dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to ke4pym

Re: I've gone and done it ... solar install

If you have cheap electricity and do the budget billing tomfoolery, solar makes little sense for you.

However there are companies who will install solar at your home at no charge then sell you the electricity for 6c/kWh.


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom

1 recommendation

said by fifty nine:

If you have cheap electricity and do the budget billing tomfoolery, solar makes little sense for you.

However there are companies who will install solar at your home at no charge then sell you the electricity for 6c/kWh.

That's the way to go. I talked to one company that installs and maintains the panels and guarantees your present rate for as long as you have the panels. So if the price from the POCO doubles you still pay the same.

It's a moot point for me as my location and orientation of my roof and tree cover rules me out even "if" I wanted to do it.


dogma
XYZ
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1

2 recommendations

reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

If you have cheap electricity and do the budget billing tomfoolery, solar makes little sense for you.

However there are companies who will install solar at your home at no charge then sell you the electricity for 6c/kWh.

If one is financially short sighted, as many are, then you're correct. Solar doesn't make sense. The instant gratification crowd will always see value in a depreciating asset like the latest iPhone or tricked-out overclocked PC vs. Solar, which is a performing asset. Most don't understand asset classes nor comprehend the concept of multiple tax incentives and rebates that make a $30K investment, a $13K investment, and even that $13K is offset by the free power it provides.

The OP, based on my rough back-of-the-envelope math, which also includes a very conservative rate of inflation for electricity, will put (keep really) close to $45,000 in his pocket over the life of his panels.

With respect to these Solar leasing firms, I have yet to see the fabled "something-for-nothing" deal actually materialize. From my experience, these Solar leasing companies do not spend $30,000 (excluding some tax incentives that they can get, but not all that an end consumer can qualify for) or whatever the material and install cost will be to leave an expensive asset on someones roof and then sell the homeowner cheap power.

I have read many advertisements that imply such, but once one pulls back the curtains, it's typically a 15-20 year lease commitment with a minimum 700 FICO score required. So the homeowner is committed to the lease (Lease is French for "rental") base cost, then an additional cost for the monthly power. Moreover, after the 15 year lease term, the homeowner still doesn't own the Solar which may have 10-15 more years of useful life.



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
I agree.

Problem is that many people don't have the up front cash to put up a solar installation. Many can't even borrow from the HELOC because their mortgages are underwater or the banks aren't lending.

Where I live though, we have few incentives for solar. The cooperative does not take part in the incentives offered by the state so the cost rises substantially. On the flip side we do not pay the societal benefits charge on our bills.

Also the price of SRECs is going down. There is so much solar here in this state that SRECs are going for $200-$300 instead of $600 they used to go for.

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA
reply to dogma
said by dogma:

If one is financially short sighted, as many are, then you're correct. Solar doesn't make sense. The instant gratification crowd will always see value in a depreciating asset like the latest iPhone or tricked-out overclocked PC vs. Solar, which is a performing asset. Most don't understand asset classes nor comprehend the concept of multiple tax incentives and rebates that make a $30K investment, a $13K investment, and even that $13K is offset by the free power it provides.

Really? The only way it makes any sort of sense is because You and I are footing the bill for the tax credits. Assuming 25 year life for the panels and electronics, that's 300 months:

$13,000 / 300 = $43.33 per month in cost (not factoring in any interest if the $$ is borrowed or the lost opportunity cost of that $$).

So any money over that $43.33 is savings but that's assuming there is never any issue with the system, never any cost associated with warranty in the 25 years, and that the company is in business 25 years from now. That's a lot of things to assume and a lot of faith in companies that may or may not be around (Solyndra). I'd also be willing to bet none of the warranties covers labour to replace faulty parts. That's also assuming electric rates will go up by a lot (IIRC they have gone up but by small amounts) and that you will use more.

Personally, I find it not that much of a savings as our rates are $0.08/kWh and we heat with natural gas and only run the AC a few months out of the year. I think out highest electric bill has been about $130.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
Since the OP mentioned it, I'll hit on it. This is the tax payers footing the bill (You and I). This wouldn't be economically viable otherwise. That does not bode well for the technology. Sure, resi solar has it's place - and it's usually the South West portion of the country.
I've rarely seen a situation where solar made "sense" for residential use elsewhere.

