Forrest Gump 9 Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 In the never ending battle of home improvement, my next project is whole house solar panels. My sister live in Hawaii had that done an loved it. She pays $20 a month for electric, some months she actually get pay back from the electric company. One of my friend live here bought her house with the panels already on her roof. She pays $2.30 for electric bill last month. So just wondering if anyone on board have them on their house? What's the pros and cons? How much am I looking at for a system? Which company to go with? Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) I have been following doing this for a while now. Better batteries are coming out soon and make it hard for me to justify buying current technology. I put together a small charge station last year to run my aeration system for my pond. Ultimately, I ended not using it because I found more efficient pumps Vs the 7.5 AMP one that was running my electric up $100 a month. Current battery life is 3-5 years on whole house systems. Although, I did see where someone found a way to get 10+ years out of batteries. A battery will run you $150-$300, and you will likely need 30-50 of them depending on your use. Panel technology is getting better too. Those prices are all over the place. The cost of the charge controller, the inverter, and the cables are usually over looked as a huge expense. Then you have to tie it all into the house, and likely pay someone to do that. All that and then you ask yourself how much is your current electric bill? Is it worth it? Edited October 8, 2015 by Mojoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 In Ohio, a solar system is not cost effective. You would have to use it for 20+ years without incident (based upon average costs and outputs of current gen systems) in order to recoup your expenses. If you just want to be "off the grid" to a certain extent, or value a greener lifestyle, obviously there is an intrinsic value to those things, but thats subjective. Our company does more Resi solar plans than anyone in Texas, and though we would LOVE to get into the midwest and do the same thing, the value proposition just isn't there yet. Still waiting for the cost of systems to go down some, and the output to go up. Battery tech needs to catch up as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyM3rC Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 In Ohio, a solar system is not cost effective. You would have to use it for 20+ years without incident (based upon average costs and outputs of current gen systems) in order to recoup your expenses Yep. I looked into it previously and it wasn't worth it to ME. Due to taxes and credit circumstances, a family member installed a pretty large set of panels recently, and they've been pretty good for 2 years. Enough to run a 1800sqft all-electric home once a new variable-output geothermal system was installed. Ohio isn't all that sunny, and the output even when brand new isn't great when it's cloudy Let me know if you want more info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 Ohio isn't all that sunny, and the output even when brand new isn't great when it's cloudy Let me know if you want more info Ohio gets about 3.5 hours of usable sun per day, on average, over a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdk 4219 Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I would bet that this year that average is down quite a bit from 3.5 hours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyG Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 I thought I just read something about ~22% efficient solar...somewhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 DJ, what do you think of or know about Tesla's wall batteries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigOxley Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Don't let the nay-sayers dissuade anyone here from looking into solar. 1. Current systems tie into the grid, no batteries required. 2. Battery technology is growing by leaps and bounds for future off grid use. 3. Systems can be leased, decreasing costs to resident 4. Germany, which has a climate much like ours, is one of the biggest solar producing countries in the world. The faster we get off our dependence on fossil fuels, the better. The only reason I don't have them is because of the way my house is facing in relation to the sun. My roof has a east/west orientation and the neighboring houses are taller than mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Ox, don't get it twisted, I am FAR from a nay sayer. I'm ALL about solar. It just doesn't make sense, from a money standpoint, in Ohio yet. 1. Correct, you don't NEED batteries, but what that get's you is "3.5 hours per day" of solar, and the rest coming form the grid, just like normal. Power from the grid is FAR cheaper (unfortunately) than what you would pay per kWh for your lease. If you decided to purchase, how long, at 3.5 hours per day, do you think it would take to recoup 10k+ dollars? And that's for a system that DOESN'T move on it's axis to capture more sun. 2. Also correct. Which begs the question, why do it now? Why not wait till it makes more sense, and the tech has caught up to the money? 3. For 10 or more years at a time. And you will pay more per kWh than you would on the grid. 4. The German .gov is sponsoring that change, and they will tell you that, while they believe it is worth it, it's also been incredibly expensive. France is 80% Nuclear, and for my money, THAT'S the route we should be headed as well. Mitch, again, it's a step in the right direction, but it's an "out of the money" play. If you value the principle more than the cash, then I encourage you, do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 yeah, sounds like you basically answered my question in #2. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 Ox, don't get it twisted, I am FAR from a nay sayer. I'm ALL about solar. It just doesn't make sense, from a money standpoint, in Ohio yet. 1. Correct, you don't NEED batteries, but what that get's you is "3.5 hours per day" of solar, and the rest coming form the grid, just like normal. Power from the grid is FAR cheaper (unfortunately) than what you would pay per kWh for your lease. If you decided to purchase, how long, at 3.5 hours per day, do you think it would take to recoup 10k+ dollars? And that's for a system that DOESN'T move on it's axis to capture more sun. 2. Also correct. Which begs the question, why do it now? Why not wait till it makes more sense, and the tech has caught up to the money? 