a friend of mine in Santa Barbara had solar installed on his house (4BD/4BA) 2 years ago. It cost him $17000.00 after grants and rebates. He did it strictly for the environmental benefits (fossil fuel is often burned to generate electricity).He does generate more than his needs in the summer, and less in the winter.The local utilities settle up with him at the end of each year.He says its very close to break even.

I checked into doing my home 1 year ago. It was approx. $20,000 to install, less $10,000 for grants, net $10,000.
My average electric cost for 1 year=$2250.00 (we have a swimming pool and a/c).I will look into it again when my roof needs replacing, sometime in the next 5 years.

Bejay, different utilities do it differently. When you generate surplus power and sell it back to the grid, some utilities will pay you the retail price of electricity while others will pay you the wholesale price. Of course, what you buy from the grid is retail. I don't know what SD G&E does.

Solar is quickly going to become critical to a household's supply, particularly as we move into peak oil (google 'peak oil' and see what I'm talking about). In California, we are lucky to have very low petroleum dependence on electricity generation and a high proportion of renewables, hydro, and nuclear. But all the new plants are from natural gas, much from Canada, and that supply will be constrained because so much is going to use as fuel to produce oil from the Alberta tar sands! I don't know if the state will make it even more favorable to install solar, but the folks who have it are going to be very very happy in a few years.

David

First off, there's YOUR cost. So far, the supply-and-demand-oriented industries have made it BARELY affordable versus payoff. And the big utitlity companies jump all over this.

But more than YOUR cost is the cost to the world. If anyone thinks that fossil fuels are going to become cheaper, they're wrong. If anyone thinks that fossil fuels are going to last forever, they're wrong. If anyone thinks that fossil fuels don't impact our entire economy -- in a distrastrous way -- they're wrong.

It's time to get off this whole fossil fuel grid thing and become energy independent as well as take control away from the oil and energy companies who control way too much of our economy and now our government.

Nope, I'm not an extremist nor an environmental activist. This is a sane soapbox of mine, though.

The whole energy thing goes way beyond just lighting up one's house.

Now, back to gardening...
Joe

I've read an article from an eccentric scientist that was proven to be true recently, that methane gas can be generated through simple geological processes deep down under the earth. It was proven by some lab work and indeed methane gas can be generated without any biological sources. If I can find the link, I will post it here. The question remains if there is vast quantities that are continuously replenished down there, so far no major find. I am not for fossil fuels, but methane gas can be generated without organisms involved, just like in Titan where atmosphere contains vast amounts of methane and other hydrocarbons.

Ah, I got it, the wacky scientist was Thomas Gold, long dead now. See the link at the bottom of the post.

Also, folks at Cornell have discussed such geological origins.

http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html

Here is a link that might be useful: Deep Earth Fuel

Interesting comments - thanks for same.

I recall reading about the closing of one of our local landfills a few years ago. One geologist claimed the area had enough methane gas in it, to provide quite a number of homes with heat for a number of years. However, these gases have been vented into the atmosphere instead.

This is certainly a new era - if we can be mobilized to recycle most of our trash (compost, etc.), then perhaps a miracle can be hatched to recycle some of the methane as well.

I did a Goggle to find some of the governors proposals for solar, but none came up. Is this just a middle of the road, non-controversial subject that he thinks might divert the public from our states' real issues??

Am still interested in the prospect of solar and recycling in all of its aspects, as it just makes good common sense in a world of excesses.

Thanks for the come-back.

Bejay

I have a friend who is a super senior research engineer working on renewable energy at the California Energy Commission. He told me that the methane gas from landfills are overhyped. It is very inefficient and very slow compared to other alternatives. One should not think that the landfills are giant biodigesters that will just churn out methane gas, that is absolutely overstated. The landfills are not ideally suited for efficient production of biogas. Proof of this is that paper in the landfill will decompose in several decades, therefore, if we can sort out the organic trash versus the inorganics and have the organic components go into a biodigester instead, then it will create a hundred fold more energy. Think about how many homes the current landfill gas generation can provide right now, then multiply that by a hundred more if we do the recycling properly. The problem is we also need a huge capital outlay for the more efficient alternative, but suffice it to say that we should not think of landfill as miraculous places to digest every trash and convert it to energy, that is flat out hype propagated by the uneducated reporters and media and also by people in the landfill and trash industry. We need more research into how best to utilize and recycle trashes more efficiently.

