Here comes the Sun - 6 month follow up

[Smiley]

Ok I went live with 26 solar panels at 6.24 KW capacity Sept. 3 2011 and today marks the 6 month threshold. So how am I doing with the worst 6 fall/winter months under my belt.

Great :banana:

I have produced 2310 kwh of power off my panels
I have consumed about 5800 kwh from my smart meter reading (rounded off for the lag between the old and new digital meter install).

Guys and Gals do the math. I have already sold ONE (1) SREC of solar power at $196.34 which was produced from Sept to Mid Nov 2011 and my second SREC has already been produced since then and I am 670 kwh short of my third (3) SREC. These go to auction in quarterly intervals so I envision a nice bonus stream of income from these action sales BUT in truth the value of the SREC has diminshed due to the increased popularity of Solar in residential applications, more supply than demand :)
My pal NH Aero can comment on this topic since he is more up on the subject matter.

Bottom line my initial 37 K investment is paying me more dividends than if left it in a money market certificate. Lastly I have already cashed my State Of MD rebate of $3120, will file my taxes with my 30% deduction from Solar and Montgomery County owes me $5000 to be paid in about 5 years (its a long wait list).

Its Sunny here today in Maryland and I expect my trend of solar gain to reap me around 25 kwh today of power made from my panels.

[Fixed]

thanks for interesting info .
cheers

[zap]

and Montgomery County owes me $5000 to be paid in about 5 years (its a long wait list).


This program has been canceled-at least put on hold. You may have gotten on the list just in time.

So, you are still paying pepco?

[Smiley]

This program has been canceled-at least put on hold. You may have gotten on the list just in time.

So, you are still paying pepco?


Last year in Dec 2011 I checked with Montgomery County MD and I was on the list as the 498 applicant with 571 applicants already listed. And was told they were processing the checks at the rate of about 91 homes per year (that is how much money they had approx to spend on Solar rebates) so if they have cancelled it that is news to me since the program is very sucessfull and if they did I am already locked in and owed. I will check with my guy about what you are saying.

yes I have averaged about 1000 kwh of power use per month and have generated 385 kwh per month which IF I DID NOT have Solar would be power I would have used. So I do pay Pepco but no where near the dollar amount I would have if not for my panels. Zapper this is the best deal going right now.

[BumbleBeeDave]

You've paid $37k to get in. At this rate of return how long will it take to amortize? And how does that period of time to recoup compare with the expected lifespan of the equipment?

BBD

[Smiley]

Zapper you are correct they did suspend the program Nov 2011 and locked out new applicants BUT I am GOLDEN :banana:

[Smiley]

You've paid $37k to get in. At this rate of return how long will it take to amortize? And how does that period of time to recoup compare with the expected lifespan of the equipment?

BBD


Dave probably 6 years BUT this notion of payback is stupid cause if you see how many Prius are on the road you'll know that not everybody has a payback goal in mind. Controlling my utility costs in my home which I have lived in for 24 years now is most important to me. My mutal funds which are in cash were basically doing NOTHING for me so I put that money to work for me and am paying myself back with the savings and rebates.
next step is Solar hot water....yes really.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . in stupid notions. :D

BBD

[zap]

Zapper you are correct they did suspend the program Nov 2011 and locked out new applicants BUT I am GOLDEN :banana:

My buddy Roger Berliner. Program was more popular than expected.

[Smiley]

. . . in stupid notions. :D

BBD


I mean that in a good way BUT we as Americans are used to CHEAP energy and someday this will not be the case. I no longer yearn to move a 4700 lb car around for just myself in the drivers seat so my next car will be a 4 cyclinder hatchback or a Prius or something that does not need $65 bucks to fill up a tank with. My home is no different.

[Ahneida Ride]

Bottom line my initial 37 K investment is paying me more dividends than if left it in a money market certificate.

And Solar power does not decrease in power at 6% annually like our fiat
private central bank shopping coupons.

[1centaur]

The notion is not stupid, it's just not applicable to some or fully descriptive in the aggregate. There are plenty of people who do these things for psychic income, and with enough of that one can lead a pretty good life. BUT, large groups are more undeniably economic than conceptual in their decision making, so the notion of amortization is key to widespread adoption of the technology. If the point of taxpayers subsidizing psychic incomes is to reach a tipping point where the dollars work for everyone (except the Middle East) then curiosity about the time to that point is understandable.

