Home Rooftop Solar...

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Home Rooftop Solar...
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1813753 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 10:48:55 UTC - in response to Message 1813659.  
Last modified: 30 Aug 2016, 10:58:15 UTC

I am completely amazed that you can report a positive cash flow in an endeavor that has had a history of a long payback period if ever.

What is the rated output of your system and what was your cost for electricity from your power company per KW-Hr ? What is your rate per kilowatt-hour from the Power Company and what rate do you get when you deliver excess to the grid. Some states require re-imbursement at the highest cost method that the power company is employing. When I worked for Pacific Gas and Electric we derived 10% of our energy from The Geysers which was expensive and somewhat of an environmental mess.

Solar is more-easily justified where the cost of electricity is outrageous, government subsidy generous and the re-imbursement rate exceeds the consumption unit cost.

California is going broke in a big way. I trust that solar subsidies are not a big factor in this condition. What is the prognosis for tax increases in recent and near-future years.

If there were a large conversion to solar in California, the utility companies would have to recover their massive fixed costs over fewer units of production. They would therefore raise their rates or go out of business which, I am sure, that the rate commissions would not sanction. So: in a sense electrical energy production might be a zero sum game with the costs being pushed around into different buckets. Poor sucker rate payers in a de-facto Ponzi scheme paying for and subsidizing the more elite consumers of electricity.

Also I presume that you do not work for a solar company.
ID: 1813753 · Report as offensive
Profile Carlos
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 99
Posts: 29756
Credit: 57,275,487
RAC: 157
United States
Message 1813788 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 13:29:05 UTC - in response to Message 1813753.  

We had another thread about the fixed cost recovery. The PUC has allowed utilities to recover fix costs. That is one reason that SunEdison and SunPower have pulled out of Arizona. SunEdison even filed BK. In AZ there is no cost benefit. You end up paying more to pay for the fixed costs than what you save with solar.

And yes he/she sounds like a solar sales person.

I am completely amazed that you can report a positive cash flow in an endeavor that has had a history of a long payback period if ever.

What is the rated output of your system and what was your cost for electricity from your power company per KW-Hr ? What is your rate per kilowatt-hour from the Power Company and what rate do you get when you deliver excess to the grid. Some states require re-imbursement at the highest cost method that the power company is employing. When I worked for Pacific Gas and Electric we derived 10% of our energy from The Geysers which was expensive and somewhat of an environmental mess.

Solar is more-easily justified where the cost of electricity is outrageous, government subsidy generous and the re-imbursement rate exceeds the consumption unit cost.

California is going broke in a big way. I trust that solar subsidies are not a big factor in this condition. What is the prognosis for tax increases in recent and near-future years.

If there were a large conversion to solar in California, the utility companies would have to recover their massive fixed costs over fewer units of production. They would therefore raise their rates or go out of business which, I am sure, that the rate commissions would not sanction. So: in a sense electrical energy production might be a zero sum game with the costs being pushed around into different buckets. Poor sucker rate payers in a de-facto Ponzi scheme paying for and subsidizing the more elite consumers of electricity.

Also I presume that you do not work for a solar company.

ID: 1813788 · Report as offensive
Profile River Song
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 15
Posts: 268
Credit: 1,735,966
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1813794 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 13:55:43 UTC - in response to Message 1813753.  
Last modified: 30 Aug 2016, 14:18:56 UTC

I am completely amazed that you can report a positive cash flow in an endeavor that has had a history of a long payback period if ever.

It is a "positive cash flow" in that you either pay your utility company OR you pay yourself. The amount we now pay for electricity is far lower than what we did pay. The difference goes to pay down the loan on 70% of the system cost and, since the monthly payment is less than the savings we get, we have a surplus. :) Look at it like renting a home: After renting for 12 years, what do you have? The answer is "a pile of rent receipts." Since we've gone solar what we have after the 12 year payback period is increased property value AND a monthly electric bill roughly 75% less than 12 years earlier. So, it takes time to payback - so what? The payments are covered by the savings. :) Our system is guaranteed for 25 years. An additional benefit is that we have a FIXED monthly payment on our 12 year loan which makes household budgeting much easier. In the year BEFORE solar, our monthly electric bill varied widely, from $377. one month to ZERO in another! Geez!

