Global Warming News

[Ken45101]

I think this argument might be a little overstated Ken. At some point the system should pay for itself. The programs will create a market that overtime will drive down equipment costs. And not having to add capacity keeps everyone's rates lower.

Sure, it's simplified, but maybe not overstated. At the end of 30 years, you still have the original money paying interest if invested. OTOH, I doubt that a physical solar energy system will live for ever and will need expensive repairs and upgrades.

You could also be wrong about it lowering people's rates. If everybody installs solar systems, electric company rates might actually INCREASE. Why? Because they still have to have the power plants built and sitting there idle, but capable of cranking out full power on a ten below zero night when no one's solar units are putting out a single watt. Amortizing a power plant that only gets used occasionally will increase the rates, not lower them.

Of course it depends on the location. Some places have their peaks on summer afternoons when solar will help. Other locations have their peak needs on cold winter nights.

Ken

 

[20 20]

If I remember correctly, Rob said that his solar system was in the $100,000 range. He's totally off the grid and has two massive solar panels that follow the sun, plus a generator and a room full of batteries. Once a month, they check the batteries and make sure everything is working properly. I forget how long the batteries last, but a big drawback to solar for just one house is that those batteries only last so long and then you have to replace them. Not figuring the damage that they do to a landfill, they are a big expense that has to be figured into the break even formula of going solar.

Agreed, the batteries were a huge draw back for us.

If you think that you'll break even in ten years, but then have to buy new batteries every ten years, when do you break even?

later then sooner, but still not soon enough IMO.

If you can get a small home solar system that generates a small amount of electricty, but you still have power coming in and you are not dependent on it, there might be some savings in not buying as much power because the solar is supplying part of your demand. That would be really tough to figure out, but possible with the right monitoring equipment. I just wonder how much you'll actually be saving, the cost of that electricty, and if there really is a payback for the life of the solar equipment that you paid for. I highly doubt it. When you factor in your time, it gets even harder to see where it's worthwhile.

With us up here it is not so much the price per electricity as it is all the surcharges. We may use $50 of electricity per month but the surcharges bring the bill to around the $200 per month

The obvious solution is nuclear. Natural gas makes allot of sense too with the announcements of how much there is available. Eddie

I have to disagree with the obvious answer here{sorry } The obvious answer has not been found IMO, and as long as there is greed and politcal red tape nothing will change.

I also don't care for nuclear as an answer, I don't believe we know enough about it. Or at the very least prepare enough for it????

 

[eepete]

In broad terms, there are two kinds of solar installations. One, like mine, is called "grid tie". It has no batteries and puts it's power back out to the grid. You have one meter for what you use (your normal house meter) and one on the grid tie system for what you make/put into the grid. The numbers are posted earlier in this thread. Different viewpoints see the numbers in different ways, in this case depending on your views about tax subsidies. Those different views on this small area exemplify the problems in discussing all these matters.

The other PV solar system is "off grid". These systems have batteries to store the energy and provide power when it's dark out. They are much more expensive and have a lot more maintenance. They only make economic sense when there is no grid power available (or it's wickedly expensive to have it put in).

Eddie, one project I'm working on is Home Automation. One of the task of that project is to monitor and smartly manage energy use. It's been hard to get accurate data about the cost and effectiveness of solar PV grid tie systems. Lots of studies, but most of them in academic or research/grant environments. It's a small part of the puzzle where I can take what few skills I have and figure something out. I also fully agree with your views on nuclear. I also view wind power as a supplement that works in some locations.

The "Game Changing" events in solar are:
1) increasing the efficiency of collection
2) Storage
3) Storage back to energy
Note also that (2) & (3) could also apply to wind power. Progress on these game changers is probably a generation off as far as any widespread implementation.

So for now it's a small part of the solution, and we can see if any game changers come down the road. Just wanted to clarify the two flavors of photo voltaic (PV) solar systems that are out there.

