Home Solar

Twenty years from now all houses will have solar.
I don't think that'll be the case. There are limits on the value of solar from a grid perspective and once penetration hits a certain point it becomes more of a PITA than a benefit. Australia is already curtailing residential solar, outraging home owners, who of course then don't get paid, which significantly impacts the economics of the system.
 
I don't think that'll be the case. There are limits on the value of solar from a grid perspective and once penetration hits a certain point it becomes more of a PITA than a benefit. Australia is already curtailing residential solar, outraging home owners, who of course then don't get paid, which significantly impacts the economics of the system.
Although if energy costs continue to rise, I could see more people installing standalone (not tied to the grid) solar to supplement their needs.

A few examples I've thought of but haven't done anything about yet:

- Have solar panels, even as little as 100 or 200 W, feed a small electric water heater to preheat the water, which would feed the larger primary heater. This would work year-round, although much better in summer of course.

- Have solar panels feed a resistive cable which would charge a thermal mass which would then radiate heat at night. This would only be used in heating season, of course (which is when the solar panels would unfortunately be at their least efficient).

- Build a greenhouse with thermal mass around an air-source heat pump, and add supplementary heat with solar panels (to increase the efficiency of the heat pump). Again, only good in the winter, so not a particularly good match for solar.

These ideas would be fairly cheap to implement, with no need to convert the power to AC or to store it in a battery.

Would any of these ever pay back the input costs? Hard to say. I guess if energy costs continue on their present trajectory these ideas might make sense.
 
Although if energy costs continue to rise, I could see more people installing standalone (not tied to the grid) solar to supplement their needs.

A few examples I've thought of but haven't done anything about yet:

- Have solar panels, even as little as 100 or 200 W, feed a small electric water heater to preheat the water, which would feed the larger primary heater. This would work year-round, although much better in summer of course.

- Have solar panels feed a resistive cable which would charge a thermal mass which would then radiate heat at night. This would only be used in heating season, of course (which is when the solar panels would unfortunately be at their least efficient).

- Build a greenhouse with thermal mass around an air-source heat pump, and add supplementary heat with solar panels (to increase the efficiency of the heat pump). Again, only good in the winter, so not a particularly good match for solar.

These ideas would be fairly cheap to implement, with no need to convert the power to AC or to store it in a battery.

Would any of these ever pay back the input costs? Hard to say. I guess if energy costs continue on their present trajectory these ideas might make sense.
Yes, consumer non grid-tie uptake of solar will definitely hinge on where grid costs go. Ontario has now plateau'd so we are in good shape. Other jurisdictions are jumping the shark as we speak.
 
I'm doing solar in my new garage build. Zero export mode. I'll probably never make back close to what I spend bur I am ok with that.

20230314_141435.jpg


20230314_141445.jpg
 
I checked out the rules in BC regrading grid hookups. We pay the equivalent of $.10 to buy power off the grid but only get paid 0.04 cents for power produced into the grid. Numbers were converted into USD. The amount paid by the BC hydro, the power company, is set every Jan 1 and is the price determined by the bulk price of power during the previous year. It has average $0.04 over the last several years.
 
q
I don't think that'll be the case. There are limits on the value of solar from a grid perspective and once penetration hits a certain point it becomes more of a PITA than a benefit. Australia is already curtailing residential solar, outraging home owners, who of course then don't get paid, which significantly impacts the economics of the system.
Let’s have a beer in 2043. Of course we’ll arrive in our electric cars because we won’t be able to buy an Ice car past 2035. ;) I’ll go with “ most homes with south or west exposure will have solar systems in 20 years”, assuming the Woke Governments are still in place.
 
My buddy spent ~$35k on a solar system. 1-2 years later he had to sell his house and move for a better job. The panels needed to be paid off when he sold the house (part of the asset). ~$35k right off the top from his profit. Ouch.

I am a skeptic. ROI too long. Too much gov/politics involved. Shady contractors. Too many variables for me. More power to y'all.
 