Instead of wasting tax money by giving it to individuals, I'd much rather see it go to something that could benefit everyone. Perhaps the equivalent of a solar "X Prize" to companies who build viable solar farms in the SW and feed the national grid (lower prices for all).
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


dogma
XYZ
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to itguy05
said by itguy05:

Really? The only way it makes any sort of sense is because You and I are footing the bill for the tax credits.

I concur, You and I are also footing the bill for someones mortgage interest tax deduction as well, among countless other tax based incentives. (note to nunya See Profile, does this mean that purchasing a home mortgage with it's associated tax incentives does not bode well for the home ownership?). It is what it is.

Even if there were no tax credits/rebates, there would still be an ROI, just much further down the road.

I further agree that everyone's financial calculations with respect to an investment such as this will be unique. If the OP (as I guesstimated - OP correct me if I am wrong) has a electricity cost of about $144/Month on average, your model [$13,000 / 300 = $43.33 per month in cost] saves him about $100/Month, or [$100 x 300] $30,000.

My point is that a good investment will accrue value over time, but in order to take advantage of the opportunity, we must often allow our money to be oustide of our direct control for a significant period of time. In this case, the OP probably gets an instant rebate from the State, and very important: he must have a Federal tax liability in order to take advantage of the Federal tax credit for Solar. Plus, his out of pocket money up front/cost to borrow.

But lets look at this in pure investment terms:

Assumptions-
The OP invest $13,000 up front.
The OP has an average electricity expense of $140/Month.
The OP's Solar system zero's out his monthly electricity bill.

So his $13,000 up front investment produces a net $140/Month or ($140 x 12) $1680/Year he otherwise would have had to spend. Additionally, the OP would have had to earn about $175/Month in order to pay the $140 as that is a post-tax expense.

That's a 13% IRR (Internal Rate of Return).

If anyone can present any *extremely low risk* investment that kicks off 13% per year, effectively guaranteed for the next 25 years, please let me know.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

Since the OP mentioned it, I'll hit on it. This is the tax payers footing the bill (You and I). This wouldn't be economically viable otherwise. That does not bode well for the technology. Sure, resi solar has it's place - and it's usually the South West portion of the country.
I've rarely seen a situation where solar made "sense" for residential use elsewhere.

Instead of wasting tax money by giving it to individuals, I'd much rather see it go to something that could benefit everyone. Perhaps the equivalent of a solar "X Prize" to companies who build viable solar farms in the SW and feed the national grid (lower prices for all).

I'm glad you're also against the home mortgage deduction, child tax credit and business tax credits.

As dogma said, it is what it is. Until we can get a flat tax rate with no deductions, no credits, you'll be "footing the bill" for someone else's "stuff."

As for solar working - solar actually works pretty well for us up here. We don't get full sun all year but coupled with small residential wind it works quite well. The only thing spoiling it are NIMBYs who want to dictate what you can do with your own property.


toby
Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13
Portland, OR
said by fifty nine:

said by nunya:

Since the OP mentioned it, I'll hit on it. This is the tax payers footing the bill (You and I). This wouldn't be economically viable otherwise. That does not bode well for the technology. Sure, resi solar has it's place - and it's usually the South West portion of the country.
I've rarely seen a situation where solar made "sense" for residential use elsewhere.

Instead of wasting tax money by giving it to individuals, I'd much rather see it go to something that could benefit everyone. Perhaps the equivalent of a solar "X Prize" to companies who build viable solar farms in the SW and feed the national grid (lower prices for all).

I'm glad you're also against the home mortgage deduction, child tax credit and business tax credits.

As dogma said, it is what it is. Until we can get a flat tax rate with no deductions, no credits, you'll be "footing the bill" for someone else's "stuff."

As for solar working - solar actually works pretty well for us up here. We don't get full sun all year but coupled with small residential wind it works quite well. The only thing spoiling it are NIMBYs who want to dictate what you can do with your own property.

I'm against all tax credits, including the home mortgage deduction which has helped increased housing costs and directs the interest payments to the banks instead of paying taxes.

The largest cost in this project is labour, that is why these solar companies are shutting down, no matter how cheap the panels become, the labour will increase. The panels cost somewhere in the region of 30% of the project.

You have to be careful banking on warranties for anything more than a couple of years, the company most likely won't be around in 5 years for various reasons and if they are they will implement rules/laws where they are not viable for any costs over a few dollars. Look at the product to start with.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
That's true. I'm against all tax credits/deductions too.

