https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...arting-to-look-like-a-bubble/#/set/id/600798/ By all accounts, 2016 should be a great year for solar power providers. In December, Congress extended the federal investment tax credit for solar installations through 2022, convincing analysts to project strong growth for the solar industry in coming years. Prices for solar panels continue to decline, even as emissions reduction targets reached under the Paris climate accord drive governments to seek more power from renewable energy sources. Several recent reports have shown that the cost of solar is often comparable or nearly comparable to the average price of power on the utility grid, a threshold known as grid parity. But investors are not feeling the love. This week shares of U.S. solar leader SolarCity tumbled to a new low, while several other solar companies also took a pounding. Last month Nevada introduced sharp cutbacks in its program for net metering—the fees paid to homeowners with rooftop solar installations for excess power they send back to the grid. California and Hawaii, two of the biggest solar markets, have introduced changes to their net metering schemes as well. Across the country, as many as 20 other states are considering such changes, which would dramatically alter the economics of rooftop solar. The uncertainty has cast the solar providers’ business models into doubt. Without net metering payments, residential solar “makes no financial sense for a consumer,” SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive recently admitted to the New York Times. The rosier projections for grid parity usually assume that both net metering fees from utilities and government subsidies will continue. GTM Research this week released a report saying that rooftop solar is now at parity with grid power in 20 states, and will be in 22 more by 2020—if subsidies are included. Without subsidies, the picture looks a lot bleaker. If each state added a $50 per month fixed charge to solar owners’ bills—a change that many big utilities are fighting for—solar would be at grid parity in only two states. Critics of government subsidies for renewable energy have called the solar boom “an artifical market” that will evaporate the minute government handouts dry up.
Related story: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...t-metering-cloud-the-future-of-rooftop-solar/ Battles Over Net Metering Cloud the Future of Rooftop Solar One of the fastest-growing markets for residential solar, Nevada is the first state to drastically revise its policies on net metering—wherein owners of residential solar arrays are compensated for the power they send onto the utility power grid, usually at retail rates. All but a handful of states have instituted net metering. Claiming that these fees represent an unfair transfer of costs to the utilities and non-solar customers, utilities have mounted a well-funded campaign to reduce or eliminate the payments. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission concurred, calling on utilities to cut the compensation for solar providers from retail to wholesale rates. Not surprisingly, the solar industry disagrees. Calling the net metering decision “unethical, unprecedented, and possibly unlawful,” SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive predicted that it will “destroy the rooftop solar industry in one of the states with the most sunshine.” The Nevada reversal came days after the U.S. Congress voted to extend the investment tax credit for solar projects (see “Tax Credit Extension Gives Solar Industry a New Boom”). GTM Research said the renewed tax credit will add 25 gigawatts of new solar capacity over the next five years, driven by $40 billion in new investment between now and 2020. Events in Nevada, though, could signal a major reshaping of the economics of solar power for homeowners. The retail rate of electricity in Nevada is 12.39 cents per kilowatt-hour; the wholesale price for electricity in the region that includes Nevada averaged around two cents per kilowatt-hour in December. According to a report from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, the cost of a residential solar system has fallen to around 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. With federal and state subsidies and tax benefits, that figure drops to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour or less. If the retail rate for electricity from the grid (absent net metering fees) is less than that, solar is a poor investment; if it’s more, solar is a good investment.
FWIW, I am considering a solar system. I wouldn't do it without the subsidies. @magnifier661 is going to end up paying more for electricity than his neighbors after we won't be paying for his solar.
I have been using solar power for over 15 years, and have gone through about 3 upgrades. Let me know if you have any questions. I have made a ton of expensive mistakes, and know a lot about the things not to do. BTW, the price of panels has decreased. But the price of every other component in a solar system has increased. Some components have increased by a YUGE amount such as the wiring, batteries and material cost to build frames to hold the panels. The cost of the controllers & inverters has also gone up, but so has their capabilities. Labor is also higher if you do not install it yourself. The overall cost of a system has not decreased (as reported in the article), only the price of the panels has decreased.