I'm with you Bejay in using solar power. If each home would utilize solar power, we could reduce the localized higher temperature in some cities, reduce overall pollution generated by fossil-fuel-based power plants. The reduce air emissions will contribute to lessening the impact of greenhouse gasses.

Ultimately most energy become wasted as heat or higher entropy state. What is happening right now is we have sunlight falling into our cities plus the imported power from the electric grid lines which both ends up as heat ultimately. If we generate electric power on site, we are converting some of the sunlight, which still end up as heat, so basically no change with respect to sunlight contribution, BUT we would have significantly reduced the importation of electricty, thus significantly reducing heat that we pump out into our local environments. That amount of imported energy reduction is correlated with reduction of heat energy dumped into the environment. Now think about global warming if we multiply those number of cities. That is the other benefit of using sunlight aside from zero emissions.

The Church down the street from my BF's house has gone solar... and it is a bigger building than a normal house... they must make quite the $$. I always thought that they should build new houses with solar panels.

I consider myself an environmentalist. I personally would love to move to a solar electrical system. But I don't plan to do so in the near future based on simple economics. I live just east of Los Angeles, and it gets pretty warm in the summer. Even so, my electricity bills average out to be about $600/year. My house is small, has good insulation, has central a/c, is shaded by an oak tree, and every major appliance is energy-efficient.

Suppose I installed a system for $10,000 afer rebates and tax breaks. *If* usage and prices continue, then I'd break even in about 17 years. That's also assuming that nothing needs to be repaired and my electrical needs stay constant. Also, my electric company doesn't buy back surplus electricity. No matter how hard I try, I cannot justify such a large purchase with a break-even point so far in the future.

For me, I would get a better return by planting shade trees than by buying solar electrical system.

In your case loneranger, it is impossible to break even when you consider amortization and present value.

Let us say a modest interest rate of your loan of $10,000 is 7.00%, and you are required to pay a monthly installment for a lifetime of 20 years for a good solar panel. That would be $77.53 a month times $930.36 a year. When the solar panels dies out in 20 years though you will have to pay the dump to dispose of the trash or pay the recylcing centers, now they are charging people who wish to recycle anything that have electronics and I don't know if Solar panels are classified under this nonsense rule.

In other words right now, based on our personal economics, not counting the environmental benefits, the interest rate will never ever be recouped by any savings in electricity, thus it is an economic investment disaster like throwing money into a blackhole. But as others have mentioned, it is not only the direct personal economics that we should count.

just replace the 'times' with or. $77.53/month = $930.36/year is what I meant.

I just had a meeting with the rep from the solar power company this morning and then came online to do research and found this topic. Here is what the rep told me:

The out of pocket cost to me would be $26,900. I have a small 1300 square foot house. I am a Southern California Edison customer and how it works with them is that every month you get a "bill" that shows how much energy you have made and used. The number on your bill will be a positive (meaning you owe) or a negative (meaning you don't owe.) Regardless of what it shows, you don't pay monthly. At the end of the year if the number is positive then you owe them money. If it's negative you don't owe them anything. They don't pay you a check at any time.

The amount given in rebates is going down in June. This means you pay more out of pocket. There is currently a bill in the state congress that would freeze the amount given in rebates so they won't go down any more beginning next year. The rebate will still be lower than what it is now. It looks like the bill will pass.

There is huge demand for solar power in other countries so it's a matter of demand and supply and since demand is so high it doesn't look like the prices will be coming down anytime soon.

I would love to do solar but $26,900 is a lot for me so I think I will pass. Plus, I think it would take too long to get to the break even point on it. If it were $10000 or less I would really consider it.

Not sure if this helps anyone or not but thought I would pass on what the rep told me.

