Solar

[ZZ13]

Question for those of you who went solar: Are you adding in the additional cost you are going to have when you need to replace your roof shingles and those panels have to be taken off and put back on? My neighbor paid 11,000 to have them taken off and put back on when he replaced his roof. That did not include the cost of the shingles. Just asking.

Yes and no. We researched and understand all the financial implications of putting solar on our roof. But it doesn’t matter to us. It also didn’t matter if we got a tax break from it. We were installing them regardless. We didn’t do it based on finances. We did it to reduce the carbon footprint of two people. Especially since we like to muck up the air with our diesel boat.

 

[jmauld]

What has been the return on investment?....

Toxic water and a destroyed river.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Dan_River_coal_ash_spill

 

[Blueone]

Toxic water and a destroyed river.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Dan_River_coal_ash_spill

yes of course...then there is the environment...

“Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (53 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).”

https://www.hazardouswasteexperts.com/solar-panels-wear-out-hazardous-waste/

 

[ZZ13]

yes of course...then there is the environment...

“Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (53 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).”

https://www.hazardouswasteexperts.com/solar-panels-wear-out-hazardous-waste/

We considered that as well. One thing we did do is install our panels at the same time we installed a new roof. So we are looking at about 20 years before we replace either. We are betting on a recycle solution by then. Especially since solar farms are popping up more often. One thought we have is just to leave them on the roof when they expire and call it a 20 year project and go back to regular electricity purchasing. Hopefully I’ll be able to address it then. I’ll be close to 80 when that happens. Although it’s more probably they will be of good use up to 40 years, not just 20.

 

[Pirate Lady]

Here in MD (Annapolis area) we pay 300-350 a month. Not much different (~$50 cheaper) then when in Stony Brook LI (PSEG). Believe it or not water/sewer is astronomical compared to electric, never would have thought that when we moved.

I’m in Baltimore, my water/sewer is $30 every three months ($10 a month) how is yours so high? You keeping the Bay full?

 

[Chris-380]

I’m in Baltimore, my water/sewer is $30 every three months ($10 a month) how is yours so high? You keeping the Bay full?

Wow, $10/month for water and sewer is dirt cheap. We have a small public water district and it’s $23/month minimum. Sewer bill is $32/month.... it I was in the big company’s district, I would be $40/month minimum water bill....

 

[jmauld]

yes of course...then there is the environment...

“Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (53 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).”

https://www.hazardouswasteexperts.com/solar-panels-wear-out-hazardous-waste/

Is anyone building new nuclear plants? I’m all for them but that’s an uphill battle. Do the comparison to coal and natural gas plants.

 

[ttmott]

I think we are going to see significant performance and life cycle improvement on the cells in the next five or so years so I'd wait.
Florida - the sunshine state. I looked into solar a couple of years ago and had all of the pitches from the suppliers; here are a couple of my takeaways:
They said for xx price I could have a 30KW system. Well that wasn't exactly true; the cells could produce 30KW in optimum conditions but as the sun travels across the sky and the angle it is to the cells the reality was only about 40% of the advertised performance was returned during a sunny day. Clouds further reduce the performance, obviously....
The net return from the power company in our area isn't a 1 to 1; it's more like 20%.
If the utility has an outage or we loose power (hurricane) the entire system goes off line when the utility drops. They now make a transfer system with batteries but plan to easily double the investment.
So for here the investment isn't cost effective even with the rebates and incentives. If one thinks it is the right thing to do for the environment regardless of cost return they are misinformed.
As I really needed backup power for storms the solar didn't provide the answer; I installed a diesel generator instead.

 

[Skybolt]

I’m in Baltimore, my water/sewer is $30 every three months ($10 a month) how is yours so high? You keeping the Bay full?

I'm over in Grasonville and the sewer charge is 98% of the water bill. So a $100 of water is also $98 of sewer charge. We put in a sprinkler system last year and had water bills of $1400+ for three months. But even before the sprinkler system it was 350-400 for three months, and it's only my wife and myself. We're going to put in a well for the sprinkler system which should fix things.

 

[ZZ13]

If one thinks it is the right thing to do for the environment regardless of cost return they are misinformed.

What are you basing that comment on?

https://kubyenergy.ca/blog/the-positive-and-negative-environmental-impacts-of-solar-panels

 

[ttmott]

What are you basing that comment on?

https://kubyenergy.ca/blog/the-positive-and-negative-environmental-impacts-of-solar-panels

First let's put aside any data from the solar industry as that is typically incomplete as to bias towards their product.
Secondly, to assume for at least the next 20 years that commercial power from gas, oil, or coal is going away would be a bad bet. There is no incentive for the power industry to move to a less profitable or reliable solution nor to pull the plug towards a capital investment which shows no near term return. Capital investors look to returns in a couple of years not 10 to 20 years and market investors look to immediate returns.
So, power plants that produce "carbon", a political term, do not necessarily reduce their footprint because, say, 10% of residential homes have solar that offsets 1% of their electrical production during daylight hours. The math from a residential solar perspective simply doesn't justify from an environmental perspective. This and cost to maintain the grid is exactly why the utilities cannot provide substantial offset to a residential solar system supplementing the grid. Plus, anyone that thinks it is the utility that is reducing their power bill needs to understand that the utility is supplemented by the government to host the reduction in billing.
Is there a net negative or net positive environmental impact to adding solar or not adding solar for then next 10 or so years? I think not.
Now if you want to talk about solar power production by the utilities that is different.