The effect of losing net metering means 1/2 of your expenses are no longer subsidized. That's why they talk about $.15 electricity costing $.30. At $.30, the time to get to net $0 might be as long as the lifetime of the panels. Without net metering, you either pay 1/2 an electric bill and 1/2 principal plus interest on the loan to buy the panels. Your cash out of pocket might even be higher, unless you put up fewer panels than with the subsidy. How long do batteries last? You need a considerable amount of battery to store 1/2 as much electricity as you use in a day. The sun doesn't shine at night, you run off battery. I'm guessing a decent battery storage system would weigh tons and take up a good chunk of the garage or yard. It might be better to buy from a green power company. You let them put up panels and you buy electricity from them at a discount from what the utility charges. I'm guessing those companies go out of business without the subsidies and then you are fucked. If you insist on going solar without subsidy, you should almost certainly reduce your power consumption. Replacing 100W bulbs with 75W ones isn't super expensive, but you are maybe going to live in a darker home. Replacing the fridge, washing machine, and other appliances with less power consuming ones starts getting expensive. You might up the A/C by a few degrees. But all that is living a lower standard of living. Hardly a selling point in favor of solar without the subsidy. In San Diego, the power company charges $20/mo just to hook up to the grid, using 0 electricity, so you can't truly get a $0 bill with subsidy. $20 is really cheap, not high enough to deter buying a system. Without subsidy, the article says solar is not competitive with buying from the utility. As rates go up, and they will, having a fixed 1/2 your bill seems appealing. You forever pay $200 in loan payments plus 1/2 that goes up when the utility charges more per kWh. The rates always increase over time, and I don't recall the utility lowering them for any reason. The $20/mo connect fee will likely increase, too. It might make sense to offset the A/C bill during the day with solar and pay for it at night when the power is cheaper. Solar City is Elon Musk's company, no? There was a lot of PR around the company and him for a while. Now not so much and the stock is tanking. Maybe he's cut his losses and moved on?
Technology is going to be the end of NV Energy, it is just a matter of time and how long Warren B can keep things in his favor. I remember rain events here like I remember snow days in Vancouver when I was a kid. Very few to remember. https://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall
My solar systems are off grid, a lifestyle choice. I have never tied a solar system into a grid. I have heard very mixed results on tying into a grid. The policies of the utility you would use has a lot to do with the results. In general, the claims made by the companies selling the tie into the grid solar systems have not been achieved. Most people would still do it again, a lifestyle choice. Batteries are expensive, 10 years of use is the goal. Quality controllers help to extend a battues life, as well as monthly water level service. Most people living off grid also use propane cooking stoves, refrigeration, and sometimes heat to reduce the battery storage capacity needed. A generator is also necessary for cloudy days, especially in the winter. The new LED lights put out a lot of light, and use about 10% of the electricity of fluorescent bulbs. My controller can tell me how much electricity every appliance or light uses. The LED lights are the way to go.
Almost sounds like camping out. Not just changing the energy source, but dumping the gourmet kitchen for propane appliances is not something I am into. Maybe those calling for a Manhattan project for energy don't realize how much of a step backwards they're proposing. It isn't Progress. I had a house run on propane and it cost a lot to have the truck come periodically to fill up the main tank. The promise of solar+grid+subsidy is $20/mo utility bill and $300/mo (or whatever) for the loan payment on the system. You are shifting a chunk of your bill to propane, which is cheaper. But still costs. I appreciate your feedback. @magnifier661 has been telling people he paid $20K for a complete system and his power bill is $0. This for a mansion with high sq footage in the Mohave desert town, Lancaster. If that is possible, and true, it is you and I paying for his gourmet kitchen and A/C.
I was curious about the Tesla battery, and found this article. I have no reason to doubt it is true. http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/21/...0-tesla-powerwall-home-battery/#slide-3488926 That future, though, is not close. "Off-grid electricity supply will remain punishingly expensive for the foreseeable future," wrote Bernstein Research analyst Hugh Wynne in a recent report. For now, and likely for several more years, Tesla's home battery, called a Powerwall, is a backup power source not much different from the generators for sale at any hardware store. It will keep the lights on and the refrigerator cold during a blackout, but it doesn't run power-hungry devices like air conditioners or clothes dryers. At an installed cost of about $7,000, it's an appliance that makes very little financial sense for most people. Tesla lists the price of the battery at $3,500, but that does not include installation, or an additional piece of equipment called an inverter that is needed to connect the battery to the home. To get a sense of the system's full price look to Tesla's sister company SolarCity, a solar panel installer founded by Musk's cousins Lyndon and Peter Rive. Musk is SolarCity's chairman and largest shareholder. SolarCity offers a 9-year Powerwall lease for $5,000 when part of a rooftop solar panel installation and financing contract. To buy and install the battery outside of financing a solar deal, the price is $7,140. That's some pricey power, given how infrequently the lights go out. The average US home loses power for just under 2 hours a year. Over the course of a nine-year lease that average homeowner would pay $277 for each hour the battery is running. To some, that peace of mind may be worth it, though many who wanted that peace of mind bought a home backup generator long ago. The price to go completely off the grid is even higher because that would require a rooftop solar system bigger than what is now usually installed, and at least two Powerwall batteries. That kind of system would cost $96,000 without subsidies, about 74 years of electric bills for an average US customer, calculates Bernstein Research's Wynne. Even assuming the cost of solar and batteries declines by 80 percent in the coming years and that it will be subsidized by clean-energy incentives, the system would still cost 2.5 times more than buying electricity from the grid, according to Wynne.
