How much did I save? How many kWh did we use last month?

[discodanman45]

Thanks for understanding. The problem is because my electric rate and usage is low even Net Metering (which I can get) calculates out to more than 10 years payback. It just doesn't make sense for me to install pv.

I also do not have a garage so even if I decide to get an EV I would have to spend a lot of money to run power to a new panel for the charger. Oh by the way gas here (at least yesterday) was about $2.45/gal.

For $21,000 I basically paid for 100% of my electric needs for a 3100 sqft house in an area that can reach over 110 degrees and driving 40,000 miles a year where gas is $4 a gallon. Even California policies favor the wealthy by being able to afford this huge cost cutting measure.

[funguy11]

You have the order precisely backwards. And, (this will read like absolute heresy) believe it or not, there are more than a few scenarios where residential PV cannot be economically justified, and lots more where systems have been way oversized beyond cost effectiveness.

In most every case, for most bang for your long term buck, and in some loose priority:

Start with an energy audit. It'll probably point to:

1.) Stop wasting energy - start by turning stuff off, and/or lifestyle changes as appropriate. Think !
2.) Add conservation measures like sealing/insulating. Do the sealing first.
3.) Depending on what the energy audit finds, clean/repair old appliances. Start with cleaning/replacing HVAC filters and cleaning refrigerator coils. Replace cheap stuff like lightbulbs and thermostats first, but don't put off big replacements like fridges/A/C any longer than necessary.

4.) And, in the end, since PV is about the least cost effective way to reduce an electric bill, make PV the 2d last thing your do - if at all, before new windows - which may be nice, but usually can't be justified from an energy cost saving standpoint.

If long term cost effectiveness has any place in the priority of reducing an electric bill, common sense says do the most cost effective stuff first.

Throwing expensive PV at a high energy bill before doing all the more cost effective things to reduce the bill is doing it precisely backwards, but PV peddlers and their green wash media shills have most of the solar and energy ignorant public B.S.'d.

There are other reasons for residential solar besides economic. People want the security of solar + battery knowing that if there is a power outage for an extended time (which is very possible given the state of the US power grid), they and their family will have electricity. Also, solar improves the environment and results in reduced pollution. My friend spent 25k on windows and one of his justifications was the energy saving. Obviously, for him, a purchase of solar panels vs windows would have made more financial sense.

[SunEagle]

Without net-metering it is very hard to justify solar at all. There really needs to be some sort of credit given to every solar customer in the US since you are feeding the grid. Maybe not a 1 to 1 credit, but something. I also agree that in California solar it is too easy just to install solar with total disregard to everything else. Policies that try to encourage use can be just as bad as having no incentive. Also with the price of gas being $4 a gallon and going up today with an extra 6 cent tax starting today, it makes solar the best decision for driving cars. Buy a cheap used BMW i3 or Leaf and use it as your daily driver would save you tons of $$$ as well.

Thanks for understanding. The problem is because my electric rate and usage is low even Net Metering (which I can get) calculates out to more than 10 years payback. It just doesn't make sense for me to install pv.

I also do not have a garage so even if I decide to get an EV I would have to spend a lot of money to run power to a new panel for the charger. Oh by the way gas here (at least yesterday) was about $2.45/gal.

[J.P.M.]

Agreed - with the exception of Hawaii. With residential prices hitting 40 cents/kwhr, even zero-export systems often make economic sense (once the aforementioned efficiency improvements have been researched.)

Well, I did say most areas. I'd also wonder what the landed/installed cost of PV in HI might be, given that most everything is more expensive (except, BTW, turning stuff off).

[discodanman45]

Sorry. I did not mean to yell.

There are some members that live in CA that think everything revolves around them so all of their justifications for pv is a no brainer. I really wish pv could be easily justified throughout the US but even with the lower costs of hardware it is very hard to justify for me and others.

Without net-metering it is very hard to justify solar at all. There really needs to be some sort of credit given to every solar customer in the US since you are feeding the grid. Maybe not a 1 to 1 credit, but something. I also agree that in California solar it is too easy just to install solar with total disregard to everything else. Policies that try to encourage use can be just as bad as having no incentive. Also with the price of gas being $4 a gallon and going up today with an extra 6 cent tax starting today, it makes solar the best decision for driving cars. Buy a cheap used BMW i3 or Leaf and use it as your daily driver would save you tons of $$$ as well.

[jflorey2]

PV is always more cost effective when net metering is available, but that may be a bit misleading. Without net metering, PV is a fools errand for most residential applications anywhere, even including most areas where rates are high like CA.

Agreed - with the exception of Hawaii. With residential prices hitting 40 cents/kwhr, even zero-export systems often make economic sense (once the aforementioned efficiency improvements have been researched.)

[SunEagle]

I was very clear that I was talking about areas with high electric costs and net-metering. Where did I say that this was for all solar installations? I even said CALIFORNIA!

Sorry. I did not mean to yell.