3. For 10 or more years at a time. And you will pay more per kWh than you would on the grid. 4. The German .gov is sponsoring that change, and they will tell you that, while they believe it is worth it, it's also been incredibly expensive. France is 80% Nuclear, and for my money, THAT'S the route we should be headed as well. Mitch, again, it's a step in the right direction, but it's an "out of the money" play. If you value the principle more than the cash, then I encourage you, do it. Nail on the head. We are treading water with wind and solar IMO - Nuclear is the only real cost effective energy solution, the others are nice but they really can not compare at this point from a cost perspective and generating electric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokin5s Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 11 years before any ROA... just not worth it right now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2highpsi Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 11 years before any ROA... just not worth it right now... Based on what kwh rate? I ask, because I'm unfortunately stuck with a Co-Op who charges almost double the average local rate. Edit: Speaking of alternative energy, I drove to Chicago yesterday and was AMAZED how many wind farms I saw in NW Ohio and Indiana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unfunnyryan Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 Nail on the head. We are treading water with wind and solar IMO - Nuclear is the only real cost effective energy solution, the others are nice but they really can not compare at this point from a cost perspective and generating electric. That, and it is the safest option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/ http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/coal_kills_4000_times_more_peo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 Based on what kwh rate? I ask, because I'm unfortunately stuck with a Co-Op who charges almost double the average local rate. Edit: Speaking of alternative energy, I drove to Chicago yesterday and was AMAZED how many wind farms I saw in NW Ohio and Indiana. The avg per kWh rate in Ohio for generation is something like 9.2 cents. A co-op is probably charging more than that, but I would be surprised if it were WAY more. If you were to just shop for your power through an alternative supplier, you would be in the low 7's/high 6's per kWh (I know you can't personally, and I feel for you. That sucks). Again, this is JUST FOR GENERATION; Transmission and Distribution components are regulated for ALL users in Ohio. So, Jordan, to answer the implied question, if YOU were to install a setup, you may recoup your losses in less time. However, given that you are behind a co-op, they may have separate rules re: such a setup. On the subject of Nuclear power, I, and others in my office, really feel it is incorrectly classified, and SHOULD be considered a renewable. Some of the new 4th gen reactors actually produce more fuel than they burn, and are physically incapable (that is to say, they are incapable, as a result of Physics) of "meltdown" as we see in incidents such as 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. At least two types of these reactors are built and operational at the Idaho National Laboratory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillJoy Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 Some of the new 4th gen reactors actually produce more fuel than they burn I thought OverUnity was "impossible"??? KillJoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2highpsi Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 The avg per kWh rate in Ohio for generation is something like 9.2 cents. A co-op is probably charging more than that, but I would be surprised if it were WAY more. If you were to just shop for your power through an alternative supplier, you would be in the low 7's/high 6's per kWh (I know you can't personally, and I feel for you. That sucks). Again, this is JUST FOR GENERATION; Transmission and Distribution components are regulated for ALL users in Ohio. So, Jordan, to answer the implied question, if YOU were to install a setup, you may recoup your losses in less time. However, given that you are behind a co-op, they may have separate rules re: such a setup. Most everyone I know around me (the line dividing regular AEP, and GM Co-Op is very close to my house) is paying in the 7s. I'm paying in the high 13s. They don't have any "special rules", however they don't do NET metering. That was the kicker that prevented me from digging further into solar before. However, with the new battery tech I'm considering looking back into it. I'm so disgusted with the Co-Op that it's more about trying to break free from them than it is saving money. That being said, I also won't throw money away just to spite them. If my break even were within a very reasonable lifetime expectation of the whole system (panels, inverters, batteries) I would probably just do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Most everyone I know around me (the line dividing regular AEP, and GM Co-Op is very close to my house) is paying in the 7s. I'm paying in the high 13s. They don't have any "special rules", however they don't do NET metering. That was the kicker that prevented me from digging further into solar before. However, with the new battery tech I'm considering looking back into it. I'm so disgusted with the Co-Op that it's more about trying to break free from them than it is saving money. That being said, I also won't throw money away just to spite them. If my break even were within a very reasonable lifetime expectation of the whole system (panels, inverters, batteries) I would probably just do it. Net metering means that you won't be able to sell back to the grid, for those of you who haven't heard the term. Which means that having the battery system becomes more valuable, as any kWh used "behind the fence" is worth full value, and not the pittance that they would pay you for exporting it to the grid. Well, J, I would have someone come out and do an estimate for you. Maybe it would be worth it for you, especially since you are getting fucked right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 