• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Would you consider solar energy?

Siva

Diamond Member
With an general increase in energy prices this summer (our bill is HUGE) as well as many states offering subsidies for people installing solar power systems, would you consider it? Is the lower energy bill price worth the $10,000+ you'd have to spend on the system, or would you do it for the environment.

California is aiming to put solar power in 1/2 of new homes built by 2013 :Q
 
new hampshire actually gives people a property tax stipend (pretty much cash in your pocket) if they use solar power (i think exclusively).
 
Substantial increases in efficiency and a large reduction in production costs would be required before I would consider it.
 
If I lived in the states that Ross mentioned, definitely. Otherwise, the chance of partly cloudy/cloudy days and the less-intense sunlight in the other states just doesn't make it as viable an option.

 
Originally posted by: K1052
Substantial increases in efficiency and a large reduction in production costs would be required before I would consider it.

Production costs have been going down for years, but demand has driven prices way up.
 
Originally posted by: Siva
With an general increase in energy prices this summer (our bill is HUGE) as well as many states offering subsidies for people installing solar power systems, would you consider it? Is the lower energy bill price worth the $10,000+ you'd have to spend on the system, or would you do it for the environment.

California is aiming to put solar power in 1/2 of new homes built by 2013 :Q

I'm seriously considering it actually. It would be nice to be less reliant on the big energy companies for my power. The lower or non-existant electric bill would be nice also.
 
I would love to but the costs are prohibitive still. Would be nice to be able to do a little part of getting rid of the dependence on the Oilers.

-MC
 
if a solar panel on the roof could power even one or two appliances (ie. PC?), then it would be a very welcome addition!
 
Originally posted by: Siva
Originally posted by: K1052
Substantial increases in efficiency and a large reduction in production costs would be required before I would consider it.

Production costs have been going down for years, but demand has driven prices way up.

The cost per kWh using photovoltaics is still many times higher than any other source.
 
$10,000? Mor elike $30,000 for a good system. I'd get it in a heartbeat if it wasn't so incredibly expensive. Takes almost 10 years to pay it off. If I was building a new house I'd probably include it somehow but not on an existing one since everything has to be retrofitted.
 
I'd consider it if

a) It was integrated with my existing power system, so I could use regular power if my solar panels weren't enough, and I wouldn't have to get enough panels to power my entire house right away.

b) I could sell power back to the electrical company if I had any excess.

c) The price came down a lot, which it would if solar got a lot more popular.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Siva
Originally posted by: K1052
Substantial increases in efficiency and a large reduction in production costs would be required before I would consider it.

Production costs have been going down for years, but demand has driven prices way up.

The cost per kWh using photovoltaics is still many times higher than any other source.

QFMFT solar is insanely more expensive. if you take the cost of a solar panel and invest the money in an average yield money market, it is cheaper over any amount of time to just buy the electricity. for solar to become economically viable as a large pwer source, photovoltaics need to come down like 90% in cost, or oil/coal/uranium needs to go up a ton
 
Solar power has its place. As the price of solar cells fall it will become more cost effective to suppkement your connection to the grid with roof mounted solar cells. However until energy storage technology becomes cheaper I don't think solar will be a cost effective 24/7 power source.

At work I use a 24/7 system of solar cells and batteries to provide continous power and that system cost about 1.2 billion dollars (see link in sig for a picture)

It'll happen eventually but the question is how long.
 
I would consider at least solar heating... however, solar panels are a bit expensive (considering the extra costs in batteries, convertors, regulators and so on)
 
Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
QFMFT solar is insanely more expensive. if you take the cost of a solar panel and invest the money in an average yield money market, it is cheaper over any amount of time to just buy the electricity. for solar to become economically viable as a large pwer source, photovoltaics need to come down like 90% in cost, or oil/coal/uranium needs to go up a ton

These calculations are almost uniformly based on the assumption that the panels only last through the warranty period. A very high percentage of panels last much longer than their warranty. Reading one of the solar periodicals it was found that someone that installed a solar array in the 80's would typically have one to two bad panel after 25 years (20-30 years is the typical warranty). We to this day don't know what the MTBF is on the panels so cannot effectively estimate lifetime costs. I don't know about you, but we have had bi-yearly increases in electricity cost out here, 10 years ago power cost 5cents/kwh, now we are pusing 8cents/kwh. If prices continue to increase the panel costs start to become reasonable. IIRC panels are typically good for 15cents/kwh using that 25 year life figure. What the costs really are though is up in the air.

So becareful discussing the financials of PV solar panels because the life cycle costs are based on faulty assumptions of panel life IMO.

edit - I should add that a lot of people are talking about energy storage and battaries, you need to consider that about 50% of the states are net-metering states now, net-metering allows you to plug your panels into the grid and spin the meter backwards while you aren't using the power off the panels.
 
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
QFMFT solar is insanely more expensive. if you take the cost of a solar panel and invest the money in an average yield money market, it is cheaper over any amount of time to just buy the electricity. for solar to become economically viable as a large pwer source, photovoltaics need to come down like 90% in cost, or oil/coal/uranium needs to go up a ton

These calculations are almost uniformly based on the assumption that the panels only last through the warranty period. A very high percentage of panels last much longer than their warranty. Reading one of the solar periodicals it was found that someone that installed a solar array in the 90's would typically have one to two bad panel after 25 years (20-30 years is the typical warranty). We to this day don't know what the MTBF is on the panels so cannot effectively estimate lifetime costs. I don't know about you, but we have had bi-yearly increases in electricity cost out here, 10 years ago power cost 5cents/kwh, now we are pusing 8cents/kwh. If prices continue to increase the panel costs start to become reasonable. IIRC panels are typically good for 15cents/kwh using that 25 year life figure. What the costs really are though is up in the air.

So becareful discussing the financials of PV solar panels because the life cycle costs are based on faulty assumptions of panel life IMO.

edit - I should add that a lot of people are talking about energy storage and battaries, you need to consider that about 50% of the states are net-metering states now, net-metering allows you to plug your panels into the grid and spin the meter backwards while you aren't using the power off the panels.


Thats true if your state allows net metering you can use the entire grid as you "battery". However if you plan on being disconnected entirely it's a much more expensive proposition.

I could see in the future if cheap fuel cells become available storing excess solar power as hydrogen to power your very own home fuel cell. That however is still along way off.
 
Originally posted by: Siva
With an general increase in energy prices this summer (our bill is HUGE) as well as many states offering subsidies for people installing solar power systems, would you consider it? Is the lower energy bill price worth the $10,000+ you'd have to spend on the system, or would you do it for the environment.

California is aiming to put solar power in 1/2 of new homes built by 2013 :Q

I would do solar power if it weren't for the huge initial costs. 10k in startup costs is ridiculous. However it can be done, you can use batteries and solar power and still have standard electricity when batteries and/or chargers aren't running at full capacity. But 10k in startup cost is significant.
 
If I lived in an area where it is worth it (up here in Cambridge, half of the year is overcast), and owned a house, I might consider it. I have some friends around Santa Cruz, CA who have solar panels, and it cost them ~$31000, but they haven't used conventional electricity in a year (since it was set up), and between the power bill (or lack of it) and CAs tax deduction, they'll have the whole thing be free by '08.
 
If the cost comes down and technology is refined, then I have no problem with using solar power. The amount of solar radiation that hits this planet is off the charts, we just can't take advantage of even a fraction.
 
Back
Top