Make it 10% of all income for everybody, period. I'll gladly give up my home mortgage deduction and pay a slightly higher tax rate.

But while it's being offered, there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of it.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
reply to fifty nine
While it is OT, it's no big secret: I am, in fact, against the income tax system in general (as it stands). I believe there should be a flat tax, and a national sales tax. That way illegals and tax cheats who abuse our system have to at least pay a little fraction back. With a NST, EVERYBODY pays something. After all, we all enjoy the benefits of living here, right?
The 1040 should be 2 lines: 1) How much money did you make last year? 2) Multiply line 1 by .075 - This is your tax due.
Done.

But, back to the solar situation. I stand by my assertion that it rarely is cost effective to use solar panels in residential situations. It just isn't cost effective yet. That's why we have to *pay* people to do it. If the technology were ready for mainstream, we wouldn't have to pay people to buy a product.

Also, much pollution is produced in the manufacture of solar panels. A lot. Solar is a "dirty green" solution, much like CFL lamps.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

ke4pym
Premium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Northland Cable ..
·Time Warner Cable
·ooma
·VOIPO
·Verizon Broadban..
said by nunya:

But, back to the solar situation. I stand by my assertion that it rarely is cost effective to use solar panels in residential situations. It just isn't cost effective yet. That's why we have to *pay* people to do it. If the technology were ready for mainstream, we wouldn't have to pay people to buy a product.

Also, much pollution is produced in the manufacture of solar panels. A lot. Solar is a "dirty green" solution, much like CFL lamps.

Well, in the time I've taken to get this project off the ground, the panel prices have dropped enough I'm getting one free!

What isn't green? How much pollution goes into making a Prius? How many tons of rare earth metals have to go into making a Volt?

Here's the carbon footprint reduction estimation for my install:

kWh/Yr: 7,047
CO2 saved (lbs): 9,605
SO2 saved (lbs): 38
Nox saved (lbs): 15
Car mile equiv: 9,461
Trees saved 112
Coal not consumed (lbs): 5,708

I do agree, to an extent, that a project like this isn't for everyone. I think, at the end of the day, a project this size is going to have to come down to the $10k range (with out subsidies) before it can become a lot more common. Hopefully, that can one day happen.

And I do think, maybe not in my lifetime, but perhaps our grandchildren's lifetime that the grid, as it is, won't exist. Every home will have some sort of small generation system to supply the power needs of a home.

Here's what my installer says about sun tracking systems:

"It's not generally something that applies to roof-mounted systems, but the technology exists sure. Trackers are usually used for pole-mounted systems that are installed in a big field or something where the additional sunlight is fully available. Manufacturers claim that the tracking can increase yield up to about 30%, but there are cons as well. Moving parts = more stuff that can fail, the trackers need replacing usually after 5-10 years, definitely adds cost."

Oh yeah. All this math goes out the window (and I'm hosed) if we have a really cloudy year! So, here's to a sunny summer in 2013!

JBear

join:2005-02-24
canada
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

Since the OP mentioned it, I'll hit on it. This is the tax payers footing the bill (You and I). This wouldn't be economically viable otherwise. That does not bode well for the technology. Sure, resi solar has it's place - and it's usually the South West portion of the country.
I've rarely seen a situation where solar made "sense" for residential use elsewhere.

Instead of wasting tax money by giving it to individuals, I'd much rather see it go to something that could benefit everyone. Perhaps the equivalent of a solar "X Prize" to companies who build viable solar farms in the SW and feed the national grid (lower prices for all).

You would be surprised where the sun shines and makes solar feasible. Doesn't have to be the max (ie Phoenix) to make it feasible.

As for cost, yes it isn't economically viable, but I think over due time with rising energy costs, and increasing inefficiency in the grid you'll see more and more installs going on.


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
reply to dogma
Dogma do you have solar panels? Just asking....


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

Since the OP mentioned it, I'll hit on it. This is the tax payers footing the bill (You and I). This wouldn't be economically viable otherwise. That does not bode well for the technology. Sure, resi solar has it's place - and it's usually the South West portion of the country.
I've rarely seen a situation where solar made "sense" for residential use elsewhere.