The whole thing is both intriguing and annoying. I have, too, looked into solar energy, mostly as a means to reduce energy bills but also to become less energy dependent on the PG&Es of the world. It's too bad that as demand has grown, the prices for the actual panels and installation has NOT. Plus, while it sounds good that you may be able to "sell" a surplus of energy to energy companies, this is actually very tricky. You can only "sell" the actual energy at the time it is 1) in need and 2) you have a surplus. It cannot be stored. So, for example, if during a really hot, sunny day when your system is making more energy than your property requires and if the power grid is need of energy and is willing to accept it, than you can transfer that 'surplus' energy. In reality what actually happens is energy companies generally impose blackouts or they discourage the use of energy by charging higher rates during peak-use hours.

IMO, perhaps the best way for the whole solar energy thing to work is somewhat similar---very loosely---to how government subsidies work for crops such as cotton. If you have a surplus as described above, and if the power grid is in need, energy companies must purchase the excess energy from private means (such as your solar units) at market price BEFORE any blackouts or higher charges are imposed.

JMHO, but otherwise both the government and energy companies will continue to play their goofy games and we, the consumer, continue to get a kick in the pants. I wish solar energy was immediately viable, but so far it's tough to make a go at it.

Hmmmmm.....well....

I invested in a solar (PV) system about 3 years ago. Originally I was going to go larger than I did, but my contractor pointed out that one does better financially to cover the expensive higher tiered power so I bought a 3kW system. After rebates, my cost was just under $10k. If you finance that as part of your mortgage, that'll cost fifty bucks a month (give or take). My system produces about $100/month worth of power, so it EASILY pays for itself every month, although one could argue it will take several years to "pay for itself". Do any of my true gardening activities really pay for themselves?

Note...if you don't use a lot of power, a solar system is not cost effective. In my old house (pre-married days) my power bill was only $30/month. Now that I attached to someone with a slightly different comfort level requirement, my bill jumped to $130/month. (In fairness, I also now have an electric water heater.) The cost-effectiveness is for 2 reasons....my baseline rate is 13 cents/kwh, my 3rd tier power is 25 cents/kwh. Power I generate comes off the top--- (400 kwh/mo)x(25cents/kwh) = $100. If I generated power to cover my baseline usage it would be worth half as much per kwh...it is currently cheaper just to buy it. Also, and more importantly, I have time-of-use metering (TOU). This is very nice if you can adjust when you use power. What it means is that I buy or sell power at a price based on the time of day, rather than the tiered structure. For example...during the summer, I buy power at night for around 15 cents/kwh (regardless of volume), and during the day (when the sun is shining) I sell it for 40 cents. Weekends count as night time, btw. Thus, even though I only produce about 1/3 of the energy I produce, I have power bill that are negative. In the winter there is much less of a premium on power, and the sun doesn't shine quite so effectively, so I owe money. This is good (sort of), because the way Edison works is that if I owe them at the end of the year, I pay. If they owe me.....well, we "forget about it".

Longevity....the panels do slowly lose efficiency, but will still be cranking in 30 years. The supporting electronics (inverter) has a 10 year lifetime, but hopefully reliability will go up, and cost down in the near future (Thank you Japan and Germany). There is some great research going on which should make the PV material much cheaper, but who knows when. Don't get me started on where our government chooses to spend its energy research dollars. It's almost like our energy plan was crafted by oil guys.

Bottom line....my system is great...I've got two coworkers who have now also gone solar, and a third is getting ready. I might have been better off putting the same money into other technologies (on demand water heaters, more efficient windows & insulation, etc.), but I jumped in while I could and while rebates where high...I'll work on other stuff as I have time and $$$. And who knows, maybe I'll eventually make my wife happy and do something with those fancy solar water heater panels that have been leaning against the front of the house for 2 years now...

go solar! (And read up on Peak Oil)

-dr

Check out the big picture...these will keep you busy:

www.fromthewilderness.com (scarey beyond belief)
www.eia.doe.gov (maybe more scarey given the bias built in)

My experience is the same as Aegis's. We invested in a 2 kw system and with PGE rebates and state tax credit we got 8K back on a 16K installation. WE also have TOU metering and
generate way more than we use during the summer and (esp this wet winter) use more than we generate in winter months.

