Help me decide between two bids

[Mike90250]

So if you're insulting me, you're also insulting the majority of the people posting videos on YouTube.

Most of the you tube stuff is worthy of insults. if you chose to place yourself in their class, go ahead, but we won't help you fit in there, you get to do it on your own.

[J.P.M.]

Ok... just noticed this, RR time for you to take a holiday for a week. I dont have any issues with people doing little projects to learn about solar in fact just the opposite really but you have been given good advise for free and you seem to be offended by it.

For any other newb reading this please note youtube IS the new idiots bible and should be ignored by everyone who wants to do things properly, cheers.

Use to be things that were published or made available for public consumption were peer reviewed/vetted before turned loose to the great unwashed masses. Another difference was that disseminators usually had a pretty fair knowledge of the subject matter. Maybe that made for a bit of a closed shop, but admission was gained by experience and subject knowledge (and for publishing, the ability to communicate).

Use to be that it was not necessarily politically incorrect as it seems now to believe and espouse the notion that some folks needed protection from themselves, kind of like not giving a loaded handgun to a 2 yr. old, and there was some sense that some restraint was needed rather than the situation we have now where anyone, bonehead or otherwise, can reach millions with some stuff that popped into their head, regardless of the safety or soundness of the notion, or that it even passes the sniff test of common sense.

Now, information quality seems to have been lowered to the point that most of it is useless if not dangerous. Hence, why I refer to u-tube as the new idiot's bible (When I was a kid, the Reader's Digest had the original moniker of "the idiots' bible"). And yes, moveable type had been invented by that time.

[ButchDeal]

Use to be things that were published or made available for public consumption were peer reviewed/vetted before turned loose to the great unwashed masses. Another difference was that disseminators usually had a pretty fair knowledge of the subject matter. Maybe that made for a bit of a closed shop, but admission was gained by experience and subject knowledge (and for publishing, the ability to communicate).

Use to be that it was not necessarily politically incorrect as it seems now to believe and espouse the notion that some folks needed protection from themselves, kind of like not giving a loaded handgun to a 2 yr. old, and there was some sense that some restraint was needed rather than the situation we have now where anyone, bonehead or otherwise, can reach millions with some stuff that popped into their head, regardless of the safety or soundness of the notion, or that it even passes the sniff test of common sense.

In the early days of the internet if you published BS, you were called out on it. But now there are so many people publishing that it is impossible for the few that know anything to review. There is such a plethora of youtube drivel on how to built a PV system, and the only people reviewing are other neophytes that think it is wonderful. So you have neophyte preaching to the neophyte choir all applauding each others wonderful technical acumen.

[J.P.M.]

In the early days of the internet if you published BS, you were called out on it. But now there are so many people publishing that it is impossible for the few that know anything to review. There is such a plethora of youtube drivel on how to built a PV system, and the only people reviewing are other neophytes that think it is wonderful. So you have neophyte preaching to the neophyte choir all applauding each others wonderful technical acumen.

+1.

And in the days before the internet, you were chastised and then ostracized for the thoughtless and inconsiderate behavior of spreading B.S. These days, such behavior seems common if not aspired to. What ever happened to quality control ?

Now, in what looks to some of us to be little more than a shameless and utterly inappropriate display of self centered hubris, all the drivel is displayed on u-tube and the social media by any mouth breathing knuckle dragger who can hit a keyboard.

Meanwhile, the great unwashed masses who look at the crap have become bereft of common sense, much less enough critical thinking skills to see and know B.S. when they smell it.

The perfect storm.

We've become a nation and perhaps a world of shortsighted, self centered nitwits.

Rant mode off.

[branflakecereal]

So, anybody have a rough idea of a fair cost per watt to try to negotiate towards? From, yknow, a licensed professional

[J.P.M.]

So, anybody have a rough idea of a fair cost per watt to try to negotiate towards? From, yknow, a licensed professional

You know, you're correct. This thread has been hijacked more than most, and I'm as or more guilty than anyone for doing so. I apologize to you and the membership and readers for my part in taking it way off topic.

Keeping in mind that IMO only, initial price, while important, is not the biggest criteria in a negotiation but it does matter. I'd suggest rather than relying solely on what the market is, (with that being something you can do nothing about), I'd first get some idea of what the NPV of the electricity a PV system may provide on a per installed STC basis for your time frame, including some guess on maint. costs and set a net price per watt to meet that NPV number.