What is the rated output of your system and what was your cost for electricity from your power company per KW-Hr ? What is your rate per kilowatt-hour from the Power Company and what rate do you get when you deliver excess to the grid. Some states require re-imbursement at the highest cost method that the power company is employing. When I worked for Pacific Gas and Electric we derived 10% of our energy from The Geysers which was expensive and somewhat of an environmental mess.

Our nominal rated output, for 14 panels, each connected to a 280 watt micro-inverter, is 3.92 kW. Based on the highest net generated power we've seen, 3.49 kW, due to accumulative losses in the panels, inverters, wiring, etc., our system has an efficiency of, roughly, 89%.

It is almost impossible to tell our true "rate per hour" for the electricity itself, as the bill is loaded with many extras like: DWR Bond Charge, Public Purpose Programs, Competition Transition Charge, Reliability Services, TRAC, Distribution, and several more.

If we divide the total amount paid to SDG&E, our electric company, by the kWh used, what we typically pay, at least on this ONE bill I'm looking at, is $0.192/kWh, or 19.2 cents / kWh. But, I do not know IF there is a "seasonal rate change," or an "extra charge for hot days," or what. It is impossible to tell exactly. Suffice it to say that if we pay LESS in a year WITH solar than we did WITHOUT it, we are ahead of the game.

Solar is more-easily justified where the cost of electricity is outrageous, government subsidy generous and the re-imbursement rate exceeds the consumption unit cost.

This is obfuscation, in the sense that we have no way on earth to answer what you ask. The best I can say is: "Oh, I suppose." :) It all depends on your definition of the words "outrageous & generous," and where to find the needed data." :)

California is going broke in a big way. I trust that solar subsidies are not a big factor in this condition. What is the prognosis for tax increases in recent and near-future years.

We did not receive ANY subsidy from the state of California, only the 30% from the federal government. I'm aware that some states DO give a solar buyer a subsidy, but our state does not. I agree completely that California is going broke, but solar has nothing to do with it. We're going broke primarily because we put illegal aliens on welfare, give them free education, medical care, etc. instead of sending them back. :)

If there were a large conversion to solar in California, the utility companies would have to recover their massive fixed costs over fewer units of production. They would therefore raise their rates or go out of business which, I am sure, that the rate commissions would not sanction. So: in a sense electrical energy production might be a zero sum game with the costs being pushed around into different buckets. Poor sucker rate payers in a de-facto Ponzi scheme paying for and subsidizing the more elite consumers of electricity.

You are certainly correct in the above. The large power companies would take steps to protect themselves, and the electric users, those w/o solar, would "take it in the shorts" big time. Those with solar would likely face a prohibitive surcharge that would take away the reason for going solar in the first place. But, if that happened, the solar industry would crash, and, following it, wind power, and all other forms of alternate energy production.

Also I presume that you do not work for a solar company.

No, I do not work for a solar company and I do not know anyone who does. My closest connection with a solar company is via the salesman that PetersenDean, i.e., "Solar for America," sent to our home, a few in their office we conferred with during the installation scheduling process, and the wonderful crew who installed our system in 5 1/2 hours one hot and sunny day in July 2015. :)

Solar is the very BEST investment we have ever made and we are very happy. :)
River Song (aka Linda Latte on planet Earth)
"Happy I-Phone girl on the GO GO GO"
ID: 1813794 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1813802 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 15:16:15 UTC - in response to Message 1813794.  
Last modified: 30 Aug 2016, 15:18:01 UTC

Thank you for your thorough reply. It helps immensely. I did figure that you were paying close to 20 cents per kilowatt hour which is what they pay in most of Europe or higher. I presume that you do not have electric heat so on winter days if no one is home cooking or washing clothes you should be able to sell a few dollars of electricity to the grid each day that it is not greatly overcast. i presume that you are getting paid around the same rate for this power that you put into the grid.
ID: 1813802 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1813806 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 15:25:05 UTC - in response to Message 1813794.  

$0.192/kWh, or 19.2 cents / kWh


Ours is only $0.08639
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1813806 · Report as offensive
Profile River Song
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 15
Posts: 268
Credit: 1,735,966
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1813813 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 15:34:12 UTC - in response to Message 1813802.  
Last modified: 30 Aug 2016, 15:46:42 UTC

Thank you for your thorough reply. It helps immensely. I did figure that you were paying close to 20 cents per kilowatt hour which is what they pay in most of Europe or higher. I presume that you do not have electric heat so on winter days if no one is home cooking or washing clothes you should be able to sell a few dollars of electricity to the grid each day that it is not greatly overcast. i presume that you are getting paid around the same rate for this power that you put into the grid.