We figure we will break even in 10 years and the rest is gravy. The one thing I have not read here so far is your home's orientation. YOu need ideally a nonshaded southfacing roof (ours was within 5 degrees of true south). Our solar contractor said up to 15 degrees of south is good.

We did it for the environmental benefits..not the financial benefits. We had such a good experience with PGE we are now trying to reduce our reliance on natural gas (without any incentive) and are currently remodeling the bed/bath area of our 40 year old home to be a passive solar retrofit....concrete thermal mass walls and widows with special coatings to allow winter warmth.

Of course for many people they still need to take the obvious first steps ....planting decidous tree to shade their house, extra insulation, attic fan, low-e windows. etc.

Our local utility has a very good website about energy efficiency, just scroll past the rebates and see the other topics.

And let's not forget simple conservation...we got rid of all our halogen bulbs and use compact flourescent in many fixtures.

Mim

Here is a link that might be useful: PGE efficiency

When talking about break even point in your solar energy investments, one must always factor in the interest rates. In the vast majority of solar installations, if one considers the total cost of installation, the monetary value of the energy generated WILL NOT be enough to cover the interest rates alone. So in other words, in majority of the cases, there is no true break even point, it will never happen, it is a mathematical impossibility, but one thing for sure, the solar panels will break down and the investments down the drain. It is even made worse by the law of supply and demand now that many people wanted solar panel installations. But then again, as I always agree with most of you, overall Solar energy is good for our environment, a priceless contribution, so I salute with respect the homeowners who installs them, I wish I could install one also.

I guess it's important to note that while it's great to have PG&E (or whoever the energy provider is) provide rebates, they are actually paid for by all of us,---the consumer--- in the form of a "public purpose program surcharge." It's listed in the column on your bill under taxes. We contribute to the programs that these energy companies "provide." It sounds great that the PG&Es of the world are so benevolent, but it's really you and I that are actually paying for them.

I was told to expect a minimum of $15,000 in setup/equipment costs, and I'm not a heavy electricity user since the house has NO A/C, NO swamp cooler, NO clothes dryer, NO dishwasher (all left that way by choice--I like my world warm anyways so A/C would be stupid, I prefer air-dried clothes, and who needs a dishwasher then there's a perfectly good sink in the kitchen?) and the water heater, heating system, stove and oven are all gas. I've been steadily switching all the lightbulbs to compact fluorescents as the incandescents burn out, and have switched from laser to injet printers and "regular" computer monitors to flat-screen monitors.

Still, when it comes time to get the roof re-done (it will need the old layers (3) of shingles removed, too), I figure I'll have solar installed. It should eventually pay off. Just like my planting habits, I'm willing to wait an extra decade for a payoff.

If only the solar panels could be used as a viable roofing material it wouldn't be that bad to add solar when it is time to re-roof.

Your thoughts were certainly appreciated, and thank you for taking time to reply. It would seem there are different situations for different locations - as it were.

Here in the southern part of the state, we seem to be paying out a lot for "other" items on our energy bills, rather than the energy itself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems all of the extras are a bit out of line, (i.e. transmission, distribution, public purpose programs, nuclear decomissioning, competition transition charge (?), reliability, bond charge, etc.).

While our usage just isn't all that great (only 2 people in the house, no A/C, etc.), all of the other "add-ons" are what the real bill is made up of. I can certainly appreciate operating costs - but -

If these are still applied as part of being attached to the "grid" - then spending a lot of money to install solar energy, would not amount to a lot of saving as the actual energy itself is now not the big expense.

While a "stand alone" set-up might be efficient, I'm not sure it would be practical in our location. Perhaps in areas - such as desert - or where there is a steady abundance of sunshine, it might be practical, but having to rely on "the grid" makes the whole solar picture a bit expensive.

Thanks again, it gave me a chance to see the broader picture -

Bejay

I wanted to add that it is not entirely correct to frame the debate that we are paying for it anyway....in surcharges, etc. Of course we ultimatley foot the bill for everything, but there was an article on my local paper today about the commercial rebates for solar and there have been enough projects installed so far equivalent to generating power for 14,000 homes. I do not know how musch generating power the residential projects ential, but probably the same or more. That is that much less power that PGE itself has to figure out how to generate...and the consumers who purchased solar helped pay for half of it..so in a wierd way it does help benefit everyone..including those who are paying surcharges.