Pete

 

[EddieWalker]

Pete,

I really like your posts. You make allot of sense, and explain what you are doing, or thinking of, very clearly.

Eddie

 

[charlz]

When I lived in Las Vegas I looked hard at putting up a grid-tie system. I forget the details but the way it worked out was something like a 20 year payback. No state solar incentives at the time, just Federal. It was exactly the warranty/life expectancy of panels. In the summer months, on paper, it would provide about 10% of my power usage. In the winter I might have been net metering power back, depending on how well it worked in the winter.

One of the key downsides, and why I say 'on paper' is during my research I found that solar panel efficiency goes _down_ when temperature goes _up_. It gets dang hot in Vegas, especially on a tile roof. So during my peak demand, sunny summer day, the system may have actually been producing the lowest amount of electricity.

 

[Loren49]

In projections on payback of any system, the future costs of pollution (environmental damage, health problems, etc.) are certainly debatable but are seldom considered.
It is likely that nuclear electricity production will continue to be needed in the future but I feel our heads are in the sand concerning the future cost of cleanup and responsible disposal of nuclear wastes.

My first response to people who ask about being off the grid is that it requires using much less electricity. (unless money is no object) I didn't say having a lower standard of living - it just requires doing things different than most.

Profile of my system - We chose to go off-grid when the local utility wanted $5000 dollar (1982 dollars, about $11000 dollars in 2008)to run lines to my house site so that I would have the privilege of buying their power at their price. We had a wind system installed in 1983 (1kw generator, 80 ft tower, 6 - 220amp/hr batteries and wiring from tower to house). I paid (overpaid) $11000 and received a federal tax credit of $4000 and a state credit of $2600. Since that time my system has changed considerably. The main components have been a couple small wind generators, ten 80 - 90 watt solar panels, various charge controllers and inverters (to change from 12VDC to 120VDC) I use both 12 volt and 120 volt in the house. Every cent after the initial purchase has come out of my pocket. I do take exception to some for claiming that I am a fool for not having their wisdom. By the way I paid cash for every purchase and have lived on a modest income - I didn't inherit it - I worked. Concerning batteries - battery banks have lasted from 8 to 10 years - I have used deep cycle lead acid batteries (how about attacking golf cart users?) Currently I use Sam's Club 6 volt golf cart batteries. My actual use would be about 1.5 6volt batteries per year. (to the vocal critics - how does that compare to even a gram of nuclear waste?) To be fair - I have a high output alternator run buy a 8hp Honda motor as a backup - its needed at times in the winter - it charges at max of 120 amps)

I don't regret the choices I've made. We saved a portion of a mile of the electric grid and at home we don't stress the grid. (does tax money go into the grid?) I believe it has helped us to be debt free for 25 years) The costs of solar compared to wind have changed considerably since 1982. If I was starting over now it would be solar - I love the upkeep and the silence. The real advantage of going solar if you are on the grid is that I believe many people would find ways to live so that you would sell to the power company more of the time. You would save money and live just as well or better.

There is a lot of grey out there - black and white on issues scares me.

Loren

 

[Knotbored]

Years ago there was an article in one of the self-help magazenes (maybe Popular Science) that indicated a very high speed flywheel can store much more energy then batteries weighing the same. As I recall-the flywheel was strands of cable like a mop head spinning in a vacuum. The devise was originated for a car but proved poor because it worked like a gyroscope and car tended to go straight when trying to turn a corner.
Maybe a flywheel is a better choice for storing windmill power at a homesite.

 

[charlz]

Years ago there was an article in one of the self-help magazenes (maybe Popular Science) that indicated a very high speed flywheel can store much more energy then batteries weighing the same. As I recall-the flywheel was strands of cable like a mop head spinning in a vacuum. The devise was originated for a car but proved poor because it worked like a gyroscope and car tended to go straight when trying to turn a corner.
Maybe a flywheel is a better choice for storing windmill power at a homesite.

