A newbies DIY solar install

[ning]

I recall being told that before you consider solar - in order to have it correctly sized and not oversized for your usage - you should first do everything else to reduce your energy usage. This is because they (at least in my case) sized the solar set up based on the last twelve months of energy usage. I suppose they mean put in LED bulbs, clean filters, maybe switch out energy efficient appliances, and more. We had already done most of that - and we were not about to buy a new refrigerator or spend too much that way. So far, it seems the sizing was correct - we did have a $151 Tru-Up bill at the last anniversary of our installation - but our daughter and SIL are living with us while they build a home here - and were not here for that twelve-month billing stint which they used to size the solar installation. They live in a separate building so more AC, lights and such. Very happy we went solar - as mentioned before here - saving about $4,000 a year and likely more now that rates have increased.

You should also tell them if you are contemplating adding something that will use a lot of electricity - pool, hot tub, AC - so they can figure that in as well.

I sized mine for growth, understanding that with free/cheaper power (especially during the day), I'm more likely to keep the house cooler than previously - we've often made do with windows & doors open when "it's not THAT hot!" and last summer we actually closed the house and went for AC at much more reasonable temperatures...

IMO it's cheaper to overbuild a bit today rather than try to make it a bit bigger later - it's a money-losing proposition to upgrade the solar panels after 5-10 years vs choosing slightly bigger ones today.

That said, I did also set up my system so that I can easily add another array 50% the size of the current one by making sure the wiring is sized for that (kinda part of the overbuild; spent an extra couple hundred on going up two sizes in wire to the ground mount) - in case / for when we add an electric car like my wife's been threatening (the system uses edge inverters, so there's no inverter to upgrade, and the main system switch is capable of handling the increased current with a breaker change, and there was no smaller capability switch available for this system).

 

[fishdrivel]

Time for another project. This one is a new solar install for the house. Figured I would document my experience and hopefully get some help/advice along the way and maybe help someone else considering a diy solar install. We've had solar on our business for 8 years and has done great and figured it's time to look at doing it for the home.

System will be grid tied. I started out thinking I would do a turn-key install. Recieved 3 proposals, with the best but all close coming in at $52k or $38,500 after tax rebate. That put my ROI at about 9 years based on output and current electric bill and not factoring any repairs. After looking at the numbers I decided to price out a similar self install kit for comparison and was shocked at the price difference. $20,009 shipped to my door or $14,800 after tax rebate so self install it is. Kit includes everything needed other than the 3" pipe for the iron ridge ground mount and any knowledge of what I'm doing on my end but I figure for $23k I can figure it out. Payoff should be less than 4 years if it covers as much of my electric bill as expected.

System details:
25kw system
2 - Fronius Primos 12.5 investors
60 - Trina Solar 410 watt panels
Iron ridge racking systems

Currently working on the application and approval with our electric coop before making the purchase and will update as this project moves forward.

Jeremy

I was going solar on my house in California.
Electricity is very expensive there and I had it figured out.
Electric Co. is now charging for the solar you produce along with a cost for being on the grid. They can charge you for the solar even if not connected to electric co. PUC has agreed with all this.

I sold the house and moved out of California.

 

[ning]

I was going solar on my house in California.
Electricity is very expensive there and I had it figured out.
Electric Co. is now charging for the solar you produce along with a cost for being on the grid. They can charge you for the solar even if not connected to electric co. PUC has agreed with all this.

I sold the house and moved out of California.

I agree with you that electricity is very expensive in CA.
However, the rest of your message is worth what I've paid for it.

There is a proposal for a "grid participation charge"; it's not in place yet.
It is for a grid connection, and as such obviously is not charged if you're not connected to the grid.

Hope you found somewhere to live that matches you better.

 

[orezok]

I don’t know which electric provider you had, but SCE pay me for ALL the power I produce, but at a lesser value than power I buy at peak times. I have never heard of ANY electric company charging you for off grid production. You’re gonna hafta provide a citation to make that believeable.

My total electric cost for power last year was $165. Before solar over $2000.

 

[beowulf]

There is a proposal for a "grid participation charge"; it's not in place yet.
It is for a grid connection, and as such obviously is not charged if you're not connected to the grid.

Right now we have to pay about $30 a month to PGE even though we have solar. We have to pay $5 per meter - a fee so we can remain hooked up to the grid - and we have two meters so that is $10. Then there is another charge - just under $10 per month per meter if your electricity use (that which you pull of the grid) is below a certain amount - to it all comes to about $30 a month.

What I have read about the new proposed participation charge is that existing solar customers would be grandfathered in for 15 years - i.e., before that charge hit. I am not sure whether the 15 year-period would start from when the new charge is approved or from when a solar customer first installed their solar system. It seemed PG&E was always promoting solar - then they discovered they were losing money because so many customers went solar, and now they want to rethink it all. One argument they are making is that the non-solar customers (and the less affluent customers - because they cannot afford solar) are subsidizing those with solar. This, despite that they previously said "everyone" could afford solar.