Gee, "obfuscation," which means "to meddle, to toy, to confuse, et al" is what, it seems, electric companies use to obliterate the true cost of the electricity they "give" you. :) All we can go by is $$ paid/month divided by kWh used per month, and we are way ahead with solar.

The bill we receive each month, other than the $$ that SDG&E wants, and our kWh used, are really the only truly clear things on our bill. It's really all but impossible to determine if our electric company is really fair or not? For all we know it costs them 1 cent to generate 1 kWh and they charge us 19.2 cents? How to really wade thru the gibberesh?

No, we do not have electric heat, just natural gas, thank goodness. :) Also, we set our A/C thermostat to 78 F; we used to run it a bit lower but we have learned the error of our ways. :) Also, rather than washing permanent press and towels/sheets separately, we just combine them in one wash to save $$.

On winter days we generate more power than we use. Look down below a ways and see the graph my husband made, huh? It tells a lot.

Thank you for your contribution to our forum and relavent observations. :)
River Song (aka Linda Latte on planet Earth)
"Happy I-Phone girl on the GO GO GO"
ID: 1813813 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 1813816 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 15:46:57 UTC - in response to Message 1813753.  
Last modified: 30 Aug 2016, 15:50:42 UTC

California is not going broke, the state has a budget surplus in the Billions, and the budget is balanced, so what you stated is outdated info according to the LAO.

LAO Report Predicts $11.5B Surplus for FY 2016-2017

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 1813816 · Report as offensive
Profile River Song
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 15
Posts: 268
Credit: 1,735,966
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1813824 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 16:00:24 UTC - in response to Message 1813816.  

California is not going broke, the state has a budget surplus in the Billions, and the budget is balanced, so what you stated is outdated info according to LAO.

LAO Report Predicts $11.5B Surplus for FY 2016-2017


Hmmmm. Surely you jest, kind Sir? As I understand it, all that surplus has already been allocated to other uses and can't be touched?

IMHO, The state asks its residents to pay extra $$ to improve the roads and help school children. How can you deny "the kids?" or having "good roads?" :) They do this every year, They put those $$ in the "General Fund." They then "borrow" from what kind hearted residents have paid xtra and use it on other things, like welfare for illegals.

If California has so much of a usable surplus, why do they ask for MORE every year? Why not just give all residents a REFUND? <giggles> Fat chance, huh?

People are conserving and using less gasoline, so what does the state want to do? Increase the gasoline tax to make up for the fewer $$ it receives in gas taxes. :) Geez? Is there no end to this madness?


Stay here on Earth. It's the only planet with DARK CHOCOLATE !!
River Song (aka Linda Latte on planet Earth)
"Happy I-Phone girl on the GO GO GO"
ID: 1813824 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 1813832 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 16:26:04 UTC - in response to Message 1813824.  
Last modified: 30 Aug 2016, 16:29:39 UTC

California is not going broke, the state has a budget surplus in the Billions, and the budget is balanced, so what you stated is outdated info according to LAO.

LAO Report Predicts $11.5B Surplus for FY 2016-2017


Hmmmm. Surely you jest, kind Sir? As I understand it, all that surplus has already been allocated to other uses and can't be touched?

IMHO, The state asks its residents to pay extra $$ to improve the roads and help school children. How can you deny "the kids?" or having "good roads?" :) They do this every year, They put those $$ in the "General Fund." They then "borrow" from what kind hearted residents have paid xtra and use it on other things, like welfare for illegals.

If California has so much of a usable surplus, why do they ask for MORE every year? Why not just give all residents a REFUND? <giggles> Fat chance, huh?

People are conserving and using less gasoline, so what does the state want to do? Increase the gasoline tax to make up for the fewer $$ it receives in gas taxes. :) Geez? Is there no end to this madness?


Stay here on Earth. It's the only planet with DARK CHOCOLATE !!

The 1996 Welfare reform Act says Citizens and legal resident aliens only,
no undocumented immigrants get any welfare, go look it up, you know they are
called search engines for a reason.
The SSA states this on their website, though they don't give the reason behind it, the SSA expects people can look it up.