Instead of wasting tax money by giving it to individuals, I'd much rather see it go to something that could benefit everyone. Perhaps the equivalent of a solar "X Prize" to companies who build viable solar farms in the SW and feed the national grid (lower prices for all).

said by Dogmaand even that $13K is offset by the free power it provides.

I agree nunya and what dogma doesn't account for the $17000 in tax money he got as an individual is not "Free Power" in any stretch of pushing the pencil.


boogi man

join:2001-11-13
Jacksonville, FL
kudos:1
reply to ke4pym
def a drawback on the moving parts having a much shorter lifespan. and of course the addition upfront cost as well as the maintenance/replacement costs as well.

honestly that's what i figured.

so about the other question i had/have does the degradation in performance come from the chemistry getting 'weaker' or due to the panel getting dirty or the outer 'lens' becoming damaged by exposure?
--
my site


disconnected

@snet.net
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

That's true. I'm against all tax credits/deductions too.

Make it 10% of all income for everybody, period. I'll gladly give up my home mortgage deduction and pay a slightly higher tax rate.

But while it's being offered, there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of it.

I'll go for that as soon as they legalize home ownership and eliminate the rent (tax), which, for me, is 135% of my annual gross income and, as such, does not get paid in full.


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to dogma
said by dogma:

I concur, You and I are also footing the bill for someones mortgage interest tax deduction as well, among countless other tax based incentives. (note to nunya See Profile, does this mean that purchasing a home mortgage with it's associated tax incentives does not bode well for the home ownership?). It is what it is.

Even if there were no tax credits/rebates, there would still be an ROI, just much further down the road.

quote:
I further agree that everyone's financial calculations with respect to an investment such as this will be unique. If the OP (as I guesstimated - OP correct me if I am wrong) has a electricity cost of about $144/Month on average, your model [$13,000 / 300 = $43.33 per month in cost] saves him about $100/Month, or [$100 x 300] $30,000.
$144/mo @ 0.11 kWh works out to be about 1300 kWh. His system is 7000 kWh/year so that's 583 kWh/mo from his solar. Not even half of his demand so 583 x 0.11 = $64.00 - $43 (cost) =$21.00/mo savings.

quote:
Assumptions-
The OP invest $13,000 up front.
The OP has an average electricity expense of $140/Month.
The OP's Solar system zero's out his monthly electricity bill.
That's a faulty assumption as the OP's system cannot zero out his monthly bill. He can only achieve 583 kWh from his solar. He will still have more than half of his present bill.

quote:
So his $13,000 up front investment produces a net $140/Month or ($140 x 12) $1680/Year he otherwise would have had to spend. Additionally, the OP would have had to earn about $175/Month in order to pay the $140 as that is a post-tax expense.
OP is not saving $140/month. He's saving $23/Month.



Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to ke4pym
said by ke4pym:

Here's the carbon footprint reduction estimation for my install:

kWh/Yr: 7,047
CO2 saved (lbs): 9,605
SO2 saved (lbs): 38
Nox saved (lbs): 15
Car mile equiv: 9,461
Trees saved 112
Coal not consumed (lbs): 5,708

That's quite an assumption and may or may not be accurate even if 100 percent of your power comes from a coal fired power plant.


cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT
reply to dogma
said by dogma:

Assumptions-
The OP invest $13,000 up front.
The OP has an average electricity expense of $140/Month.
The OP's Solar system zero's out his monthly electricity bill.
[...] That's a 13% IRR (Internal Rate of Return).

The assumptions are wrong.
OP invests 13,000 upfront.
The system produces 7000kWh/year. Based on a $0.11/kWh current rate that's $770/year. A bit shy of 6% return rate.
Take it even further... Start with a $0.15/kWh rate. It still takes 13 years to offset the initial investment.
If you compound the returns and take into account the real life loss in capacity, it's only a 2.5% annual rate. Add the inflation and it's still roughly between the return rate of treasury bonds and the return rate of an ultra-conservative, low risk portfolio.


cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

That's true. I'm against all tax credits/deductions too.

Make it 10% of all income for everybody, period. I'll gladly give up my home mortgage deduction and pay a slightly higher tax rate.

Do a calculation of how much your rate would be for the IRS to collect the same amount from everyone. You'll change your mind instantly... guaranteed...


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
reply to cowboyro
$770/yr / 12 mo = $64/mo


dogma
XYZ
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1
reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

Dogma do you have solar panels? Just asking....