Mim

And to add a little more....
-The power companies (and their customers) aren't just subsidizing solar to feel warm and fuzzy. As power demand grows (population and toys, mitigated somewhat by increased efficiency), the power companies need to provide more power. Power plants are expensive, and fuel is getting moreso. Dispersed solar is perfect (except the somewhat high cost); it peaks with demand during the day when folks run A/C and other devices, it doesn't burden transmission lines (nor suffer losses from them), and the long term costs are fixed.

-Subsidies....hmmmm....Iraq is costing how much again? I've read that our military costs amount to a $20/barrel subsidy for Middle East (and increasingly other) oil. And guess what...it doesn't matter how much we protect that oil---we/they WILL run out. Health...I'm guessing the production of the panels has some environmental cost, but there are no emissions of any sort from my system. In fact, its operation results in cooling a dark roof (Interesting---the panels convert solar energy into electrical energy...if the light were merely absorbed it would all be converted to kinetic energy (heat)).

-Cost..The last post makes and excellent point...do the math...for some people (low power users, people who live in deep dark canyons) solar is not cost effective. But for most it is a viable path. My example again: I can pay the mortgage folks $50/month (purchase), or the power company $100/month (rent, sort of). These prices represent the same power usage...which price makes more sense? And consider that the solar cost (mortgage) is fixed. I'm guessing the Edison price will rise. Admittedly, the pricing structure might change to make solar less attractive, but it might go the other way, too. Even now I get to pay a special fee for the privilege of producing power.

BTW...I produced my 10,000th kwh last month!

plan for the future (but not like James Watt)
-dr

I honestly don't know what Iraq has to do with solar energy in California.

I believe it was pertinent to point out that these rebates are simply provisioned for by the Public Utilities Commission, into which we all pay. No one is saying it's bad that the consumer is contributing to what is quite frankly a great, environmentally safe method of producing energy,--- in the hopes that these rebates will build interest (like for example, on this forum), prompting others to actually try it. I guess being honest and mentioning where the rebate money is actually derived, made people upset!

Solar power is not for everyone, but it a wonderful option for those who consume a fair amount of energy, anyone who may be deemed a 'heavy-user.' It only makes sense that the pay-off is that much greater in that regard.

As of last month, the number of homes equipped with solar panels in the state of California was 12,000. Let's all hope that number only increases, allowing more people to take advantage of this opportunity.

Lola, I believe Aegis' point is that we heavily subsidize the cost of oil through our military intervention in the Middle East (that is, we would pay a lot more if the cost of our military protection of sea lanes, invasion of a major oil producer, etc, were factored into the pump price), so a subsidy to promote solar is not really a bad thing in contrast--to the contrary, it is positive social policy. So yes, the two are related.

And as Pookiesmom notes, the cost of foregoing new generation capacity at PG&E is cheaper than building a new power plant (about $1 billion per GW).

The ultimate test of solar, however, is energy returned on energy invested. We have become an oil-based society because of the incredibly high "energy profit" of oil--that is, it takes only a unit of energy to produce 30 units of oil (in the past it was as high as 100). However, solar panels are a different matter. Because of the high energy costs of making the silicon panels (and the energy use in development of the raw materials, manufacturing energy use, and installation energy use), PV panels may not pay back the energy used to make them over their lifetimes. Other, newer panels, may well have an energy profit over their lifetime, but the margin is not large. So, ultimately, these may be a great investment for some people in some places, and I believe social policy should encourage it, but solar PV, unfortunately, can't contribute much to our larger electrical grid because of its low energy profit. In California, this is worrisome since North American natural gas production has peaked and entered decline, while 40% of California's electricity generation is dependent on natural gas. Wind, in contrast, has an energy profit ranging from 20 to 35!

David

Thank you, EP, for the explanation. . . I truly didn't know how the two were related but you have explained it and I appreciate it.