The technology is still out there. From what I know they still have 'materials' problems. Being able to spin something at 50,000 rpm for extended periods of time without it coming apart.

 

[charlz]

Currently I use Sam's Club 6 volt golf cart batteries. My actual use would be about 1.5 6volt batteries per year. (to the vocal critics - how does that compare to even a gram of nuclear waste?)

Aren't lead acid batteries fully recyclable?

 

[dmccarty]

Pillar: here's the #s:

Cost of panels, inverter, rails: $34,100
Cost of stainless steel threaded rod and hardware: $753
Cost of lumber for inverter shed: $1,000
Cost of concrete: $250
Cost of 100A drop from power company: $300

Total cost of system: $36,403

33% from feds, $10K from NC, after tax credit cost: $14,390

I get 20 cents per kilowatt hour. 15 from NC Greenshares (cap and trade deal) and 5 from the power company (burden cost). Power company also has net metering, cost of electricity here is 10 cents per KWH. That's my worst case rate if NC Greenshares can't sell enough carbon credits.

On-lin calculator for my area (Raleigh, NC) shows $2000 per year at that payback rate. Also I'm assuming that investing the money elsewhere (i.e. cost of lost opportunity) would be around 2% annually, since interest rates are bad.

Pete

Pete,

How many KW's are being produced in this system?

You said, "I get 20 cents per kilowatt hour. 15 from NC Greenshares (cap and trade deal) and 5 from the power company (burden cost). " Does this mean YOU get paid 20 cents per KWH or that is what the system costs to produce the KWH? Is NC Greenshares paying the home owner for producing power as well? I am trying to understand if there are payments made to the home owner that I do not know about.

My understanding about NC net metering is that the power company pays the wholesale rate of the power while I still pay retail. In other words if the wholesale rate is 5 cents per KWH that is the credit I would get for the power I put back in the grid. Yet I would still pay full costs for the power I used which is 10 cents per KWH. I would being saving money but not as much as one would believe. I don't know if the wholesale cost is 5 cents I just pulled that out of the hat as an example.

Below is not addressed to Pete just a statement of my understanding of how the credits work in NC and likely other states.

For years the NC tax credit has been capped in several ways. Solar power generation is capped at $10,500. But a home owner can only claim 35% of the cost of the system up too the $10,500 limit. Which means a homeowner would have to spend $30,000 on the system to get the full credit. Your numbers reflect this but I am trying to make a point for others so bear with me.

The OTHER cap is that a homeowner can only get back a maximum of 50% of their NC tax. If the homeowner spent 30K on the system, NC will give them back 10.5K but for them to get the full amount back they would have to pay in NC taxes 21K. Maybe John Edwards has a tax bill like that but I sure don't. I hear he has more dependent deductions all of the sudden so maybe his tax bill has gone down.

The way I read the law, the homeowner can take six years to get the tax credit. If they are paying $5,000 a year in NC taxes then they could get back a max of $2,500 per year for six years. After 5 years they would would have the full 10.5K credit. If the homeowner was ONLY paying $3,000 a year in NC taxes they could only get $1,500 back per year on the credit and after six years they could only get back $9,000 out of the $10,500. Not bad but it is still $1,500 short of the max and takes six years to recoup.

Two points from all of the numbers. First, the tax credits are not as great as they seem. One reads I can get 35% pack up to $10.5K! Woo Hoo. The problem is two fold. First one has to be able to pay 30K up front to install the system in the first place. THEN wait years to get the tax credit back. And it might take six years to finally get all of the money back. One can't put the system in service in 2010 and then in 2011 get $10.5K back on their NC taxes. Unless one has lots of taxes to pay. I have lots of taxes to pay but NOT that much!

The other "trick" in this is that it behooves the home owner to get the system in service in December so that in January they can start their tax returns to get the tax credit back ASAP.

DSIRE: DSIRE Home is a great source of information on renewable energy tax issues.

Later,
Dan