poverty because now not enough electricity was being consumed to give them their guaranteed profits.

So... they raised their prices. Usually not on the electrical cost because that would go over like a lead balloon. But the fixed costs were raised. Distribution, connection charge, and all the other "because we can" charges also went up. Then they stick a conservation fee in there too. WTF is that?

So on 3 occasions I have stripped out my light bulbs and once for the appliances and guess what, my electric bill is higher, not lower.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Overall industry costs don't go down, so bills have to go up. If you're a slow adopter, you miss out. If you're an early adopter, you're forking out too much.

Incandescent to cfl was simple, buy bulbs at $1.50 each, save 36 watts, 10kwh per year. 12 mo payback.

Going from cfl to led, save 5 watts. 6 year payback. The improved spectrum is worth it.

I like to see 3yr or less payback in most cases.


----------



## Leo G (May 12, 2005)

I don't see any payback because of the increase in the bills. Yes if you kept the incandescents you'd be paying more. But the idea was to save money on the bill, not keep pace with the inflating costs.


----------



## NYgutterguy (Mar 3, 2014)

Have I mentioned how much I love solar? Looked at two more today










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

I don't see many residential installations here, but there are a fair number of commercial ones.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Leo G said:


> I don't see any payback because of the increase in the bills. Yes if you kept the incandescents you'd be paying more. But the idea was to save money on the bill, not keep pace with the inflating costs.


It happens, whether you see it in your own situation - whatever.

Arizona is big time Net Zero. And it means just that - near zero total energy units billed per annum - not just electrical, but all home energy consumed get factored in.

Will Average Joe ever have a Zero Bill? Highly Doubtful.


----------



## VinylHanger (Jul 14, 2011)

Everyone says I can cut my bill with solar. So my bill is averaging 150 a month. I cut it to 75. So how long does it take for 75 dollars a month to pay for a 30,000 dollar system. Add into the fact that in the summer we may only pay 60 and it never pays off.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## cwatbay (Mar 16, 2010)

Leo G said:


> Panels last about 25 years. Batteries between 7-12. Electronics are the linchpins, they can last weeks or decades.
> 
> If you have a good system that is sized right you can keep your electric bill down considerably. You need to understand that you need direct sun to run it. Living in places with lots of clouds isn't going to get you very far. Living in desert country is a great place for solar.


Having worked in 112 deg heat in the desert on these things, that is true. Or 90 deg and 90% humidity, that was good too. You will definitely need a good power source to run those air conditioners.


----------



## Peter_C (Nov 26, 2014)

VinylHanger said:


> Everyone says I can cut my bill with solar. So my bill is averaging 150 a month. I cut it to 75. So how long does it take for 75 dollars a month to pay for a 30,000 dollar system. Add into the fact that in the summer we may only pay 60 and it never pays off.


 There is software that can get you a real close estimate for ROI. At $150 a month it won't be a very large system. Fastest payback is going to be to drop you into Tier 1 and that should be around + or - $50 a month. You would have to factor in the cost increases for power to be accurate. Get with a solar company and get a FREE quote, then come back and tell us what they say. Next time you go into Home Depot...depending how I am dressed I get bugged about solar all the time.


You can pull your yearly KW usage from the power company for the solar company online and present it to them. It is a requirement for putting together a quote.


----------