The url below is a story from a local news station that aired recently on solar. It mentions that for every $1 saved [after installing solar], you can add $20 of re-sale value to your home. I thought this was intriguing as I hadn't heard this figured into any of our discussions on investment vs. payback, I believe.

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/features/consumerwatch/consumer_052505_solar.html

To some people the sight of solar panel is a big turn off (an eyesore) and therefore lowers the saleability of the homes for those people, I hope they factored that in. Fortunately there are more homebuyers who value the environment more than what pleases their eyes.

When it comes to payback and investments of solar energy, one should look at the various scenarios of future alternative energy costs. For example if the rate of increase of the cost of fossil fuels or the cost of electric energy units are far higher than the loan interest rate of solar panel installation, then indeed it becomes a truly viable investment and one can project a real break even point.

Calculations of break even point as discussed by many posters often have very simple assumptions, one of the common one is no interest rate, simply calculate the break even point, and that electric energy cost and usage remain constant. Another set of common assumption considers interest rate but that energy usage remained the same, and also implied that the energy cost rises at the same rate or proportional to the interest rate.

But if we can be confident that the rate of increase of electric energy cost will be far higher than the interest rate of the loan, then we can be more confident of a wiser financial investment in solar panels.

Well, I was searching for something else when I hit this thread, but I thought I'd throw in my $0.02.

One thing only the last poster mentioned was resale value. The last poster thought a PV panel would lower resale value. Actually, that's dead wrong. The stats I read indicated that PV will increase your house's value by almost 2x the cost of the system. That makes it look better, no?

Ok..I just did a lot of digging, looking into PV for my home/business/farm. SunPower & Geothermal Inc has an excellent site and their links are also outstanding.

The way they do their payments is to take what you normally pay for power each month NOW as their monthly payment. Usually, the PV pays that back easily in summer daylight and most winter days.

I highly recommend their site; these people have put in a LOT of power here in Oroville, and do an excellent job with honest numbers.

Me, I figure to put in a bit more than I really need for my power requirements and make a small but significant profit.

Joe, I don't really understand why you are so negative except that you're pointing out things we may have missed (which is appreciated!).

PV is becoming more and more integrated with architecture all the time; the 'waffle look' isn't always there anymore! (Which I will admit is awfully nice.)

There is also a tremendous difference between the look of a 'solar for power' setup and one which is planned into the look of a place. Big difference, and I find that the planned look is far more preferable.

I live in an area which, during summer, receives downright obnoxious amounts of sunlight and heat. The heat is not necessarily good; hot solar doesn't generate as well nor does it last as long (although most panels are now warranteed for 25 years regardless). There is a certain amount of maintenance--you have to keep them washed down in dry periods to minimize dust-caused decrease in power generation, and cooling is necessary in hot areas to help keep generation efficient. Water is often used for this cooling need; the growth, however, of a vigorous shade- and moisture-loving ornamental under a freestanding installation might significantly help in water conservation as well as cooling effect.

If chosen with care, the gardening hobby we all love could also generate a bit of income.

And NO, you shouldn't try to grow cannabis under the panels, ok? :) I was thinking more of violets for flower or scent production, or the shade-preferring herbals.

Anyway...at this point, putting in slightly more PV than your own requirements might be well worth asking about, if you have the space and ability--it might set off that interest rate Joe's going on about.

PA

The best kept secret in California is that the state has a generous rebate program to encourage solar power installation. Our 3KW system cost $22,000 but we paid only $12,000. The state paid the rest. If you can afford it, this is a no-brainer.

In the daytime, esp summer, we produce more electricity than we consume, and it flows into the grid, where PG&E is required by law to accept it and credit us at the higher daytime rates. At night, we consume electricity from PG&E and pay the lower off-peak rates.

Imagine the day when every home in California has solar cells. You can understand why the private utility companies don't want you to go solar.

Holedigger wrote, "If only the solar panels could be used as a viable roofing material it wouldn't be that bad to add solar when it is time to re-roof."

Someone in my neighborhood has solar "shingles" on her garage roof, facing the street. They are PV units that look and act just like a dark roofing material, and if you don't know they are PV units, you won't notice them. She did wait until it was time to reroof, and did it a few years ago when the rebates were higher, so ended up spending not much more than a standard roofing job, IIRC. I don't recall the name of the product she used, but if you google on "PV shingles" you'll find a lot of info.