Why? I get $733 a month, I live below the Federal poverty line, CA gives Me another $156.40,
I'm going to get a COLA again after having the state budget balanced on My
back(and the other 1.3 million SSI/SSP recipients in CA), oh and the COLA
(Cost Of Living Adjustment), was going to be $70 a month in 2017 to bring 1.3
million people in CA up to 96% of the Federal Poverty Line in AB-1584, and to
100% in 2018 and thereafter, but the bill was amended in the CA Sen Appropriations
Committee to a measly COLA, the 2016 budget grants a $4 bump in the SSP
(State Supplemental Payment) from $156.40 to $160.40 a month. $889.40 means I
have to choose what to spend money on, do I buy oil or go into debt and get a
tuneup, I choose the oil for the oil change My car needs, in Nov I get to try
and fix My mobile home's gas furnace, that should be about $120, that's a guess.
Fixing the furnace will cost $70 an hour, that's the trip charge, I live 12
miles from Barstow CA, in Dec I pay property taxes too, $102.65.

Edit: I live at 90% of the FPL which in 2016 is $11,880 a year.
Cause the surplus is not constant, if it was then there would be no surplus.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 1813832 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1813842 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 16:42:46 UTC - in response to Message 1813575.  

Happy to help too.
I managed environmental affairs for construction of the world's larges PV Plant.
Topaz Solar Farms.


Carlos, just curiosity mostly, but where I work has about 20 acres of grass just east of downtown LA, what kind of footprint is needed to hold up the panels?
ID: 1813842 · Report as offensive
Profile River Song
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 15
Posts: 268
Credit: 1,735,966
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1813854 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 17:51:32 UTC - in response to Message 1813832.  

California is not going broke, the state has a budget surplus in the Billions, and the budget is balanced, so what you stated is outdated info according to LAO.

LAO Report Predicts $11.5B Surplus for FY 2016-2017


Hmmmm. Surely you jest, kind Sir? As I understand it, all that surplus has already been allocated to other uses and can't be touched?

IMHO, The state asks its residents to pay extra $$ to improve the roads and help school children. How can you deny "the kids?" or having "good roads?" :) They do this every year, They put those $$ in the "General Fund." They then "borrow" from what kind hearted residents have paid xtra and use it on other things, like welfare for illegals.

If California has so much of a usable surplus, why do they ask for MORE every year? Why not just give all residents a REFUND? <giggles> Fat chance, huh?

People are conserving and using less gasoline, so what does the state want to do? Increase the gasoline tax to make up for the fewer $$ it receives in gas taxes. :) Geez? Is there no end to this madness?


Stay here on Earth. It's the only planet with DARK CHOCOLATE !!

The 1996 Welfare reform Act says Citizens and legal resident aliens only,
no undocumented immigrants get any welfare, go look it up, you know they are
called search engines for a reason.
The SSA states this on their website, though they don't give the reason behind it, the SSA expects people can look it up.

Why? I get $733 a month, I live below the Federal poverty line, CA gives Me another $156.40,
I'm going to get a COLA again after having the state budget balanced on My
back(and the other 1.3 million SSI/SSP recipients in CA), oh and the COLA
(Cost Of Living Adjustment), was going to be $70 a month in 2017 to bring 1.3
million people in CA up to 96% of the Federal Poverty Line in AB-1584, and to
100% in 2018 and thereafter, but the bill was amended in the CA Sen Appropriations
Committee to a measly COLA, the 2016 budget grants a $4 bump in the SSP
(State Supplemental Payment) from $156.40 to $160.40 a month. $889.40 means I
have to choose what to spend money on, do I buy oil or go into debt and get a
tuneup, I choose the oil for the oil change My car needs, in Nov I get to try
and fix My mobile home's gas furnace, that should be about $120, that's a guess.
Fixing the furnace will cost $70 an hour, that's the trip charge, I live 12
miles from Barstow CA, in Dec I pay property taxes too, $102.65.

Edit: I live at 90% of the FPL which in 2016 is $11,880 a year.
Cause the surplus is not constant, if it was then there would be no surplus.


