Please critique/ feedback wanted on system

[inetdog]

So you have 12000 posts on a solar forum, but yet you seem to be disgruntled over my having solar?

and your title is "solar fanatic"?

The forum members range from simple solar fans to solar fanatics, all the way up to solar lunatics.

Dereck (Sunking) knows a lot about solar PV and can help you design and install a system given realistic expectations. It is just frustrating when each new person comes along thinking that battery based PV makes sense for an on-grid site or that grid tied PV makes financial sense without some form of incentives.
Those incentives can be, among other things:
1. Really high utility prices (>$.50/kWh in Hawaii, for example)
2. Direct taxpayer subsidy in the form of tax credits.
3. Direct ratepayer or taxpayer subsidy in the form of purchase rebates.
4. Indirect subsidy by other ratepayers in the from of higher rates for all to finance net metering for those who have PV.

This is not to say that it is wrong or evil to take advantage of those incentives if you qualify, it is just irritating to be smug about it and ignore or deny that the incentives you get are coming out of somebody else's pocket.

I hope this clarifies some of what is behind the simple "nuts" categorization.

[russ]

So you have 12000 posts on a solar forum, but yet you seem to be disgruntled over my having solar?

and your title is "solar fanatic"?

Like Sunking - My only squack is the government programs that pay part of the bill. If solar was a "real" solution to anything it would be able to stand on it's own. Poor who can not afford solar help pay the electric bill of the better off.

Also, the way the federal tax rebates are done they give free money to loan companies - if the congress had half a brain they could have not given freebies to the shysters.

Having said that, if there are incentives, rebates or anything else available one should take advantage - you will be helping foot the bill either way.

Most of the world (such as here) the subsidies and incentives are unheard of.

[Guest]

So what was the cost you paid to the vendor, and what was the final cost to you after all tax credits/rebates/kickbacks ?

I think it was something along the lines:

Price per watt: $4.11
Price per watt out of pocket: $2.45
Ultimate price per watt: $1.21

I had a solar thermal system installed as well, so that brought the installation costs down a bit.

The thing that kills me about rebates (at least in my state) is they're written in a way to provide jobs. The state will give $1.00 per square foot for insulation installation when done by a professional, and $.20 when done by the homeowner. The same economics were present with solar, making it more expensive for me to install the system myself!

[J.P.M.]

I think it was something along the lines:

Price per watt: $4.11
Price per watt out of pocket: $2.45
Ultimate price per watt: $1.21

I had a solar thermal system installed as well, so that brought the installation costs down a bit.

The thing that kills me about rebates (at least in my state) is they're written in a way to provide jobs. The state will give $1.00 per square foot for insulation installation when done by a professional, and $.20 when done by the homeowner. The same economics were present with solar, making it more expensive for me to install the system myself!

Thank you for the additional information.

I'd bet a big part of it is indeed about jobs. I'd also bet some of it is about cleaning up problems caused by DIYers. Hard to say.

Some people are of the opinion that mfrs., vendors and others in the supply chain are meant as the primary beneficiaries of rebates, tax credits and other attempts at social engineering through the tax system. From the beginning, it was never about consumers. Or, if it was, the tax credits, etc. were meant to have the additional use as a pitch tool to the industry, to sweeten the pot in a phony way, gratis from politicians to reel in the solar ignorant.

Seems to have worked well for that purpose. At least in my neighborhood.

It's probably overly simplistic to say that if there were not a 30% tax credit, solar equipment would cost 30% less, but I bet it wouldn't cost as much as it does now, and I'd wager a fair amount (realizing it's easy to wager on a hypothetical moot point) that if the 30% tax credit had never been initiated, solar equipment would be better, cheaper, faster by now as a result. If not, it wasn't meant to be yet. Get good, get smart and better than the competition or die sort of logic.

FWIW, as a big solar advocate, I think that would have been the better way to go. Solar would be more viable and more robust today as a result.

It will be interesting to see what happens to prices and to the tax structure(s) as the end of the current fed. solar tax credit system approaches.

[bcroe]

The forum members range from simple solar fans to
solar fanatics, all the way up to solar lunatics.

I suppose you are assigned "solar fanatic" based on number of posts. Didn't note any,
what does it take to earn "solar lunatic"? Bruce Roe

[youan]

This is not to say that it is wrong or evil to take advantage of those incentives if you qualify, it is just irritating to be smug about it and ignore or deny that the incentives you get are coming out of somebody else's pocket.

I hope this clarifies some of what is behind the simple "nuts" categorization.

I saw no smug comments in this thread or anybody denying the fact that the incentives are basically socialized. You have to understand that the incentives are also coming out of my pocket, as well. I pay taxes. I've paid and still pay to some extent the huge electric rates for Connecticut. Why do you think I went solar? I still don't understand your negativity towards people who take advantage of this. Maybe I'm reading your posts out of context?