Habitat Gardener,I am familiar with the product you mention. Here is a link. It is too new for me to consider, but on the right track. A solar installer that I had spoken with poo-poo'd it as problematic in terms of the tremendous amount of wiring that was necessary for installation, as well as it being unproven technology. Of course he did not rep this product so there might have been some salesmanship involved. In the meantime I have been reading about some new solar technologies that sound interesting. Solar concentrators. Google it. Also the development of cheaper plastic solar cells vs. the current silicon cells. If you want to keep up with emerging eco-friendly technology try:

http://www.worldchanging.com

Here is a link that might be useful: uni-solar photovoltaic shingles

I checked solar out five years ago, and at that time I estimated it would cost me about $30,000 to put in a 2 kWh system for my home. Apparently prices have gone down since then, perhaps due to cheaper solar panels. The most suitable roof on my property (southern exposure) is a wood cedar shingle one, and I'm not inclined to drill through the wood to install solar panels, as I feel it is likely to cause subsequent leaks. So I decided to wait until I redo the roof in asphalt or metal.

Solar panels commonly used today are only about 10% efficient, last time I checked. That is, they only convert 10% of the solar energy into electricity. It would be great if they were more efficient, and cheaper as well.

I do have a lot of solar-powered walkway lights on my property - I notice most of these tend to start failing after a couple of years. Sometimes it's as simple as a battery replacement, but usually it's because the electronics have failed, or perhaps the LED's. Most of these are not sealed well against weather, which probably doesn't help. I have a similar problem with plug-in LED nightlights, so I suspect the LED's, especially the white ones, don't last as long as claimed.

But I'm a sucker for solar. I just picked up a set of 15 LED walkway lights at Costco... under $100. We'll see if they last any longer than the others...

I just stumbled onto this site and read thru it. I am an electrical contractor, for the last 23 yrs i have been in this trade. in the last 3 yrs i have been trying to intergrade solar installation into my business, taking classes offered by the state and suppliers. this last year i stsrted installing solar systems for a solar contractor i met at a solar class. I have learned a lot. in PG&E area if your utility bill is over 200. a month a solar system is a plus for you, the pay back can be as soon as 8 yrs. the going rate for material & labor is about 8.25 per watt. the rebate can be between 8.000 to 15.000 depending on your system. you have a choice of elimiting your bill up to 100%. the adverage system is sized to reduce your bill by 70%. in this area no utility co pays you for what you produce.your system is sized to produce the amount of kilowatts that you use in a complete year. that allows for winter months, foggy days, and such. it all adverages out at the end of the year. if it is sized right you could only owe the utility co under 100.at the end of the year.modules made today are very efficent, the first solar crystal made in 1956 is still producing 60 % of its capaticy today. modules today will last far over there warranty. I dont claim to know everything about solar but i am learning as i continue to install systems.I just thought i could share what i have learned.gotta go. what no spell check!

If it were simply up to me I would put in solar tomorrow. The other person in our family who gets a vote is less enthusiastic, alas.

We plan to put on solar roof panels when we reroof the house within the next 2 years. Hopefully some of the rebates will continue, but even without them, we would do it.

It is an investment in the future, just as the house itself is. The long side of our house is an unobstructed southern exposure, so we are sited very well for solar.

One advantage I foresee is that we can look into putting in electrical heat. I have been very unhappy with our forced air gas furnace -- I don't like the dust, the noise, the drafts and uneven heating. We have a small house with two stories and I plan to look into radiant panels. Or, we could install a heat pump system that would re-use the ducting, but we'll see what works out best.

We don't need to borrow money to pay for the panels as we can pay cash. Thus, there will be no interest charges, which is good.

We plan to sell this house eventually, probably within the next 15 years. I expect solar to be a very good selling point. Virtually everything we've done to this house has been "ahead of the trend" and we've been fortunate to be vindicated that our re-design has paid off so well. An investment in solar is not guaranteed to be a positive on resale, but I think the odds are good that it will be.

