In the face of 40+% increases in power costs here in sunny california would it be any more feasible to look into mounting photovoltaics or some type of solar electricity generating system at a residential level. I havent heard much about this for many years, have we developed anything new that gives it a chance? I’m not asking as an environmental issue, just a cost effectiveness issue.
Last I checked, PV power was horribly inefficient, and couldn’t even begin to compete with grid power.
Don Lancaster once said, “Not one net watt has ever been produced with a solar panel.” I would assume this is still true, given that I haven’t heard about any breakthroughs in PV technologies.
Its being done in California already. Costs too much, cost so much that the people may never get even.
BTW: that 40% raise is only for heavy users & its really not that much, 3 cents kw hour. The gov is paying a lot of money to keep our elec rates low, I think that elec is cheap in Calif, for me its 9.9cents kw.
2001 Blackout : 2002 GrayOut
I did find this place in my wanderings, they claim systems paying for themselves in like 10-12 years. I was looking for something a lil smaller than this myself, or something I could do myself for under $1,000 and be able to add to it later. This place is like $20,000 for some monster solar systems
I have never heard a comparison of elec. costs in CA. compared with anywhere else. Is it the same? higher? lower?
Here in south FL it is 8.798 cents per kWHr
Its 11.7/kWh on my last bill as I recall.
Here is a link to a Greenpeace article. There is a link to their briefing paper in .pdf format at the bottom of the page. The gist of the report is that solar power is now more expensive than conventionally-produced power, but that the price can be brought down by economies of scale to about the same as conventionally-produced power.
There is a thread in the Pit that was started by a now-banned poster. In it, Coldfire reports that solar power is being used in The Netherlands, and he pays a 15% premium for “green” power.
IMO, PV cells are still way-inefficient; but I think that they will become more efficient when they are more widely used. That is to say, we need to build solar power facilities. This will create a demand for more efficient PV cells, which will be paid for by the power companies who will hope to make bigger profits by spending less to produce the power.
PASSIVE solar heating has been efficient – though the OP was referring to generation of electricity. We owned a 3200 square foot home (all on one level) in Chicago and paid less than $400 per year to heat it. In fact, air conditioning was the killer cost. At temperatures above 0 degrees F, the home would heat itself during the daytime.
Some of the secrets to the design:
– 24" insulation in the walls. Normal insulation in Chicago is about 10"-12"; here in Seattle I think that they express wall insulation in microns.
– 48" insulation in the ceilings. Normal: 20-24".
– No windows on N side of house. Many floor-to-ceiling windows on S side.
– Use of skylights on S side of house to admit more heat and light.
– 24" eaves: allowing the sun in during winter and blocking it when high in the summer.
– Garage at NW corner (to block cold prevailing N winds).
– Earthen berm along N side of house to provide additional passive insulation.
– Softlight shades on all windows. Shuttered wooden blinds on floor-to-ceiling windows.
– Furnace in basement; ductwork under floors.
– Ceiling fans for cooling bedrooms.
– Ceiling fans in great room at center of house. Next time I’d put recirculation fans in ducts around the room to bring warmer air back down.
– Heatilator (fan + ducting) in the fireplace.
– All windows double-paned.
There are people where I work that keep track of these sorts of things.
They seem to think that in southern california it will take about 7 to 10 years to pay for the system from the electric bill savings. This is assuming $12 per watt for a 1.4 Kwatt system. I don’t think that they are factoring in any maintanence or the subsidies that california will give for installing this kind of system.
This is $16000 for this system which is $190 per month. which is a lot higher than my electric bill but I don’t run and air conditioner. $16K is a money market account with a 5.5% yeild is $73 so the savings gets less and it starts to be hard to justify only on economics. It is getting there.
It’s 5.5 cents per kWh for me in Virginia 
In San Diego it is 6.326 cents per kWh for the first 241 kWh the base line useage. 8.069 cents above that. This is before the 40% that they are talking about. Actually looking at my bill it is really confusing. There is also a charge of 20.539 cents per kWh which I beleive represents what SDGE beleives it paid for the electricity beyond the current rate cap. So I guess the rate is from .07 to .27.