I thought OverUnity was "impossible"??? KillJoy A fast reactor directly uses the fast neutrons emitted by fission, without moderation. Unlike thermal neutron reactors, fast neutron reactors can be configured to "burn", or fission, all the actinides in a fuel substance. Given enough time, they could drastically reduce the amount of actinides in spent nuclear fuel produced by the present world fleet of thermal nueron light water reactors, thus closing the nuclear fuel cycle. Alternatively, if configured differently, they can also breed more actinide fuel than they consume. So, it can operate on waste fuel, OR it can be used to create fuel, which it would then burn (creating more energy then it used to create the fuel). It's really quite fascinating, and I'm sure that I am WAY oversimplifying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMeanGreen Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 http://www.therpf.com/attachments/f9/mr-fusion-base-progress-mrfusion_screencap_101.jpg-238221d1380665828 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 A fast reactor directly uses the fast neutrons emitted by fission, without moderation. Unlike thermal neutron reactors, fast neutron reactors can be configured to "burn", or fission, all the actinides in a fuel substance. Given enough time, they could drastically reduce the amount of actinides in spent nuclear fuel produced by the present world fleet of thermal nueron light water reactors, thus closing the nuclear fuel cycle. Alternatively, if configured differently, they can also breed more actinide fuel than they consume. So, it can operate on waste fuel, OR it can be used to create fuel, which it would then burn (creating more energy then it used to create the fuel). It's really quite fascinating, and I'm sure that I am WAY oversimplifying. My farther in law (a Nuclear engineer at Batelle) always loves to take on conversations against wind and solar and he to speaks about the "renewable" form of nuclear energy. Pressure vessels are fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 My farther in law (a Nuclear engineer at Batelle) always loves to take on conversations against wind and solar and he to speaks about the "renewable" form of nuclear energy. Pressure vessels are fascinating. There are other factors in the equation as well, as far as that argument goes. Let's just pretend for a second that *POOF* all power for America is generated via renewables. Ta Da! Ok, so, now that that is accomplished, let's talk reliability. Just to throw around some very generic numbers, let's say that a utility in Ohio has a round the clock minimum demand of 1MW (or 1000kW). We'll say that they have solar assets that can produce 750kW at peak, wind assets that produce 250kW at peak, and hydro assets that produce 100kW at peak. So, they have assets that can produce 1100kW, allowing them to export some extra power, and make some more loot, sounds like a good deal, right? Maybe not. If they have a PEAK demand of over that (and they WILL), they will need to find that power somewhere else. Probably by importing it. So, let's then go further to say that this utility has a peak overall demand of 1300kW. Which means that, if they are at peak, and all three assets are producing at peak, they will have to import 200kW. Probably not an untenable position, but one that they would prefer to rectify if possible, as power is at its most expensive to buy during these hours. But wait, it's even less simple than that. Peak hours typically occur between 3 and 6 in the afternoon. Hottest time of the day + everyone getting home and flipping on the A/C. Fortunately, that is when two of this companies three assets are producing at or around peak. But what happens when the sun goes down? Ok, so now, if they have super-efficient solar concentrators, the solar asset goes from 750kW production, to around 250kw…on a night with a bright moon. The good news is that the wind will blow more in the evenings as the earth cools, so the wind asset will produce at peak into the night. Alright, so it’s 9pm, and we’re back to our round the clock minimum demand of 1MW. We now have solar assets producing 250kW, wind producing 250kW, and hydro producing 100kW. We are now, in off-peak hours, producing 600kW to provide for our 1MW load. Importing again, thankfully during the less expensive off peak hours this time. So, what is a green utility to do? Well, you could increase capacity. Install more generating assets than what you would “need”. That will cost you quite a bit in initial outlay, but you might be able to recoup that if you take a long term view. But what about days when the peak is low, and you are producing far more than you are using? Well, you can export…but if renewables are outproducing usage in your region, than they probably are in the surrounding regions as well. So, the export price is likely to be cheap. And now you have assets that are costing you money to maintain, but aren’t producing anything with enough value to sell. Beginning to see the issue? Renewables are, for the most part, out of our control. You can’t flip on or off the sun, or a river, or the wind. They produce when they produce, and that’s that. Could you STORE the energy during the times when you overproduce in order to use when you underproduce? With today’s battery technology, good luck. It will cost you a mint to build the capacity you would need, and upkeep it. Battery tech will have to come a long way before this is feasible at the utility scale. As things are now, we are always going to need a power source that we control. Something we can turn on and off, regardless of the time of day or the weather conditions. The most feasible, efficient, and “renewable-esque” resource that we have to fill that role is Nuclear. Until we find a way to store large amounts of power in a smaller, cheaper way…we’re going to be beholden to using natures way of storing it, chemically. Which means fossil fuels. And that’s not good for anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 11 years before any ROA... just not worth it right now... Pay off in 11 years for something that last 25 years is not worth it. #PoorPeopleLogic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Pay off in 11 years for something that last 25 years is not worth it. #PoorPeopleLogic Not everyone plans on living in their home for the rest of their lives, Jess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.