 

[wyrman]

Is anyone building new nuclear plants? I’m all for them but that’s an uphill battle. Do the comparison to coal and natural gas plants.

They're going to build a new nuclear plant in the area that I live in.
https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/article250356926.html

 

[bajturner]

Here's a pretty cool gadget if you want to see where your house is consuming energy, and how much in real-time. Also has a solar input if you want to show your production as well.

https://sense.com/ Works well.

I bought one about a year and a half ago, primarily to monitor our peak usage to see what could be covered by different sized generators. I use the solar input as a generator input to track the load on the generator in real time (a Honda EU3000, for now...which has never been on a swim platform, for the record!).

I learned that when the sun is out, we could pretty much get by with about 9kW of solar capacity most of the time. There would be peaks at dinner time when the sun is lower and the demand is high that we would run short. It would likely need to be oversized to about 12kW to produce enough in the morning, again when the sun is lower, and to account for inefficiencies in angle and conversion. This would be true for about 8 months of the year. The production would gradually decrease to about 80% over 20 years if the literature is accurate. We happen to have a perfectly oriented roof for the installation.

The steady state for the house is around 1kW to 1.6kW. 811W of which it identifies as "always on", most of which is computer and network equipment, I think. The rest is whatever is on at the moment...mostly refrigeration, entertainment, and lights.

I think the highest I have seen is 16kW. Dryer (5kW), oven (4kW), cooktop (2kW), air conditioning (3.5kW) all fired-up simultaneously.

If I did this, and I may still, the plan would be to be grid-tied with 1:1 net metering, essentially using the grid as the "battery" (yes, I know the utility can't store electricity, I mean figuratively). I have concerns about replacing the roof (just did last year), recycling the panels, and upkeep.

I would do a lot of the work myself to keep the cost down, although the primary motivation would not be financial. Independent power production is cool, and I believe over time it will be a positive environmental mode of generation.

 

[jmauld]

First let's put aside any data from the solar industry as that is typically incomplete as to bias towards their product.
Secondly, to assume for at least the next 20 years that commercial power from gas, oil, or coal is going away would be a bad bet. There is no incentive for the power industry to move to a less profitable or reliable solution nor to pull the plug towards a capital investment which shows no near term return. Capital investors look to returns in a couple of years not 10 to 20 years and market investors look to immediate returns.
So, power plants that produce "carbon", a political term, do not necessarily reduce their footprint because, say, 10% of residential homes have solar that offsets 1% of their electrical production during daylight hours. The math from a residential solar perspective simply doesn't justify from an environmental perspective. This and cost to maintain the grid is exactly why the utilities cannot provide substantial offset to a residential solar system supplementing the grid. Plus, anyone that thinks it is the utility that is reducing their power bill needs to understand that the utility is supplemented by the government to host the reduction in billing.
Is there a net negative or net positive environmental impact to adding solar or not adding solar for then next 10 or so years? I think not.
Now if you want to talk about solar power production by the utilities that is different.

1) carbon is NOT a political term

2) you said disregard data from the solar industry and then you just completely made up your own numbers...

 

[ttmott]

1) carbon is NOT a political term

2) you said disregard data from the solar industry and then you just completely made up your own numbers...

Hmmm I stand corrected - a wise and articulate response. Thank you.

 

[tdschafer]

Used an independent guy. He has a partnership with that did an addition to our house. The 6.2kw system he just put in was $18,600. I’ll get back 26% Fed plus some state and PSEG. Not sure of that is any lower because I already had other panels and infrastructure.

Lmk if you want his info, I’ll PM you.

I appreciate it but after meeting with several solar companies over a few years I just couldn't justify the cost. I believe they were both around $72k with the Government picking up half the bill in incentives. I figured that $36k was just too much to bite off. So I had King Quality pop a new 50 year warrantied roof on the house. With the warranty transferable I figured that will be good when it comes time to sell. I would imagine that warranty becomes null & void if it is penetrated by hundreds of fasteners securing a solar array to it. ‍

 

[jmauld]

Hmmm I stand corrected - a wise and articulate response. Thank you.

Sorry, I’m not going to go all in with someone that says “ignore data” and then makes up their own data. Go find some numbers to back up your argument.

 

[bajturner]

Sorry, I’m not going to go all in with someone that says “ignore data” and then makes up their own data. Go find some numbers to back up your argument.

I didn't really see where ttmott made up data. To me what he gave was logic, examples, hypotheticals, and opinions. No crime there, although some data, either empirical or theoretical never hurt, I suppose.

As for the word "carbon", it may not be a political term, but I think it would be fair to say it is often "politicized"...

 

[ttmott]

Sorry, I’m not going to go all in with someone that says “ignore data” and then makes up their own data. Go find some numbers to back up your argument.

So why respond at all; you went in just for a poke in the eye? Regardless did I say "ignore"? I don't think so.... I said the data was "incomplete" to allude justification for a sale by the "industry". When I was taking a serious look at solar for my home I found a bit of a different story than what the solar providers and installers were peddling. Take a look at EIA.gov for a start; it is more geared to the utility scale but I think it is representative.