As one measure, paying more than that after credits/bottom line/etc., in theory anyway, and for whatever reason, and to the extent your guesses about future conditions match (or don't match) are close to how future reality works out, will make PV more expensive than not having PV.

That's one piece of information that you can use, ignore or modify in terms of importance, but having such information will never hurt. If the market in your area is higher than that price as you determine it, and you cannot negotiate a lower price to meet a cost effective price point as you've determined it, then you have a choice to modify your expectations or accept less cost effectiveness than you've determined as a requirement.

Don't know where you're located, but if in CA, look at something called the CSI database. It's not as complete as it was before the stare rebates ended, but still not bad to ghet a feel for what the going rate for a turnkey PV system might be. Another piece of the puzzle with information that vendors probably would rather you didn't know about. Reading between the lines can be interesting.

If you are in So. CA, your price of ~ $2.75 - $3.00/STC watt is possible but may take some pretty good negotiating skills. If you are elsewhere, I'm ignorant of prices in your area.

One suggestion: Whatever you do, do not reveal or share pricing among vendors. Reason: You will eliminate or at least make it a whole lot tougher to have any chance at negotiating a lower price than $0.01/watt below the lowest price revealed. Besides, any vendor worthy of being competitive on price and more important on quality already has a better idea than you about what the competition is charging. Keeping your cards close to the vest in terms of who's quoting you and what they are charging is always best.

One more last thing: if and before you decide to get PV, have your roof inspected and serviced. A PV system can and probably will last a long time. Give the roof under it the highest probability of lasting as long and staying leak free. This is important and often ignored. Consider it cheap insurance. You will not regret it.

[branflakecereal]

You know, you're correct. This thread has been hijacked more than most, and I'm as or more guilty than anyone for doing so. I apologize to you and the membership and readers for my part in taking it way off topic.

Keeping in mind that IMO only, initial price, while important, is not the biggest criteria in a negotiation but it does matter. I'd suggest rather than relying solely on what the market is, (with that being something you can do nothing about), I'd first get some idea of what the NPV of the electricity a PV system may provide on a per installed STC basis for your time frame, including some guess on maint. costs and set a net price per watt to meet that NPV number.

As one measure, paying more than that after credits/bottom line/etc., in theory anyway, and for whatever reason, and to the extent your guesses about future conditions match (or don't match) are close to how future reality works out, will make PV more expensive than not having PV.

That's one piece of information that you can use, ignore or modify in terms of importance, but having such information will never hurt. If the market in your area is higher than that price as you determine it, and you cannot negotiate a lower price to meet a cost effective price point as you've determined it, then you have a choice to modify your expectations or accept less cost effectiveness than you've determined as a requirement.

Don't know where you're located, but if in CA, look at something called the CSI database. It's not as complete as it was before the stare rebates ended, but still not bad to ghet a feel for what the going rate for a turnkey PV system might be. Another piece of the puzzle with information that vendors probably would rather you didn't know about. Reading between the lines can be interesting.

If you are in So. CA, your price of ~ $2.75 - $3.00/STC watt is possible but may take some pretty good negotiating skills. If you are elsewhere, I'm ignorant of prices in your area.

One suggestion: Whatever you do, do not reveal or share pricing among vendors. Reason: You will eliminate or at least make it a whole lot tougher to have any chance at negotiating a lower price than $0.01/watt below the lowest price revealed. Besides, any vendor worthy of being competitive on price and more important on quality already has a better idea than you about what the competition is charging. Keeping your cards close to the vest in terms of who's quoting you and what they are charging is always best.

One more last thing: if and before you decide to get PV, have your roof inspected and serviced. A PV system can and probably will last a long time. Give the roof under it the highest probability of lasting as long and staying leak free. This is important and often ignored. Consider it cheap insurance. You will not regret it.

My roof is 2 years old, so I'm pretty certain I'm good there. I just came to terms on a 9.75 kw system using Panasonic 325w panels, and iq i7x micro inverters for 2.89/watt.

The installer is smaller, but a coworker had an excellent experience with them. Including a hybrid heater, the agreed upon price was a flat 30k.

Thanks to everyone who contributed good advice in the thread, and for the vivid illustrations of what to avoid.