All Forum Posts by: Steve K.

@Steve K.

if they make economic sense, why don't people install without the mandate? I know people who installed only because government paid a large portion of the bill. If not, they would not be feasiblefor them. also, now that they are mandated. the price will increase. kind of how when buying crayons for school kids, the smaller mandated packs are more expensive than the larger packs. it is inevitable.

Northern California here. Had solar installed last month, enough to conservatively offset 126% of estimated usage. After a 30% tax credit and financing (3.99%) we were able to get a 25 year Sunpower 7.1kw system installed with a monthly payment less than our average electric bill($196 pmt vs $197 non-solar)

With NEM we'll be able to bank the surplus and use it throughout the year, which will especially be important for the higher rate during time of use (TOU) of 3-8 pm that PG&E charges. Summer months will offset winter months, assuming it's during the same 3-8 window. Since it's a yearly true up bill it'll all be reconciled and balanced out every January in our case. Having your utility company act as your battery for surplus is huge. And speaking of the company, PG&E will undoubtedly continue 5%+ YoY rate increases, which will be protected by a system producing over 100% of usage.

Our breakeven point is almost exactly 6 years, after which the system will generate for another 18 years under the 25 year comprehensive warranty.

Technically the system will cash flow from day one, all with no money down. I had to run the numbers several times to believe it myself, because just a few years ago it was a very different story.

So yeah, not a big deal that by 2020 it'll be required, at least for California which is perhaps the best state for residential solar.

Honestly that’s pretty discouraging that a teacher told you those things. 5% degradation was literally the case in the 90’s I think. It’s been less than 1% for a long time now. Solar tech is improving every day, gotta constantly update. Fundamentally he’s right on the direct light and shade issues, we shoot for ideal orientation and no shade obviously but that’s become less important over the last few years with micro inverters and panels coming down in price, we have more options now and sometimes it’s even cost effective to put panels on the north side of a roof which a few years ago would have been considered moronic. Hit me up with any other questions on here or DM. 

@Steve K.

Well a lot of it contradicts what a teacher had told me. I will definitely ask and I love the feedback for sure so thank you

the ones in the 1970s and how in-efficient they were he said there is no way and doubts a lot of what I just read to him.

I will go back and read more but there a lot of threads and sometimes you don’t know who the source is. A lot of this info is from a teacher so I could be conveying it wrong but he seems a lot more pessimistic. But he’s also an expert on electricity.

But that is why I am on here! :)

Knowledge can be a scarce resource

I definitely appreciate the constructive feedback Steve.

Still did not address these companies going out of business. There are utility companies going BK but some do blame the recent fire.

Time to do more research

Ty !

Except when you have to exchange/replace the roof, if they are install on the roof. Depending on the roof area, this can add-up to 15% of the cost of the roof replacement. Again, thinking on 3-4 story apartment complexes, the net roof area is smaller per apartment # under the same roof than a SFH, so you need to come up with space to install the adequate # of solar panels. You still have savings benefits thought (8-10 years since investment?). You can install solar panels on parking lots, but efficiency will depend on many factors.

@Steve K.

Great post.  I understand your point.  While you can take advantage of "points" in your area, it may not be the same for other investors with big projects on different areas.  I'm assuming the "points" were based on LEED points/status.  This is good, and if a project have LEED requirements and you can profit from it then go ahead and build.  I'm not a LEED certified but I know competing with projects/awards with LEED requirements plays an important role.  

This is different to everyone with medium to large housing projects that must comply with the "mandatory State solar energy regulation".   Sometimes it is just not efficient, or you have to dedicate land or buy land to comply with these requirements, which can kill the deal.  

@S E Huffaker I’m definitely going into the solar repair business lol. Have they even taken that into account or the fact that this rapid influx of demand will drive likely drive up solar panel prices and maintenance prices? How are large scale mixed use developments going to operate?

It’s unfortunate that any American is forced to do something like have health insurance(even though it may be smart) solar power etc.

If they’re going to enforce a mandated extra expense there should be tax credits etc for the builder as they are bearing the burden of the upfront costs while the homeowner reaps the backend savings. It’s just going to slow building and home sales slightly. However it’s California home of the Prius so who knows.

I want to build a house off the grid, but it’s MY decision to make.

@Steven Picker

Now I’m no expert but this is what I gathered so if I’m wrong in any area, constructive feed back is most definitely welcome

Pros

1. You get to feel really good about yourself without every having to understand economics or how the business works(same with socialism)

2. During very very hot days, people will have enough energy to meet their electricity uses(heat AC use)

3. China is producing a lot for cheap so replacing them isn’t that expensive.

Cons

1. At night time you’ll need batteries and those will be expensive. Also batteries don’t last and they create toxic waste(real green lol)

2. Excess/surplus energy will be sent back to the company, reversing your meter and then the company either sells it back to you at night so basically the utility company makes no money or they just have a bunch of excess they can’t sell. How will they survive(by charging fees!!!)? Energy will be needed on days solar won’t come through or be as effective. You need direct sunlight! (Full time perfect orientation will not be achieved) Don’t let an idiot tell you otherwise

3. Your energy needs are met by the sun while others operate 24/7.

4. Utilities charge a fee to maintain or just to have And can cost more then your normal electric bill(if you don’t believe this you need to talk to more people who have it, could be different in different areas)

The utility companies would go bankrupt otherwise.

5. Maybe it’s changed with technology but for the most part solar degrades by about 5 percent a year lasting about 20 years. So half way through the life is solar you are not getting nearly what you use to.

6. It goes on your roof. Any future roof work will need to consider this and could require extra material and maintenance.

Pro and con

6. Technology in solar only collects 1/3 of what it possibly could from all that light. If technology improves solar panels you have now will be outdated and need to be replaced.

Common sense

7. You’ll have to make sure trees are out of the way. Trees are pretty freakin green and great for shade/blocking the sun.

8. They can be expensive and a lot of people lease. Can make selling the house more of a headache as you an buyer have to discuss either removing it, taking it over or whatever you two want to roll with.