OT: solar panels

[C40_guy]

Originally Posted by cnighbor1

They reduced the amount you get for using solar panels. The only way to make them so they save you money is too have solar batteries installed with in installation of add one with the solar panels you have now
Solar business in CA is off 75%
Charles

It's a shame that public policy is pulling back on these incentives...I think it's still a bit early to do so. Here in Mass the incentives have been decreased a lot more gradually...the earliest adopters got the most generous reimbursements..but current adopters still get a boost.

Here's the alternative to incenting more production at consumption point -- continue to build central power plants and harden transmission lines for increasingly harsh weather. Either the tax payer pays or the consumer pays....but either way, we are paying for our power...the question is which option do we prefer. Me, I voted with my checkbook and covered my roof. I was in a position to do so and will benefit as long as we're in the house.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by saab2000

Some of you may be aware of a well known YouTuber, Marques Brownlee. He purchased the Tesla roof and battery and has a video on his experience, which is mostly positive but not all. It’s a very expensive system but he reports that it works well generally, obviously especially in summer and not so much in the winter. Interesting video if anyone looks for it. His house is in New Jersey for reference regarding latitude and sun exposure.

Thanks saab for pointing out this video. He actually lives pretty close to me, so his experience is interesting to me. I found the video very good at breaking down the seasonality of solar production. I do think the particular year he picked was a very "good" one for solar, and I bet subsequent years are not going to be as favorable, but none the less, that was a good 101 on solar in NJ.

I do think with regard to the $ question he almost certainly got something VERY wrong. He estimated that without solar, his annual electricity cost was about $9,600. I believe that is totally wrong, especially given that he uses natural gas to heat his home, so no electricity goes towards heat. That's $800/month. I just dont believe it. That throws the rest of his analysis off.

[C40_guy]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

TI found the video very good at breaking down the seasonality of solar production.

Seasonality is pretty easy to demonstrate...here's a nice example from 2017...some of our other years are a bit lumpy, depending on rain, cold, changes in appliances, usage, etc.

[rice rocket]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

That's $800/month. I just dont believe it. That throws the rest of his analysis off.

I'm not sure why that's unbelievable? You know he's makes probably $5-10 million/year, right?

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by rice rocket

I'm not sure why that's unbelievable? You know he's makes probably $5-10 million/year, right?

What does his income have to do with what I think his electricity bill/month is?

[rice rocket]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

What does his income have to do with what I think his electricity bill/month is?

I'd wager his house is much bigger than yours. Utilities scale pretty linearly to sq footage.

Also he has an electric car, and I'm betting a fairly large scale computer backup setup to store footage, since that's part of his job.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by rice rocket

I'd wager his house is much bigger than yours. Utilities scale pretty linearly to sq footage.

Also he has an electric car, and I'm betting a fairly large scale computer backup setup to store footage, since that's part of his job.

Perhaps you are right about the house size, but the photos he showed made the house look reasonably modest in size. He also mentioned by a HUGE factor that his car charging was the largest load, and his AC was next and after that was the microwave and toaster, so I dont think there is any hidden data centers in there.

My only point is that he mentioned that he paid about $100k for the system out of pocket and he was using $10k/year, so the payback was about 10 years. I just dont think that's right. For a house the size he showed, using natural gas for heat in NJ, it doesnt sound right to me.

As mentioned, the bulk of the vid was very good and informative.

[jtakeda]

Originally Posted by NHAero

That's not consistent with my own experience both personally and in the industry. If you got panels making 3X as much power they'd need to be a lot larger.

My BP Solar panels in 1999 were 14% efficient and were state of the art then. New Maxeon panels 25 years later today are 22.8% efficient. The 2011 panels on my current roof were then state of the art Sunpower at 19.2% efficiency, so at 13 years old efficiency of the best panels has jumped just under 19%.

What's also interesting is that the rate of efficiency gains has slowed. Over 25 years the rate has averaged 2.0% annually, but between my first panels and the 2011 panels the rate of efficiency gain was 2.7%/year and in the past 13 years it's been 1.3%/year.

If PV is a decent deal I don't think it makes sense to wait for efficiency gains. I have off-grid friends in northern VT and in Duluth, and though they have augmented their systems for sure, they have 40 year old panels making power. These last a long time, especially if you don't get cheap Chinese panels. If you're buying PV, look at the warranty, and at the company's financial strength. A new Maxeon panel is warrantied to make 88% of rated power in 40 years. The parent company, Sunpower, has been around over 35 years.

I’d agree if the panels were paid for. But you’re talking about having to buy 15 year old panels

[rwsaunders]

Originally Posted by NHAero

Costs of energy vary hugely across the US. My brother in suburban Seattle pays more than we do for gasoline, but electricity is a fraction of what we pay. An EV for them was a no-brainer. Here it is a wash cost-wise with gasoline since our electric rates have gone up so much. Much lower emissions though.

They have this renewable energy source in the PNW called the Columbia River.

From the DOE:

In 2022, hydroelectric power accounted for 67% of Washington's total electricity net generation from both utility-scale (1 megawatt or larger) and small-scale (less than 1 megawatt) facilities. Washington typically contributes between one-fourth and one-third of all conventional hydroelectric generation in the nation annually, and 9 of the state's 10 largest power plants by capacity and 7 of the 10 by actual generation are hydroelectric facilities.

[edgerat]

Originally Posted by rwsaunders

They this renewable energy source in the PNW called the Columbia River.

From the DOE:

In 2022, hydroelectric power accounted for 67% of Washington's total electricity net generation from both utility-scale (1 megawatt or larger) and small-scale (less than 1 megawatt) facilities. Washington typically contributes between one-fourth and one-third of all conventional hydroelectric generation in the nation annually, and 9 of the state's 10 largest power plants by capacity and 7 of the 10 by actual generation are hydroelectric facilities.

Imagine if we used all of our nuclear power plants

[paredown]

Originally Posted by edgerat

Imagine if we used all of our nuclear power plants

OMG, you used the 'N' word in polite conversation!

Lets just say if the tech is new, I'm cautiously optimistic--see the many articles about the Natrium first plant in Wyoming, or the many presentations from Bill Gates:
https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/natriumpower/

OTOH, I'm relieved that activists finally pushed the NY state government in Albany hard enough to keep the new owners from continuing their end run around the EOL requirements at Indian Point. We live to the west of the reactor, and there are studies that go back decades showing worse health outcomes on our side of the river, suspected to be wind carried radioactive leakage.

[JMT3]

Just my opinion. Utilities are rather inexpensive where I live verses my retirement income. A lot of neighbors have installed them and they make all the houses look ugly with all the conduit coming down the side of the building. The few pennies I could save, plus I may only be in that house a couple more years just doesn’t make sense for me to even consider. I rather take those funds towards redoing our three bathrooms wich is going to be done shortly.

[C40_guy]

Originally Posted by JMT3

Just my opinion...they make all the houses look ugly with all the conduit coming down the side of the building...

That's a typical installation shortcut. Sometimes, with cathedral ceilings or other limited access, conduit has to be run externally. Even then, it *can* be run tastefully.

In planning our installation, I requested that the installer hide *all* conduit. They ran it in through the unfinished attic and down through the garage to the utility room. I knew the house well enough to provide a good initial plan, which they followed.

We did the same with our radon system installation.

Unfortunately, when installing the minisplits we really didn't have similar options and now I have a white pipe snaking up each side of the house against the gray shingles. One side we never see; the other...