Why yes. Yes we do.

When we moved from L.A. a few years back out here to the Nevada desert, the house we purchased was a foreclosure (like the 200,000 other foreclosures around here at the time) and it happened to have Solar panels already installed by a previous owner.

I knew there was some Solar on the roof, but was fairly ignorant of it all until this smart meter debacle last year.

Up to that moment, I just thought the electricity rates out here were dirt cheap and that because the home was fairly new (9 years old), the insulation was well above average. I didn't do a good job of reviewing our NVEnergy bill. But I learned a lot about Solar due to that event.

We think that it's a 3 or 4 Kw system as there isn't much documentation. It pays/generates for about 60% of our overall yearly power.

Moreover, we will probably Double Down on Solar in the very near future by removing the existing panels and replacing them with a system that generates close to 8kW
said by Jack_in_VA:

I agree nunya and what dogma doesn't account for the $17000 in tax money he got as an individual is not "Free Power" in any stretch of pushing the pencil.

If you're referring to the offset via tax dollars, again this is an issue better suited to another topic that takes into account ALL tax subsidies.
said by cowboyro:

The assumptions are wrong.

Perhaps. This is why I show my work for peer review!

I was running these numbers basically in my head, but Lets look again and include a little more detail (hopefully ke4pym See Profile can provide his current Total Annual KWhr Demand)

From the best I can figure, Duke Energy in North Carolina charges
For the first 350 kWh used per month: 9.2899¢ per kWh (excluding taxes which probably kicks it up to around 11¢ per kWh)

The OP's 23 245W panels should generate 25 annual average Kilowatt hours/day including a 12% DC-AC conversion loss. (4655DC-4096AC) @ *6.03 Hours a Day of Irradiance x 365 (per year) = 2,200 Hours a Year of Irradiance per year

From that I'm getting about 9011.2 Annual Production (KWhrs) from his proposed system. (4.096 x 2200 annual hours)

9011.2 x 11¢ (kWh) = $991.23/year or $82.60/Month

13 years to break even and a 7.7% IRR... main assumptions here include:
1.) his existing electricity rate never goes up over that time period. If it does, which I think we can all agree that it will, his IRR increases.
2.) his new panels produce at least 90% of their effective rating over that time and any defects are covered under warranty.
3.) he actually gets those Hours a Year of usable Irradiance

7.7% annual IRR is still great. Again, can anyone present a better low-risk investment?


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
said by dogma:

If you're referring to the offset via tax dollars, again this is an issue better suited to another topic that takes into account ALL tax subsidies.

said by cowboyro:

The assumptions are wrong.

Perhaps. This is why I show my work for peer review!

I was running these numbers basically in my head, but Lets look again and include a little more detail (hopefully ke4pym See Profile can provide his current Total Annual KWhr Demand)

From the best I can figure, Duke Energy in North Carolina charges
For the first 350 kWh used per month: 9.2899¢ per kWh (excluding taxes which probably kicks it up to around 11¢ per kWh)

The OP's 23 245W panels should generate 25 annual average Kilowatt hours/day including a 12% DC-AC conversion loss. (4655DC-4096AC) @ *6.03 Hours a Day of Irradiance x 365 (per year) = 2,200 Hours a Year of Irradiance per year

From that I'm getting about 9011.2 Annual Production (KWhrs) from his proposed system. (4.096 x 2200 annual hours)

9011.2 x 11¢ (kWh) = $991.23/year or $82.60/Month

13 years to break even and a 7.7% IRR... main assumptions here include:
1.) his existing electricity rate never goes up over that time period. If it does, which I think we can all agree that it will, his IRR increases.
2.) his new panels produce at least 90% of their effective rating over that time and any defects are covered under warranty.
3.) he actually gets those Hours a Year of usable Irradiance

7.7% annual IRR is still great. Again, can anyone present a better low-risk investment?

You are manipulating the data of what the OP has posted to fit your numbers.

OP states: It is estimated that I will produce about 7,047 kWh/year on my system that is sized at 5.635kW.

Derate factor is 0.78 making the system AC size 4.4kW.



This is what the OP says he's installing 7047 / 360 = 19.30 kWh max with max sunlight. All the variables have been figured in his estimate. Since the OP uses approx. 43.3 kWh/day there is a big shortfall from the solar panels.