Yoiks! A sad state of affairs indeed. :( Thank you for your input!
River Song (aka Linda Latte on planet Earth)
"Happy I-Phone girl on the GO GO GO"
ID: 1813854 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22160
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1813866 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 18:36:15 UTC - in response to Message 1813842.  

from the google maps picture I'd guess that "field" we are looking at is about 10 square miles, or about 6400 acres - just a little bit more than your 20 acre patch. Again, from the map, it looks as if the coverage is between a third and half, so that means between 2100 and 3200 acres of panels. (Which makes the two square metres of panels rather tiny)
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1813866 · Report as offensive
Profile Carlos
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 99
Posts: 29756
Credit: 57,275,487
RAC: 157
United States
Message 1813879 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 19:04:34 UTC - in response to Message 1813866.  
Last modified: 30 Aug 2016, 19:06:05 UTC

from the google maps picture I'd guess that "field" we are looking at is about 10 square miles, or about 6400 acres - just a little bit more than your 20 acre patch. Again, from the map, it looks as if the coverage is between a third and half, so that means between 2100 and 3200 acres of panels. (Which makes the two square metres of panels rather tiny)



You're math is right on. That is 10 square miles and 9 million panels. However, there are several smaller 2-20 MW plants. PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E are required by CA to buy a certain amount of their power from small energy providers. A 20 acre parcel could support a 5-9 MW plant. 20 acre could even produce as much as 20 MW but that would require a CPV plant which is costly to build. Feasibility will depend on access to transmission lines and distance to sub-station. Don't count on a CPV plant. I have not been able to make one pencil out and people tend to really oppose them.

Who's service area are you in and I can give you more info. Oh and what County. Santa Barbara limits the total allowed in the County and they were getting close to topping out last time I checked.

As to what the electricity costs the utility company pays, you can see that here.
ID: 1813879 · Report as offensive
Profile River Song
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 15
Posts: 268
Credit: 1,735,966
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1813889 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 19:26:39 UTC - in response to Message 1813665.  

"I guess it really comes down to how the money is invested. I think I could benefit more financially in the long run from that $19,500 cash with a wise money advisor. But again, I think the concept of solar power is a win-win for everyone when the technology improves so most people can look at it and say, yeah, that makes sense."

Hi Gordon,
We did not have $19,500 cash to spend, far from it. We did a "zero down" thing. 30% of the total price was covered by a refund from the IRS at tax time. The remainder, or 70%, was financed for 12 years at 3.99%. If we would have had cash so as not to need a loan, I'm sure we could have gotten a better than 3.99% return on that large a sum. :)

BUT, if we invested the $19,500 cash, assuming we had it, we would still be paying about $2184/year for electricity from SDG&E instead of the $378 we pay now for electricity.

Personally, a bird in the hand is, I think, better than two in the bush. :)


Be careful when you follow the MASSES, sometimes the "M" is silent! :)
River Song (aka Linda Latte on planet Earth)
"Happy I-Phone girl on the GO GO GO"
ID: 1813889 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1813909 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 20:54:22 UTC - in response to Message 1813879.  

LA DWP, see PM.
ID: 1813909 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 1813928 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 21:43:11 UTC
Last modified: 30 Aug 2016, 21:44:34 UTC

SCE and DWR here, after a 20% care discount, I've tried twice to get an application for a medical baseline, which would knock off another 20%, only to get nothing in the US mail, at both the parks mailing address and at My mailing address.

I just called for the 3rd time, I used SCE's automated system this time, I think cause I'm in a mobile home park, SCE just deletes the request...

Latest SCE bill $128.08 today, SW Gas $10.47.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 1813928 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1813954 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 22:46:00 UTC - in response to Message 1813889.  

"I guess it really comes down to how the money is invested. I think I could benefit more financially in the long run from that $19,500 cash with a wise money advisor. But again, I think the concept of solar power is a win-win for everyone when the technology improves so most people can look at it and say, yeah, that makes sense."


Hi Gordon,
We did not have $19,500 cash to spend, far from it. We did a "zero down" thing. 30% of the total price was covered by a refund from the IRS at tax time. The remainder, or 70%, was financed for 12 years at 3.99%. If we would have had cash so as not to need a loan, I'm sure we could have gotten a better than 3.99% return on that large a sum. :)

BUT, if we invested the $19,500 cash, assuming we had it, we would still be paying about $2184/year for electricity from SDG&E instead of the $378 we pay now for electricity.



Maybe I should get an estimate on the cost of setting this up on my house. I would pay 100% cash, but I just have a feeling with my electric bills topping out around $1,200/year at $.08 per kWh, the system is still too expensive to make sense(at least in my case).
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1813954 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 34744
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 1813955 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 22:56:11 UTC - in response to Message 1813954.  