We are considering adding a PV system. SunPower & Geothermal does not install in our area, so we are going to talk to Real Goods. Our south facing roof is toward the back of the property, and faces a field, and then woods, so appearance is not an issue. We have gas heat and dryer, but lights, computers, TV, water heater, dishwasher, and rarely-used air conditioner take up a lot of power. This is something I have wanted to do for years, and now the two of us are both interested.

Cost? We'll have to make some cutbacks, but I think it will be worth it. Think of it as costing as much as a nice but not luxurious new car.

I have learned thru my partner that sun slate roof tiles are not as efficient as the standard module panel. any solar panel produces heat as a by product and this heat is generated thru the back of the panel. where as you need air flow to keep the module cool. 3" is the min amount required for air flow any less will reduce the % of current produced. tile modules are less efficient but more appealing in my opinion.Sharp has just come out with there new tile. i went to a 1 day class 2 months ago and installed these on a mock roof at the Sharp center in So Cal. the module is about 18" x40", it can replace about4 tiles.Sharp has modifided the panel and has raised it up about 1" off of the roof and has this new type of item(not released yet, hush) that allows air flow under the tiles, these will do very good on the market. most people think that because you are getting solar modules, you can increase the amount of electricity that you use. but remember when you size your system it is sized for the total kilowatts thru the last year, this is your standard amount of electricity used. if your system is sized for that amount and then you add to your electricity usage you will increase youw anunally wattage. which will decrease your amount you are putting back on the grid, thus increase the amount of your bill.i have heard my partner tell all of his customers, if you have a gas water heater, "keep it".

We've had solar heated water for 20 years, but we just plugged into the sun 25 days ago with PV cells on our shop roof. While this is the worst time of the year (low sun, short days) for generating Kilowatts, we're getting about half our daily needs even now. There is a 10 year paydown, but that doesn't matter to me as much as doing a bit to ease the grid. The surprising bonus for me is that I've become hyper-aware of what my appliances do. I've gone back to hanging up some of my clothes instead of using the dryer so much (surprisingly enjoyable). I don't pre-rinse dishes and make sure the dishwasher is full before using. We've replaced all our bulbs with low wattage, and I'm on the lookout for LED Christmas lights. I get a kick out of the PG&E meter saying "receiving" instead of "delivering."

I was thinking about this thread the other evening when we were without power for 3 hours. It sure would be nice not to have to worry about that anymore.

We've just had two estimates and have decided to go ahead with one of them. While it is not cheap, we are pretty sure we will break even in 7-8 years, depending on some variables. We plan to live in our current house longer than that, so it seems like a good idea. And yes, I do feel very good about using power that did not contribute to pollution, except in the initial setup.

Funny thing - I do agree with justmeguy. Even though we haven't put the system in yet, I'm already becoming more concious of the power we use and little ways to reduce it. We are putting in a system that will cover 80% of our current useage, but my DH and I have set ourselves a goal of reducing our power useage so that our year net to PG&E is zero. That would make our payback a little faster than the estimate I listed above.

Rosefolly

"I was thinking about this thread the other evening when we were without power for 3 hours. It sure would be nice not to have to worry about that anymore."

It would. But I'm not so sure that a personal PV system would elimnate the worries of being without power. A generator-powered transfer switch might be a better option for getting you through a blackout. At present, I don't think that a PV system provides all that much freedom from dependence on the grid. In remote locations, they are sometimes set up that way, but significant lifestyle adjustments are necessary to live in a house that runs on sun-rechargeable batteries. One should note also that a personally-owned PV system is subject to things-go-wrong downtime and damage from extreme weather just as any other power system is. 24 hr.-reliability is actually one of the main advantages in the favor of public utilities generation.

dick_sonia makes a very good point. Putting up a rooftop solar array without batteries, and remaining connected to the utility grid, will not protect you from power outages.

It will, on the other hand, save you money, help offset the rising cost of US energy usage, maybe help with the global warming issue; not to mention the bragging rights and possible upside on the resale issue.

If you can afford it -- and it really costs no more than a standard sized new car -- it's probably one of the best inheritance gifts we can give to future generations.