This is exactly what I ran into when I checked into solar. >$30K for solar panels that would generate less than 1/2 of my annual demand.


dogma
XYZ
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1
I see what you're saying, but 43kWh/day x 30.4 (days in a Month) = 1308 kWh Month right?

@ 11¢ per kWh = $143/Month. So that would be offsetting about $80/Month against his expense. It's still saving him $80/Month - or whatever it is - anyway you look at it, it's a viable investment.

ke4pym
Premium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Northland Cable ..
·Time Warner Cable
·ooma
·VOIPO
·Verizon Broadban..
said by dogma:

I see what you're saying, but 43kWh/day x 30.4 (days in a Month) = 1308 kWh Month right?

@ 11¢ per kWh = $143/Month. So that would be offsetting about $80/Month against his expense. It's still saving him $80/Month - or whatever it is - anyway you look at it, it's a viable investment.

Averaging across the entire year, this usage is pretty close. Last month, in 29 days, I used 1500 kWh. I think my low is somewhere in the neighborhood of 600kWh in Dec and Jan and the high this year was like, 2500 kWh in June when it was 100 billion degrees out. BUT the panels won't be producing as much energy then due to the sun being lower on the horizon and not being up as long.

Eventually, the a/c is getting replaced. And that'll be a high efficency system. So, the potential for the energy usage to go down is pretty good.


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to dogma
said by dogma:

I see what you're saying, but 43kWh/day x 30.4 (days in a Month) = 1308 kWh Month right?

@ 11¢ per kWh = $143/Month. So that would be offsetting about $80/Month against his expense. It's still saving him $80/Month - or whatever it is - anyway you look at it, it's a viable investment.

You're still too high on your savings. A 7000 kWh/year system is going to yield 583 kWh/mo @ 0.11/kWh = $64 less 43.33/mo for his initial #13,000 investment equals around $21/mo savings. So he has 143 - 64 = 79 (Duke Power). 79 + 43 = 122/mo. 143 - 122 = 21/mo actual savings.


dogma
XYZ
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1
said by Jack_in_VA:

A 7000 kWh/year system...

I think this is our issue and how each of us arrives at the final savings amount. I'm getting more power from his system (9011kWh) based on my experience and the number of panels and production. However, using the 7000kWh is 23% less production, which should equate to $82.60 x .77 = $$ he would otherwise have to pay the utility = $63.60/Month in savings = $63.60/Mo. in his pocket (IRR). I am not seeing how you get $21/Mo.

If he shells out $13K upfront, he gets $63.60/Mo. Where does the $43 come from?

ke4pym See Profile, did your Solar company give you a detailed breakdown of cost vs. current expenses?


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
said by dogma:

said by Jack_in_VA:

A 7000 kWh/year system...

I think this is our issue and how each of us arrives at the final savings amount. I'm getting more power from his system (9011kWh) based on my experience and the number of panels and production. However, using the 7000kWh is 23% less production, which should equate to $82.60 x .77 = $$ he would otherwise have to pay the utility = $63.60/Month in savings = $63.60/Mo. in his pocket (IRR). I am not seeing how you get $21/Mo.

If he shells out $13K upfront, he gets $63.60/Mo. Where does the $43 come from?

ke4pym See Profile, did your Solar company give you a detailed breakdown of cost vs. current expenses?

From your earlier post:

quote:
OP correct me if I am wrong) has a electricity cost of about $144/Month on average, your model [$13,000 / 300 = $43.33 per month in cost]
Spread out like you posted it would be $43/mo. Upfront it would just take that long for the ROI on initial investment. Assuming his rates stay the same it will take him 300 months to start realizing the full $63.60 reduction of his $143/mo Duke Power bill.

ke4pym
Premium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Northland Cable ..
·Time Warner Cable
·ooma
·VOIPO
·Verizon Broadban..
reply to dogma
said by dogma:

ke4pym See Profile, did your Solar company give you a detailed breakdown of cost vs. current expenses?

Indeed they did.

There are several charts and graphs and such.

This is all based off of 2011 actual usage I provided to them.
Current Consumption:
kWh - 17,600
Cost - $1,848

Annual Solar Production
kWh - 7,047
Value - $775

Annual Electric Bill Offset
kWh - 40%
Cost - 42%