In a few years, money market rates may be 5%, at which point the amortization question may feel more relevant than when idle money lies fallow. Personally, I'm always fascinated by government (and echoing media) descriptions of payback periods that look only at nominal dollars. I don't know if they're fooling themselves or trying to fool others. The point at which solar cells really pay off without subsidies or ignoring the cost of money will be a watershed for society.

[Smiley]

The point at which solar cells really pay off without subsidies or ignoring the cost of money will be a watershed for society.


I dig what you always post and as a sales engineer selling equipment that saves energy or improved energy efficiency I have had to deal with companies that did not make improvements cause the paybacks were never within the corporate guidelines of 2-3 years and these same companies could have realized paybacks of under 5 years without taxes or depreciationfigured in but they chose to take a pass on the projects....hence the real problems with American industries of not taking a longer view of things.

Yes the subsidies really HELPED me especially today when I met with my accountant and got my taxes estimated and don't think for one minute that 30% of my investment right off the top was not SWEET :banana:

Thanks Centaur

[NHAero]

My first 9 months of production off of my 4.76 kW system is a bit over 4,500 kWh. Avoided cost here on Martha's Vineyard of about $830. The system cost with no rebates would have been about $30,000, with an annual savings of $1,100, so a 3.7% return, not taxable, and immune from rate hikes. After rebates and credits, this system is about $18,000, so about 6.1% return. I sold my first SREC for a tad over $500, and the system should make 6 annually. After nine months we have generated more than we used, so we have excess that could be applied to an electric vehicle, or allocated to another meter within the service territory.

I actually am not a fan of subsidies. The problem is, all the other forms of energy have massive subsidies that make the solar ones pale. How about the Federal gov't picking up the insurance risk for the nuclear energy industry?

[Smiley]

Thanks Aero, your persective is always good.

Man when did you sell that first SREC and what is it going for now?

[1centaur]

3.7% to 6.1%, tax free, looks really good in this world. I'd like to see solar systems advertized THAT way - they might get more takers (and put more Americans to work installing them). Of course, it's not an annuity, so cash on cash return in early years is only part of the story - with a muni bond you get X% a year AND all your money back when the bond matures.

If we're going to compare subsidies, we should compare subsidy per unit of power produced. We can't create a baseline for such subsidies because the risks can't be quantified apolitically, whether it's a nuclear meltdown/fuel storage disruption or drilling dry holes or having your oil rigs seized by Nigeria. I think we can agree that solar cells have less risk than other forms, but it's up to each of us to determine risk tolerances vs. efficiency trade-offs.

The good thing about ROI numbers is that they allow people to make decisions without figuring out unknowables. Rich people in particular, who might soon see limitations on the tax deductibility of muni interest, would get really tweaked by being offered a tax free return that's more than competitive AND finally getting environmentalists on their side. Win-wins are hard to resist. But let's see 15 years of solar cells vs. a 15-year muni investment before we get too excited.

[93legendti]

Let's compare subsidies, using the CBO's numbers:


http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-06-FuelsandEnergy_Brief.pdf

In 2011, a total of $13.9 billion, or 68 percent of the energy-related tax preferences, was directed toward renewable energy...


The tax breaks for all fossil fuels in 2011 was only $2.5B -- about 0.19% of that year's deficit, and enough to fund only six hours of U.S. government spending. The source for such heresy? The Congressional Budget Office.
Just to be clear, that $2.5B was not just for Big Oil, but also for Big Coal and Big Gas: all fossil fuels...

...tax subsidies for all fossil fuels were only 15% of all federal subsidies for energy. The Green alternatives of renewables and "efficiency" took 78% of all tax subsidies for energy. Big Oil has so much influence on Capitol Hill that our government subsidizes its competitors five times more. Fossil fuels provide 77% of our nation's energy yet receive just 15% of the federal government's tax subsidies.
"Alcohol fuels," which include ethanol, took $6.1B of tax subsidies, or more than twice as much as oil, gas, and coal combined.