 

[orezok]

Right now we have to pay about $30 a month to PGE even though we have solar. We have to pay $5 per meter - a fee so we can remain hooked up to the grid - and we have two meters so that is $10. Then there is another charge - just under $10 per month per meter if your electricity use (that which you pull of the grid) is below a certain amount - to it all comes to about $30 a month.

What I have read about the new proposed participation charge is that existing solar customers would be grandfathered in for 15 years - i.e., before that charge hit. I am not sure whether the 15 year-period would start from when the new charge is approved or from when a solar customer first installed their solar system. It seemed PG&E was always promoting solar - then they discovered they were losing money because so many customers went solar, and now they want to rethink it all. One argument they are making is that the non-solar customers (and the less affluent customers - because they cannot afford solar) are subsidizing those with solar. This, despite that they previously said "everyone" could afford solar.

I know the power companies "spin" the "facts" to benefit their shareholders, but i question a couple of things. If there was not an abundance of solar, how many new billion dollar plants would they have to build to offset solar or how much would they have to beef up their backbone to handle the increased import from someones billion dollar plant.

The power i produce is most likely absorbed locally with no significant impact on infrastructure.

YMMV

 

[ning]

I have solar, but I have to admit that even if I have net-zero to the grid, the grid is definitely providing me with service, and I should have to pay something for that service. Probably not as much as PG&E would like, but even if my solar energy offsets their need for more power plants (thus saving them money), I get something out of the deal as well - they're basically a battery at night (though I'm close to being off-grid-capable for about 2/3 of the year - not winter).

 

[cqaigy2]

I get that thought process, paying for connection to the grid to provide power when you need it. Especially if you think about the cost of going completely off grid.

 

[beowulf]

I have solar, but I have to admit that even if I have net-zero to the grid, the grid is definitely providing me with service, and I should have to pay something for that service. Probably not as much as PG&E would like, but even if my solar energy offsets their need for more power plants (thus saving them money), I get something out of the deal as well - they're basically a battery at night (though I'm close to being off-grid-capable for about 2/3 of the year - not winter).

Totally agree.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I’ve always said the utilities would balk at grid tie, as they are your battery. With the fees they are starting to charge, makes it not worth being tied. I pay over $20 month to have a landline I seldom use.

 

[ponytug]

At the levels PG&E was proposing for paying our "fair share", it would have been much more cost effective for us to pull the meter, add more solar, and generate our hydrogen during the summer to use during the winter. Kinda joking, but not really; pulling the meter would have been the way to go. As it is, we are net energy positive mid-February to mid-November, so it wouldn't be a much additional solar to be completely off grid.

I am all in favor of supporting the grid, but let's bill everyone the same connection fee, scaled by meter size. Then add power costs, plus all of the various depreciation and environmental fees on a per kWh basis, and be done. Having power at my supermarket benefits me as well as them, and I am prepared to pay something for a grid system that enables anyone who wants power to get it. At the same time, we invested a chunk of change installing solar, that the utility and other customers weren't and aren't paying for.

YMMV...

All the best,

Peter

 

[Carl_NH]

I agree paying for grid tie (and we do) as we generate 75% of the usage and have net metering grandfathered to the current rates so any over production gets credited at $.22/KWH - the current rate. But it takes a sizable upfront investment, which we did 7 years ago. Much like the power generation stations, the upfront investment is high, and ROI is over a long term 10-20 years so IMO we made the investment and should gain the benefits, after 7-10 years then it starts to generate a positive return.

But power generation is the second half, the first and more important in part is being energy efficient in the first place - insulation, minimize air infiltration etc. so the total energy needed to heat/cool is less. For new construction this is easy, for exiting buildings it's harder and more expensive, thus the ROI is longer. Then in areas where electricity is $.05-.08 per KWH due to hydro power etc. do you spend $1000 to save $100 a year is a non starter for most people.

 

[not2old]

I agree paying for grid tie (and we do) as we generate 75% of the usage and have net metering grandfathered to the current rates so any over production gets credited at $.22/KWH - the current rate. But it takes a sizable upfront investment, which we did 7 years ago. Much like the power generation stations, the upfront investment is high, and ROI is over a long term 10-20 years so IMO we made the investment and should gain the benefits, after 7-10 years then it starts to generate a positive return.

But power generation is the second half, the first and more important in part is being energy efficient in the first place - insulation, minimize air infiltration etc. so the total energy needed to heat/cool is less. For new construction this is easy, for exiting buildings it's harder and more expensive, thus the ROI is longer. Then in areas where electricity is $.05-.08 per KWH due to hydro power etc. do you spend $1000 to save $100 a year is a non starter for most people.