I have looked into this some more now that I am at home and can look at my electric bill it looks like I use about 15 or 16 kWh per day. The 1.4kW system I mentioned before given say about 6 or so hours of good direct sunlight is about 1/2 to small so the 7 to 10 years to pay it off is very optimistic.
In San Diego it is 6.326 cents per kWh for the first 241 kWh the base line usage. 8.069 cents above that. This is before the 40% that they are talking about. Actually looking at my bill it is really confusing. There is also a charge of 20.539 cents per kWh which I believe represents what SDGE believes it paid for the electricity beyond the current rate cap. So I guess the rate is from .07 to .27.
I have looked into this some more now that I am at home and can look at my electric bill it looks like I use about 15 or 16 kWh per day. The 1.4kW system I mentioned before given say about 6 or so hours of good direct sunlight is about 1/2 to small so the 7 to 10 years to pay it off is very optimistic.
I would like to C+P the relevant posts by sailor and Anthracite from a thread that I started last year on this topic, however it is past my bedtime so here’s a link instead.
The aformentioned posters (and others) do some pretty good (not to mention lengthy) cost analyses of solar power & I doubt they will feel like mustering the effort to rehash the matter in this thread.
In truth, sailor always had better and more pertinent solar info than I did. I wish he would come back.
And I would post something, but really have nothing more to add to this that is constructive. If we want to get into comparisons with existing energy sources, remaining fossil reserves, what people like EPRI and the DOE think about the future of solar, I will be happy to join in.
http://www.engr.udayton.edu/faculty/jkissock/http/Mee302/solarproj/Solar_Facts.html
The break even point for Solar Energy is about $6 dollars/watt.
Hawaii is the only place that is better than “break even”. That is, you can benefit economically by using solar power.
California, Arizona, New York and Massachusetts round out the top five.
http://www.engr.udayton.edu/faculty/jkissock/http/Mee302/solarproj/Solar_Facts.html
I reviewed an email from someone a work who has home solar panels. He says he only gets about 75% of the rated power out of them.
Working from my personal example 16 kWh per day, 6 hours of averaged full sunlight on the panels and 70% of rated power for the panels 70% gives me some small margin. I need a 3.8 kW system. $10 a watt for a system with battery backup and grid intertie is $38,0000. California will pay me $3 a watt or 50% or the cost of the system which ever is smaller. So I have a cost of $26,600. $26,600 in a 5.5% money market account is $121 a month. My electric bill is about $65 a month it will probably go up to 90 a month soon if the rate increase passes. So it is not there yet. I have not included how much the utility will pay me for electricity because I don’t have a good handle on it so maybe it is almost break even if I don’t include my maintenance costs.
A link about the subsidy from California
http://www.energy.ca.gov/greengrid/index.html
A company which will sell you a solar sytem for more than I have indicated above.
http://www.deliveredsolutions.com/line-tie.htm
NPR’s Science Friday has had several shows about solar power in the past year. You can find the shows by following the “archive” link, and listen to them in RealAudio.
One of the things they mentioned several times is that you should invest in the most energy efficient appliances you can find. They gave the rule of thumb that for every dollar you spend buying the most efficient appliances, you’ll save three dollars in the cost of the solar energy system, due to needing less capacity[sup]1[/sup]. So drachillix, if you have $1,000 to spend, you’d be better off upgrading some of your appliances. Maybe a top-of-the-line, front loading washing machine. Uses less water, and so less energy to heat warm and hot water, supposed to be gentler on the clothes, and the spin cycle is supposed to get more water out of you clothes, so you spend less energy on drying also.
Not as sexy or fun as putting up a solar collector, I’m afraid.
- I don’t recall if this was specifically for photovoltaic systems, or solar in general, or maybe includes wind power, too. Sorry. You’ll have to listen yourself.
I’ve noticed that these comparisons tend to use average available hours of sunlight… Is that quite fair? As I understand it, electricity demand in California (and Texas, and Florida, and other hot climes) is highest in the summer, when everyone’s running AC. There’s also more hours of more direct daylight in the summer, so solar power would (more or less) provide power when it’s needed.