[youan]

Like Sunking - My only squack is the government programs that pay part of the bill. If solar was a "real" solution to anything it would be able to stand on it's own. Poor who can not afford solar help pay the electric bill of the better off.

I disagree. If the incentives weren't there, I'd bet 90% of people wouldn't go solar. The less demand, the less technology advances. The less technology advances, the more expensive it's going to be.

I'm betting that BECAUSE of the government programs that pay part of the bill that solar power is going to get- and has been getting- substantially cheaper for everybody in the future. The more competition that's out there that wants to sell residents solar, the cheaper it's going to get.

[russ]

I disagree. If the incentives weren't there, I'd bet 90% of people wouldn't go solar. The less demand, the less technology advances. The less technology advances, the more expensive it's going to be. Solar has been around for many, many years - how much longer will the incentives be needed - a few hundred years? There are no big surprises coming in efficiency. The only hope is better batteries sometime in the next twenty years.

I'm betting that BECAUSE of the government programs that pay part of the bill that solar power is going to get- and has been getting- substantially cheaper for everybody in the future. The more competition that's out there that wants to sell residents solar, the cheaper it's going to get.

That is voodoo economics - whatever has happened in that regards already has.

[SunEagle]

I disagree. If the incentives weren't there, I'd bet 90% of people wouldn't go solar. The less demand, the less technology advances. The less technology advances, the more expensive it's going to be.

I'm betting that BECAUSE of the government programs that pay part of the bill that solar power is going to get- and has been getting- substantially cheaper for everybody in the future. The more competition that's out there that wants to sell residents solar, the cheaper it's going to get.

Incentives are ok to get a new technology off the ground but at some point you have to decide if it can stand on it's own two legs. I like the idea of getting rebates from my Utility, State and Fed Government but I also understand that I am getting money from people that will never have the ability to get solar yet have to pay part of my installation. That doesn't sound fare and really helps the argument of the upper 10% getting richer while the rest support the burden.

Solar and Wind energy have gotten off to a good start so maybe it is time to let them stand by themselves without the support of the Government and our Taxes. More than likely the manufacturing costs will come down if the desire to install stays high. I also believe without the intensives to keep the price low the Installers will have to decide how they can stay in business if their competition has a lower price. You could see "price wars" similar to back in the day when Gas Stations would lower the price of gas by a couple of pennies to take business away from their competitors. Now it seems that they all talk to one another and raise the price at the same time because people still need the gas no matter what the price and the gas companies are no longer competing with each other.

If the Installers and Manufacturers get into competition the prices will come down and a lower system cost will drive up the number of installations.

[J.P.M.]

I disagree. If the incentives weren't there, I'd bet 90% of people wouldn't go solar. The less demand, the less technology advances. The less technology advances, the more expensive it's going to be.

I'm betting that BECAUSE of the government programs that pay part of the bill that solar power is going to get- and has been getting- substantially cheaper for everybody in the future. The more competition that's out there that wants to sell residents solar, the cheaper it's going to get.

Opinions vary. Aside from my suspicion that without incentives, solar would cost a lot less, I think it's just as valid to turn your statement on its head and say that if the incentives weren't there, 90% of the installations wouldn't be cost effective to the end users, perhaps indicating that incentives enable non cost effective technologies to persist, or at least not get their sea legs via robust competition with existing methods.

[SunEagle]

duplicate post

[SunEagle]

I'm also in Connecticut and had my system go live in February 2013. I went with C-tec Solar and was happy with them and the price I got. In case you didn't know, you can see what everyone paid for solar in Connecticut pretty easily to 'rank' your deal.

http://www.energizect.com/residents/...stment-program

http://www.energizect.com/sites/defa...r%20Web_14.xls

I add two columns to that spreadsheet to see the price per watt before and after rebates. The spreadsheet made me see how overpriced the solar leases are in the state (I'm surprised they allow this to continue, as it wastes taxpayer money). Sort by price and you'll see SolarCity is consistently the most expensive.

My cost before incentives was $29.5k for a 7.28 kW system ($4.06 a watt). After the state rebate it was $2.37 a watt. Out of 18 installs in my town the top 9 most expensive are all SolarCity, anywhere from $3.01 to $3.90 a watt. Mine was #4 for price. The rub is you don't know details. I have micro inverters, which might have raised the cost. My price puts me at 665 out of 5032 installs (per watt).

I don't see the numbers or date you provided as a system installed in Connecticut, but there were 32 systems installed at 6.86 kW STC, with an average price after the state rebate of $3.10 a watt.

To markgm .if you modify an early post, like the one you posted on 9/16/2014, it can come back to us as requiring Moderation. So please don't do that anymore. So i will just leave the post as unapproved or you can fix it since I don't know what you changed

[bcroe]

I have no idea why I was notified of this. Bruce Roe