That's a 10% saving which is whole lot better than the 2%I'm getting on my condo rentals right now

 

[Carl_NH]

That's a 10% saving which is whole lot better than the 2%I'm getting on my condo rentals right now

My point is can or will the average consumer spend $10 or $20K to improve/insulate their property to save $1 to $2K per year? Some will, of course but for the majority will not as its easier to pay monthly - short term thinking.

As far as your condo's in BC if you bought/own condos there in the last 2-3 years, the valuations have appreciated in Vancouver region 50-150% unless you are very remote - which Scotch Creek is more of a vacation destination may be the anomaly.

 

[fishdrivel]

The electric vehicle maker, which combined with Solar City in 2016, argues that imposing fixed charges on solar customers impinges on their right to self-generate their own clean energy.

"It violates every tenant of regulatory fairness and is likely illegal under federal law," Tesla says. "The fixed charges cannot be avoided by adding a battery and would need to be paid regardless of whether the solar customer exports energy to the electric grid."

The company also warned that the "dramatic change" from current NEM policy will reduce customer adoption of clean energy in California at a time when more is needed to meet the state's climate goals and that reducing the grandfathering period short-changes customers who made an investment in solar under the previous policy.

 

[ning]

The electric vehicle maker, which combined with Solar City in 2016, argues that imposing fixed charges on solar customers impinges on their right to self-generate their own clean energy.

"It violates every tenant of regulatory fairness and is likely illegal under federal law," Tesla says. "The fixed charges cannot be avoided by adding a battery and would need to be paid regardless of whether the solar customer exports energy to the electric grid."

The company also warned that the "dramatic change" from current NEM policy will reduce customer adoption of clean energy in California at a time when more is needed to meet the state's climate goals and that reducing the grandfathering period short-changes customers who made an investment in solar under the previous policy.

Yes - if they're actually connected to the grid, they'll have to pay for that connection.

If you're not connected to the grid, there's no way to make you pay for a grid connection.

You're welcome to read the proposal itself - it's trivial to look it up online - and it's exactly what I'm saying here (I read it - "do your own research!" my guess if you've said this before).

Musk is obfuscating the grid connection here, unsurprisingly, because by using batteries and solar with net metering, you can get to net-zero pretty easily, and that's what's driving battery sales right now (no, it's not back-up power - batteries + solar are way too expensive compared to a backup generator that you only occasionally need).

Net zero still requires that grid connection, so he's yelling that even if you never export to the grid - which you definitely have to to get to net zero unless you have ridiculous amounts of battery or very low use - they're going to make you pay! which is true but won't actually happen.

If you have sufficient battery to be off-grid, you can drop your PG&E connection and avoid all charges.

You can't have your cake (grid as primary or backup) and eat it too (not pay for any of it).

 

[Gale Hawkins]

Yes - if they're actually connected to the grid, they'll have to pay for that connection.

If you're not connected to the grid, there's no way to make you pay for a grid connection.

You're welcome to read the proposal itself - it's trivial to look it up online - and it's exactly what I'm saying here (I read it - "do your own research!" my guess if you've said this before).

Musk is obfuscating the grid connection here, unsurprisingly, because by using batteries and solar with net metering, you can get to net-zero pretty easily, and that's what's driving battery sales right now (no, it's not back-up power - batteries + solar are way too expensive compared to a backup generator that you only occasionally need).

Net zero still requires that grid connection, so he's yelling that even if you never export to the grid - which you definitely have to to get to net zero unless you have ridiculous amounts of battery or very low use - they're going to make you pay! which is true but won't actually happen.

If you have sufficient battery to be off-grid, you can drop your PG&E connection and avoid all charges.

You can't have your cake (grid as primary or backup) and eat it too (not pay for any of it).

My local utility is fine with me to put in a solar system complete with storage batteries as long as I do NOT grid tie per my meeting with them. Elon Musk wants me to go with a Tesla solar system and do the grid tie thing so he can resell my surplus to the highest bidder.

I want my independence and to be able to gas up on sunshine at home at will!

 

[oosik]

Neighbor had an evaluation done. It didn't pan out. I think it was because too many overcast/cloudy days. Shame - I was thinking about solar here.

 

[beowulf]

Neighbor had an evaluation done. It didn't pan out. I think it was because too many overcast/cloudy days. Shame - I was thinking about solar here.

oosik, yeah, that is an issue - probably no solution to that. We are fortunate here that we get a good bit of sun even in the Winter. With the daily charts (available online with our system), we can clearly see that we get almost no production on a rainy or totally cloudy day. Fortunately, over a year's time the production exceeds what we use.

 

[orezok]

Neighbor had an evaluation done. It didn't pan out. I think it was because too many overcast/cloudy days. Shame - I was thinking about solar here.

Just the opposite here in the desert. Yesterday on my 7530W system I generated 51.6kW for the day with a peak output of 7.1kW about noon. That’s a 94% efficiency and my peak months are still to come in May and November.

My payback will be about 4 years. Absolutely works here.