Read more:http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/big_oil_and_tax_breaks.html#ixzz1oZNUwUOE


On the other hand;
Watchdog: 20 Green Energy Firms That Got Fed Cash Are In Trouble

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/green-firms-fed-cash-give-execs-bonuses-fail/t/story?id=15851653#.T1fJD3mV31p

[zap]

edit

My first 9 months of production off of my 4.76 kW system is a bit over 4,500 kWh. Avoided cost here on Martha's Vineyard of about $830. The system cost with no rebates would have been about $30,000, with an annual savings of $1,100, so a 3.7% return, not taxable, and immune from rate hikes. After rebates and credits, this system is about $18,000, so about 6.1% return.

Energy production is going to decline with age so savings (in theory) will decrease. I've read and heard (D.C. solar expo) figures of around .5%-1% decline in energy production annually. Then again, the amount of sun light will have greater impact.

The biggest problem is capital depreciation. I have to believe that after 20 years solar panels are going to be worth $0.

Then one must include added roofing expense. As a former owner of a home with solar panels, it's work.

[Smiley]

edit



Energy production is going to decline with age so savings (in theory) will decrease. I've read and heard (D.C. solar expo) figures of around .5%-1% decline in energy production annually. Then again, the amount of sun light will have greater impact.




That decrease is as a percent of the panel efficiency and I think 1 % is too big a value for the newer better panels but maybe good for the cheaper comodity chinese panels. That actual value is not set in stone by any vendor but its kind of a rule of thumb.

[rickbb]

Let's compare subsidies, using the CBO's numbers:

In 2011, a total of $13.9 billion, or 68 percent of the energy-related tax preferences, was directed toward renewable energy...

"Alcohol fuels," which include ethanol, took $6.1B of tax subsidies, or more than twice as much as oil, gas, and coal combined.

Interesting insight, thanks! We don't see many posts from you that contain "...only $2.5B...". :)
I don't think most of us view alcohol fuels, the largest single component of the tax preferences, as a "green alternative", other than, perhaps, literally. Fuel blenders derive some of the benefits from these subsidies, as well.

Migrating to alternative energy sources is rife with inherent risk and we can count on the government to do it wastefully, but supporting it isn't misguided in a broader sense.

Thanks, Smiley, for initiating this interesting topic.

[beungood]

There was just an article in our local paper on a homeowner installing a large solar array. They worked a deal out and he sells off the excess. His only problem was the Building inspector thought he needed an building permit in addition to an electrical permit. His neighbor originally supportive was irritated that they are bigger (24 panel ) and the fact he cut his own trees for more exposure. A coworker of mine,not one to spend money went and installed a system and it is so far saving him quite a bit of money and he has extra he sells back to the grid. He was so impressed he did a mass emailing department wide (and he almost never does this). I am considering this for a place I am looking to buy..

[93legendti]

Interesting insight, thanks! We don't see many posts from you that contain "...only $2.5B...". :)
I don't think most of us view alcohol fuels, the largest single component of the tax preferences, as a "green alternative", other than, perhaps, literally. Fuel blenders derive some of the benefits from these subsidies, as well.

Migrating to alternative energy sources is rife with inherent risk and we can count on the government to do it wastefully, but supporting it isn't misguided in a broader sense.

Thanks, Smiley, for initiating this interesting topic.
Thank the CBO.
You missed the part about the 78% subsidies for non oil, gas and coil energy and how 20 green firms that got subsidies are either bankrupt or in trouble.
At least oil, gas and coal comanies thrive and pay taxes...the green subsidies are just throwing away money. Throwing money away isn't risky. It's stupid.

This isn't a migration. It's a death march. By closing off federal lands to oil drilling and canceling leases on those lands; closing coal plants and throwing money at any firm with a "green" mention in its pamphlet, regardless of the financial health of the company; not to mention paying wind farms NOT to produce energy, we have $4/gallon gas and a Chevy Volt that can't be sold.

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-pacific-northwest-wind-farms-paid-to-not-produce-20120308,0,190781.story?track=rss

Anyway, the canard about big oil getting the most energy subsidies has been put to bed.

...tax subsidies for all fossil fuels were only 15% of all federal subsidies for energy. The Green alternatives of renewables and "efficiency" took 78% of all tax subsidies for energy. Big Oil has so much influence on Capitol Hill that our government subsidizes its competitors five times more. Fossil fuels provide 77% of our nation's energy yet receive just 15% of the federal government's tax subsidies.
"Alcohol fuels," which include ethanol, took $6.1B of tax subsidies, or more than twice as much as oil, gas, and coal combined.