Your right, it is similar to camping. Putting $20K into a solar system is believable, and makes a lot more sense in sunny S CA than in the PNW. The further north you are, the less practical solar is. I never did it to save money, and won’t save money until electricity rates double. But I would do it again, without the mistakes.
I wouldn't buy this one if you can. It isn't a matter of if but when this will be a no brainer. Describe the internet and smart phones to someone in 1970 and see what happens. As for the price, the solar companies were leasing these things to morons here who expected the rules to stay the same. Early adopters always get screwed. There are people who pay huge money for new tvs when they come out. Plasma was hugely expensive at first and now is out of production if I remember right. A guy at work just made an offer on a house with a solar panel that is a lease. I don't even know how they are going to go about the transfer, will be interesting.
I would do it to save money. I appreciate why and what you are doing. It's just not for me. I'm going to follow the subsidy debate and consider the buy if it's not going to cost me a lot in cash and lifestyle. To buy one of these things, I'd finance it via a second mortgage. I'm not going to install it myself, and I'm not a CEO with employees I can tell to go to my house and install it. Ya know?
The lease issue is a big deal. The buyer has to want it and then qualify to assume the lease. The seller might be able to use the proceeds of the sale to pay it off, but that may crush his profit or even make it cost him out of pocket to sell. Yeesh. Plasma died due to government regulation. California outlawed them. Otherwise, they are superior technology to LCD or even OLED. LCD might have a refresh rate of 240hz at the high end. Low end plasma gets you 600hz. The refresh is different, so not exactly apple/apples. But the plasma is superior picture AND superior for sports and video games. FWIW. http://www.care2.com/causes/california-bans-plasma-tvs.html California Bans Inefficient Plasma TVs
I find it very difficult to make it practical at all. I am right now fine tuning my electrical power system on the boat. I have a 1200 ampere/hr 12V battery bank, charged by a generator set I made for the purpose. A 13 hp Kubota driving two 12v alternators with dual voltage regulators for bulk charging and topping off. At sea I use about 8 ampere hr per hour for a 180 total a day. It takes about 1 hour and 10 minutes for the generator to put it back in the battery bank. I would sure like to be able to find that 8 amps some where like Solar panels but I just can't get the 180 a day out of solar, just can't fit enough on the boat and still sail it. So in essences I have a complete solar system on board without the solar panels. Add a wind generator? Well it will add a bit sometimes but nothing sailing down wind. Drag a water generator or the prop? Yeah, it would work when running well but not in light wind. No matter how you do it, I can't do without the diesel generator and with that, I really do not need the other complications which are all just additional cost that save a few minutes of diesel run time and never pay the cost.
I loved my plasma tvs. Just watched the superbowl on a new 75 inch sony 1080p lcd. It was the first non plasma that didn't look pixelated to me during sports. It did look beautiful and is on sale for 2099 at best buy as of last weekend anyway. I was always in the plasma camp on these boards. The last plasma I bought was 60 inches and I paid like 900 bucks for it. I returned it because it didn't look as good as my others had. If Panasonic would have held out 5 more years...... Hell, I almost called on a 60 inch Pioneer I saw on craigslist for 700 bucks the other day.
Thinking about getting one of these 2050 benq projectors for my movie room upstairs. http://www.projectorcentral.com/benq-HT3050-HT2050-projector-review.htm My point is that something like this would have been unbelievable 20 years ago for the price.
A solar system on a live aboard boat is not practical at all, for all of the reasons you mentioned, plus as you know, salt water is very hard on exposed electrical equipment. I do have a very small solar system on my salt water sport fishing boat. However, I only use it when the boat is docked. I stow it away before going to sea. It maintains the batteries while I am not there. A safety precaution if the bilge pumps turn on; they use a lot of electricity. My guess is, your boat is hooked up to shore power and would not need what I am using. As a safety redundant backup system for your sailboat, you might want to consider a roll-up solar panel. They are similar to the panels our military uses in the field and do not take up much storage space. I am not finding any place where wind generators are practical unless they are very yuge, like the ones you see driving up the Columbia gorge. Everyone I know that has them to supplement their home electricity system is very disappointed. They only produce electricity at their peak rating in a very small range of wind speed, which seldom happens.
We looked at solar. Chose not to do it. Solar city pushes people into their utility option where they install all the equipment for free and you buy the energy from them at a lower rate than your regular utility. The problem is that you don't own the equipment and the equipment and the arrangement stay until you buy the equipment. So if you decide to sell your house, the buyer has to agree to assume the cost. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