Last edited:
q

Let’s have a beer in 2043. Of course we’ll arrive in our electric cars because we won’t be able to buy an Ice car past 2035. ;) I’ll go with “ most homes with south or west exposure will have solar systems in 20 years”, assuming the Woke Governments are still in place.
You might find this twitter thread interesting ;)

 
Here is something in more of a 3D presentation. I took a solar installation course and witnessed this myself. We placed a solar panel flat on the ground and it still produced a lot of power, and that was at about 50 degrees latitude. This chart does not indicate at what latitude it was or what time of the day it was, ( probably solar noon) but with the panel oriented at 90 degrees, ( straight up towards the sky) it still produced 70% of its rated output.

Also east is not much different than west. The payout time is longer of course, but 25% longer might not be a deal breaker for some.

243E3B63-4ABD-4B23-91F1-7C553D8A0F38.png
 
Last edited:
I can do a quick acid test to check that ROI. How much did you pay? Ie Total price minus the rebates and incentives? You mentioned your system is smaller than what you originally planned. Thanks.

About 26,000. 8000 in rebates. Net 18000. I currently pay $0.29/kWh. The system is projected at 6900 kWh for the year. That number is guaranteed within 10%. ROI projected at just over 9 years.

I caught the solar company in a mistake on system sizing. I found out My utility company approved me for 6kW AC (stumbled up it in a email between me and the solar company in photos of the utility companies Solar sizing calculator) but company only gave me 4.4 kW AC. Trying to get them to do something about it and getting a bit of the run around. Wel see what happens but I feel like I’m wasting my time. Or I just may have to wait until the end of the first full year of production and use my “warranty”. The warranty is enforced by the finance company. Pissed at my self for not catching it before signing paper work.
 
Last edited:
About 26,000. 8000 in rebates. Net 18000. I currently pay $0.29/kWh. The system is projected at 6900 kWh for the year. That number is guaranteed within 10%. ROI projected at just over 9 years.

I caught the solar company in a mistake on system sizing. I found out My utility company approved me for 6kW AC (stumbled up it in a email between me and the solar company in photos of the utility companies Solar sizing calculator) but company only gave me 4.4 kW AC. Trying to get them to do something about it and getting a bit of the run around. Wel see what happens but I feel like I’m wasting my time. Or I just may have to wait until the end of the first full year of production and use my “warranty”. The warranty is enforced by the finance company. Pissed at my self for not catching it before signing paper work.

Thanks for the update. What are the units on the graph? Are they kWhr per month? If so the system is delivering about 600 kWhr per month averages 600 x 12 = 7200 kWhr per year. Multiplied by 0.18 per kWhr as the present price, it produced 7200 kWhr x 0.18 per kWhr = $1296 worth of power.

The ROI is totally dependant on the expected price of power over the next 25 years. Usually the solar installation company gives you a guesstimate on what that might be. Do you have that projection? Thanks. This is all very interesting and useful to the rest of us.
OK, here is the acid test with the new numbers.

Total cost $18,000
Cost per kWhr $0.29
Yearly projected power output: 6900 kWhr (assumes cloud coverage and all those good things are included when calculating average output.)
Value of power production: 6900 x 0.29 = $2001
Year payout* $18,000/2000 = 9 years.

* There are more things in play such as yearly degradation in the panels

So, 9.5 years sounds reasonable.

Now, if there were no government assistance, the payout would have been $26,000/2,000 = 13 years.
 
I would like a small solar system on a new home to give me the equalivant amount of power of running a central air system.
Based on some past useful posts in here I suspect I would not want more than 8 panels and that would be my limit also for esthetics.
The only condition is I want the Federal government (taxpayers) to pay 100% of the cost ok, I'll chip in up to 10% or so. ;)

I suspect that will be never during my lifetime, but you never know once they figure out the USA doesnt produce enough electricity to keep 50 million never mind the total of 282 million cars charged up in the future. CA will be first to delay their own ground breaking law regarding the sale of ICE vehicles.
 
Here is a chart showing the reduction in costs of solar panels, not including the inverters and other electronics and cables. I don’t think there is any room to go cheaper and now inflation will act on them and prices for panels will be going up. I’m thinking one dollar per watt of power generation is the bottom. Yeah, you might see some E Bay deals but not for long. Here is a chart. As for those camping solar panels from the big box stores, I never did see the price come down to $1 USD per watt.

451BA555-87A9-4996-AD43-77E5524BDDE2.png
 
Last edited:
Back
Top