Posted on 02/21/2010 8:57:43 PM PST by Lorianne
Congressional lawmakers earlier this month introduced legislation designed to get photovoltaic solar panels installed on 10 million rooftops across the United States over the next 10 years. The bill, offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), also would increase the capacity of solar hot water by an estimated 10 million gallons over the same period.
The 10 Million Solar Roofs and 10 Million Gallons of Solar Hot Water bill would provide rebates to various property owners to install photovoltaic (PV) and solar hot water heating systems. The maximum rebate for PV systems would begin at $1.75 per watt and decline to $0.50 per watt in 2018. The maximum solar thermal rebate would total $1 per watt.
Eligible recipients include homeowners, businesses, nonprofit entities, and state and local governments. The properties on which the solar systems would be installed would have to be located within the U.S. and meet energy-efficiency criteria designated by the U.S. Department of Energy. Solar systems could not exceed two megawatts. The total rebate could not surpass 50 percent of the net installed system cost after factoring in other rebates, tax credits, and incentives.
These proposed rebates are designed help overcome initial cost barriers that have slowed widespread solar adoption despite 92 percent of the American public agreeing that it is important for the nation to develop and use solar energy.
"Passing this bill would create the world's largest market for solar energy here in the U.S. and bring with it tens of thousands of manufacturing and installation jobs in all 50 states," Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch said. "The solar industry is ready now to step up to meet the challenge that Sen. Sanders and Rep. Cohen have laid out for our country."
“Spending more for less makes you poorer. In this case it applies to the country.
It is simple as that.
If PV was economical, it wouldn’t need massive subsidies to get people to purchase them. When your neighbor puts in solar panels, you’re paying for it whether you want to or not. “
If he is getting subsidies to pay for them, then yes. I f pays for them himself, then no.
I am in agreement with you regarding the economical problem with PV. However, it is getting better over time (Less money per watt, etc.)
My point is still valid that in hot areas of the country, PV supplies extra electricity when buildings use it most, and so it does reduce the required amount of 24/7 capacity of the utilities.
With all that said, I am looking forward to improvements in PV technology... Same as I look forward to improved battery technology.
PV technology is changing rapidly (in other words, I agree). In time, and I doubt that it will be much more time, it will be economical even without subsidies. My overall point is, just like with ethanol, government distorts markets and mis-allocates resources when they try to bend economic reality. “Green” energy is no different. The more we are forced to use, the poorer we become.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe in the free market. If solar roof were as great as these greenies claim, I would see a few more, especially here in the sunshine state.
I lived in Tampa back in the early 90's. The previous owner of my house had installed a solar water heater. Had two water heaters in the garage. One stored the solar heated water and fed it to an electrical powered (for backup) heater, which then fed the house. I suppose it saved some on energy. But they were a pain in the ass. Twice, when I headed back north for the holidays (Christmas) the temps in Tampa hit freezing which had the nice effect of rupturing the panels. I get home to find water running down my roof. The second time a neighbor saw it and had the Water Co. shut off the feed to the house.
Claims to insurance.... Lessons learned; whenever I left town, even in summer, I turned off the feed to the panels.
I can't imagine any kind of solar being cost effective here in Indy. Even with govment subsidies.
I agree with you. The subsidies don’t help prices in the long-run, but the point I’ve been trying to make continually is that
A. This money has already been allocated, the incentives for solar, whether I use them or not is irrelevant, the money will go to someone.
B. The government is ramping up efforts to pass some sort of carbon-taxing legislation, they’ve made some overtures to nuclear power to garner Republican support and I believe that ultimately they will be successful.
What this means is ramped up utility costs down the road, higher taxes....etc....etc.
I weighed all the pro’s and con’s last year and decided that solar made sense. If utility rates ONLY increase at 6% per year, I’ll break even after 6 years. If I sell my home, say 3 years from now, I’ll recoup my investment and then some.
To me, the decision made sense, I talked to countless installer’s, spent months researching and decided to go for it. So far I can say I’m quite satisfied with my decision.
It isn’t for everyone, but if this money is available, it might be worth looking at as a method of insurance against future utility spikes.
This is why I’m not a big fan of solar water heaters. The ROI on them tends to be a lot longer and nowadays, there’s a lot more energy efficient electric heaters out there as is.
Ultimately I would urge everyone to do all they can to CONSERVE energy. Before I even thought about solar PV, I had extra insulation, radiant barriers, solar attic fan and extra duct work done in my home. This reduced my energy bill by about 40% and thus made it possible for me to get by with a MUCH smaller solar system.
I’ve seriously thought about it too...
I have large electric bills, particularly in the summer where as you say the sun shines the most.