There are some members that live in CA that think everything revolves around them so all of their justifications for pv is a no brainer. I really wish pv could be easily justified throughout the US but even with the lower costs of hardware it is very hard to justify for me and others.

[J.P.M.]

Here in California with net metering I would have to disagree with you. You could throw money at solar and it may just be the most cost effective thing you could do.

Opinions vary.

PV is always more cost effective when net metering is available, but that may be a bit misleading. Without net metering, PV is a fools errand for most residential applications anywhere, even including most areas where rates are high like CA.

Supply some logic to me that buying PV is less costly than not using/wasting power in the first place.

Or, that a PV system, even if it can be demonstrated to have a lower LCOE than grid power, can have a lower NPV cost of the savings from conservation measures.

I've been at this a long time and probably one of alternate energy's biggest fans. PV is fun and sexy, but it is simply not the most cost effective thing to do to reduce an electric bill, and therefore, in most any economic analysis it's about the last measure taken not the first. Making it closer to the first is backwards.

[discodanman45]

First off not everyone lives in CA or even has a tiered power rate schedule as high as you do. For that matter most of the rest of the country pays on average about 11 cents/kWh. So please don't try to justify people should install pv before they replace old and inefficient appliances.

I was very clear that I was talking about areas with high electric costs and net-metering. Where did I say that this was for all solar installations? I even said CALIFORNIA!

[bcroe]

I have a 5 ton unit and it would be extremely expensive to replace

I will be presenting that exact problem to the owners of a century old mansion, on the nat historic
bldg reg. They will need to decide.

The reasons for adding PV solar are extremely varied. Conservation is a diminishing returns
process, more and more effort gives less and less improvement. At some point solar can finish
the job, setting net consumption to zero. That is a big one here. Bruce Roe

[SunEagle]

Here in California with net metering I would have to disagree with you. You could throw money at solar and it may just be the most cost effective thing you could do.

However, I would agree with you that you should make every effort to reduce use before installing solar. I did as much as I could, but I am not replacing my HVAC unit. I have a 5 ton unit and it would be extremely expensive to replace and extra solar is way more cost effective. I make sure that I have it maintained every year and it is running efficiently.

First off not everyone lives in CA or even has a tiered power rate schedule as high as you do. For that matter most of the rest of the country pays on average about 11 cents/kWh. So please don't try to justify people should install pv before they replace old and inefficient appliances.

[discodanman45]

Throwing expensive PV at a high energy bill before doing all the more cost effective things to reduce the bill is doing it precisely backwards, but PV peddlers and their green wash media shills have most of the solar and energy ignorant public B.S.'d.

Here in California with net metering I would have to disagree with you. You could throw money at solar and it may just be the most cost effective thing you could do.

However, I would agree with you that you should make every effort to reduce use before installing solar. I did as much as I could, but I am not replacing my HVAC unit. I have a 5 ton unit and it would be extremely expensive to replace and extra solar is way more cost effective. I make sure that I have it maintained every year and it is running efficiently.

[discodanman45]

Do not forget, the cost of the panel(s) might be only 25% of the total system. And the ancient fridge
(bought mine in 1971 used) may not have much life left. Bruce Roe

My parents have a 1942 GE fridge in the basement and hook it up for beer/soda for parties. It has never been serviced and still works great. That 1971 fridge has been working for 48 years, it probably has more life in it than a brand new fridge you bought today. It is sad how they make things these days. They use cheap lightweight materials and everything has cheap circuit boards in them that last a max of 10 years.

[bcroe]

Do not forget, the cost of the panel(s) might be only 25% of the total system. And the ancient fridge
(bought mine in 1971 used) may not have much life left. Bruce Roe

[J.P.M.]

For the majority of people it makes sense to install solar and improve efficiency

You have the order precisely backwards. And, (this will read like absolute heresy) believe it or not, there are more than a few scenarios where residential PV cannot be economically justified, and lots more where systems have been way oversized beyond cost effectiveness.

In most every case, for most bang for your long term buck, and in some loose priority:

Start with an energy audit. It'll probably point to:

1.) Stop wasting energy - start by turning stuff off, and/or lifestyle changes as appropriate. Think !
2.) Add conservation measures like sealing/insulating. Do the sealing first.
3.) Depending on what the energy audit finds, clean/repair old appliances. Start with cleaning/replacing HVAC filters and cleaning refrigerator coils. Replace cheap stuff like lightbulbs and thermostats first, but don't put off big replacements like fridges/A/C any longer than necessary.

4.) And, in the end, since PV is about the least cost effective way to reduce an electric bill, make PV the 2d last thing your do - if at all, before new windows - which may be nice, but usually can't be justified from an energy cost saving standpoint.

If long term cost effectiveness has any place in the priority of reducing an electric bill, common sense says do the most cost effective stuff first.

Throwing expensive PV at a high energy bill before doing all the more cost effective things to reduce the bill is doing it precisely backwards, but PV peddlers and their green wash media shills have most of the solar and energy ignorant public B.S.'d.