"I guess it really comes down to how the money is invested. I think I could benefit more financially in the long run from that $19,500 cash with a wise money advisor. But again, I think the concept of solar power is a win-win for everyone when the technology improves so most people can look at it and say, yeah, that makes sense."


Hi Gordon,
We did not have $19,500 cash to spend, far from it. We did a "zero down" thing. 30% of the total price was covered by a refund from the IRS at tax time. The remainder, or 70%, was financed for 12 years at 3.99%. If we would have had cash so as not to need a loan, I'm sure we could have gotten a better than 3.99% return on that large a sum. :)

BUT, if we invested the $19,500 cash, assuming we had it, we would still be paying about $2184/year for electricity from SDG&E instead of the $378 we pay now for electricity.


Maybe I should get an estimate on the cost of setting this up on my house. I would pay 100% cash, but I just have a feeling with my electric bills topping out around $1,200/year at $.08 per kWh, the system is still too expensive to make sense(at least in my case).

But, if your system produces more than you can use then you'll wind up being paid for all that excess power being fed back into the grid, well that's what happens over here anyway (quicker payoff time and then income).

Just some food for thought. ;-)

Cheers.
ID: 1813955 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1813961 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 23:12:36 UTC - in response to Message 1813955.  

"I guess it really comes down to how the money is invested. I think I could benefit more financially in the long run from that $19,500 cash with a wise money advisor. But again, I think the concept of solar power is a win-win for everyone when the technology improves so most people can look at it and say, yeah, that makes sense."


Hi Gordon,
We did not have $19,500 cash to spend, far from it. We did a "zero down" thing. 30% of the total price was covered by a refund from the IRS at tax time. The remainder, or 70%, was financed for 12 years at 3.99%. If we would have had cash so as not to need a loan, I'm sure we could have gotten a better than 3.99% return on that large a sum. :)

BUT, if we invested the $19,500 cash, assuming we had it, we would still be paying about $2184/year for electricity from SDG&E instead of the $378 we pay now for electricity.


Maybe I should get an estimate on the cost of setting this up on my house. I would pay 100% cash, but I just have a feeling with my electric bills topping out around $1,200/year at $.08 per kWh, the system is still too expensive to make sense(at least in my case).

But, if your system produces more than you can use then you'll wind up being paid for all that excess power being fed back into the grid, well that's what happens over here anyway (quicker payoff time and then income).

Just some food for thought. ;-)

Cheers.


Good point, Wiggo. I may have to look harder into this.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1813961 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65709
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 1813964 - Posted: 30 Aug 2016, 23:31:27 UTC - in response to Message 1813961.  

"I guess it really comes down to how the money is invested. I think I could benefit more financially in the long run from that $19,500 cash with a wise money advisor. But again, I think the concept of solar power is a win-win for everyone when the technology improves so most people can look at it and say, yeah, that makes sense."


Hi Gordon,
We did not have $19,500 cash to spend, far from it. We did a "zero down" thing. 30% of the total price was covered by a refund from the IRS at tax time. The remainder, or 70%, was financed for 12 years at 3.99%. If we would have had cash so as not to need a loan, I'm sure we could have gotten a better than 3.99% return on that large a sum. :)

BUT, if we invested the $19,500 cash, assuming we had it, we would still be paying about $2184/year for electricity from SDG&E instead of the $378 we pay now for electricity.


Maybe I should get an estimate on the cost of setting this up on my house. I would pay 100% cash, but I just have a feeling with my electric bills topping out around $1,200/year at $.08 per kWh, the system is still too expensive to make sense(at least in my case).

But, if your system produces more than you can use then you'll wind up being paid for all that excess power being fed back into the grid, well that's what happens over here anyway (quicker payoff time and then income).

Just some food for thought. ;-)

Cheers.


Good point, Wiggo. I may have to look harder into this.

Last I heard and this may apply only in CA, is that any excess electricity made is given to the utility, they don't pay rate payers here, not yet. If this is no longer true, I'd like to know.

No matter what, I'd need to reroof the place at a new location, since Fleetwood put a metal peaked roof on the mobile home, but the metal was laid directly on the roof trusses/rafters, I have both since the living room and kitchen has a vaulted ceiling, so first plywood or waferboard would be installed over the existing roof, then a new metal roof would be installed on top of that.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 1813964 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Home Rooftop Solar...


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.