I figure I’d have to spend around $60k to 80k to put a major dent in my electric bill on average over the year.
The big question on payback time is how long the individual components really last. High power inverters are expensive, it doesn’t take many failures after 5 years to screw up the cost/reward trade offs. Also many of the warranties, particularly on the PV cells are prorated over time. So if they die 10 years out what you recover isn’t all that much.
What state do you live in? The conservation measures I listed work very well for dealing with high AC bills, specifically the radiant barrier and solar attic fans. They also make your home a heck of a lot more comfortable. I noticed a huge difference when they installed mine.
$60-80k, why that much? My system, even without the utility incentives would have been around $25k, then you add the utility incentives plus the government tax credits and you’re under $10 grand.
You make a good point about inverter’s and that is where it comes down to product choice. I went with Sunpower in large part because they offered a 10 year material warranty that covered inverter failure.
As far as my 25 year warranty goes, the basis is that the panels will produce 90% or more at the 12 year mark and 80% or more at the 25 year mark, if the panels ever misfunction, Sunpower, at their discretion will either replace them or repair them. There is no mention of a pro-rated cash exchange for faulty panels.
If you’re interested in learning more about the incentives, HTTP://DSIRE.ORG is a great site to check out!
I’ll check other sources, and see if we can get closer to your numbers. We really wanted to get a system, but every time we’ve looked into it (last time, about 6 months ago) has been prohibitive.
It doesn’t help that our main issue is winter lights & heat, when a system is least efficient and most likely to be clouded out or otherwise out of service. We rarely need A/C in the summer.
We also do not have any truly local sources/installers, which doesn’t help, either. Nearest is 50 miles; next nearest is 75 miles...’captive audience’. That is still better than it was a couple of years ago.
Thanks for clarifying why I don’t see more of these.
I always thought the big market for these would be with snowbirds - perhaps this is why we don’t see them that often. And I live in Tampa also.
It becomes a complex issue, and even with subsidies - a costly one, one I'm sure most snow birds don't really want to mess with.
While I agree that the Gov. has in some instances forced the utility company to provide “backup” - that is not the point.
The point is that the amps and current that come out of a solar panel are unusable by 99.9% of home electirical loads.
The 17V DC must be converted into 115/120V AC to be useful in the home. To do that you need at least some temporary storage capacity in batteries and then an Invertor that converts the battery DC to house current AC.
The amount of battery capacity required will vary on how many hours you expect the sun to shine and how long you expect to power your house without using the utility company net.
As far as I know, you do not need batteries. My neighbor has a PV system without any batteries. Of course, an inverter is necessary.
In Colorado and a number of other states, utilities must offset your power usage. You get credit for excess power generation essentially providing the benefit of batteries without the expense. I have not been able to determine if the utility can use the excess power. Even if the utility can fully use the excess power, PV systems do not generate baseload power, not peak power (perhaps in a few locations and time of year peak power is generated). PV systems do not offset the need for new baseload and peak power capacity.
Once again, there is no need for batteries as long as you’re connected to the grid.
An inverter is a standard feature in the price of a solar system and some companies like Sunpower and Solon even offer extended warranties on inverter’s.
All of which means it IS "a terrible idea".
If there is no economic justification for solar powered homes, why the hell have them?
Why ask taxpayers to subsidize bad ideas?
On the other hand, if it makes good economic sense, it will happen on its own.
Requires fast showers!
WHERE do you get this stuff?? Nanosolar has been selling cells for less than $1/watt for quite a while now (first shipped in 2007), and in fact beat First Solar in doing so. FS just announced reaching that price point in 2009.
And 14% vs 22% at a significantly lower price is perfectly acceptable.
A bit more recent info. Nanosolar lab sample cells are now reaching 19% efficiency, and their projected selling price at full production is expected to reach $0.35-0.40/watt (current is $0.95). Which will be 1/10 what Sunpower is selling their current production cells for (~$3.90/watt).
If you don't have batteries your not a purist cause "we're gonna tear down all those filthy coal fired plants an ban nuclear.
That leaves a few hydro plants - "yeah but the dams block the salmon from spawning and the lakes formed ruin great camping sites" and natural gas - "yeah but that gas explodes and pipelines are an eyesore".....and on and on and on.
The true believers want to be "off the net".
....and if you don't have batteries, you have no interim storage so that the switchover to the "net" has to be instantaneous when the clouds drop the PV output....inverters that do that are not cheap. I had a 2,500 watt one on my boat - the switch worked on most loads but would drop the computer out occasionally. The newest ones may be better than that?!?
I’ll believe it when I see it. For right now, thin film’s great for commercial jobs with huge amounts of space, for residential, silicon panels are the way to go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.