Going all the way with solar

[QueenBee]

20,000 free electric miles per year

$2400 in yearly gasoline eliminated.

It is illogical to claim that your solar panels had anything to do with your gasoline usage, and then use that claim to calculate a payback. Solar panels produce electricity, not gasoline.

It is your car that allowed you to switch from paying $2400/year in gasoline to paying $800/year in electricity. Then your solar panels saved you from paying $800/year in electricity.

Thank you thank you for pointing this out. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. I've had many length debates with people trying to push/sell solar who make claims about great EVs and solar PV go together. THey only benefit each other when you start looking at complicated TOU and tiered rate structures.

 

[DaveEV]

So, can someone double check my calculations please.

In Denver it appears that you can get between 1300-1500 kWh for every 1000W of PV depending on tilt for panels facing south. 1300 kWh at 10* and 1500 kWh at 35*. So as long as they're facing South, it's not a huge difference but if you can get 15* that's not bad. Keep in mind that more tilt will help the snow slide off in winter, too.

So for 10 MWh/year, a bit more than 7 kW of PV is a good start. A LEAF driven 12,000 mi/year averaging around 0.33 kWh/mi will need about 2.6 kW more PV. Just round it up to 10 kW.

I wouldn't mess with systems that let you adjust tilt. With the price of panels you're almost undoubtedly better off just adding more panels.

Most panels still let some light through the panel. Mono-panels probably let a bit more through than the poly-panels since there are gaps between the cells at the corners. If you need more light, the easiest thing to do would be to increase the size of the gap between rows of panels.

 

[Viktor]

Great points - thank U. I took liberty in creating a new post under the Solar index - Should we Discuss technical issues there - http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=10950" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ? I am sure a lot of members would benefit from technicalities of DIY solar system projects.

 

[aleph5]

...You can estimate your solar harvest for different orientations using this tool.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /version1/

I think this guy's got it figured out: http://www.macslab.com/optsolar.html

You can verify the recommended results by plugging in various angles to other calculators, like PVWatts: http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/

 

[aleph5]

Here's the bottom line for fixed angle year-round:

- If your latitude is below 25°, use the latitude times 0.87.
- If your latitude is between 25° and 50°, use the latitude, times 0.76, plus 3.1 degrees.
- If your latitude is above 50°, see Other Situations in the same link (http://www.macslab.com/optsolar.html)

 

[thankyouOB]

20,000 free electric miles per year

$2400 in yearly gasoline eliminated.

It is illogical to claim that your solar panels had anything to do with your gasoline usage, and then use that claim to calculate a payback. Solar panels produce electricity, not gasoline.

It is your car that allowed you to switch from paying $2400/year in gasoline to paying $800/year in electricity. Then your solar panels saved you from paying $800/year in electricity.

Thank you thank you for pointing this out. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. I've had many length debates with people trying to push/sell solar who make claims about great EVs and solar PV go together. THey only benefit each other when you start looking at complicated TOU and tiered rate structures.

Oh, ugh. JUST UGH!!!

That is not a point that I made. If you go back to the original post, you will see that my statement was ripped OUT OF CONTEXT, and now you are quoting the misquote, without referring to my earlier correction of the errant poster.

To resummarize:
I discussed return on investment and said that solar panels installed in 2008 cost me 10k (after rebates) and eliminated all my electric bills, which totaled about $700 annually.
I also said that because of TOU billing, I am able to charge my LEAF -- bought in 2011 -- at home almost entirely, and my electric bill is still zero.

I mentioned that $2400 in gasoline purchases were eliminated in a separate paragraph. It had no relation to return on investment, which earlier I calculated and stated was about 7%.
$700/$10,000 = 7%

I did not include no longer paying for the cost of gasoline as part of ROI, it is simply an added joy.

 

[QueenBee]

I did not include no longer paying for the cost gasoline as part of ROI, it is simply an added joy.

Sorry, was reading the thread backwards. You obviously get it It's important that everyone understand the distinction

 

[thankyouOB]

thanks, Queen Bee.
I have always found your contributions to be worth reading.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Oh, ugh. JUST UGH!!!

That is not a point that I made. If you go back to the original post, you will see that my statement was ripped OUT OF CONTEXT, and now you are quoting the misquote, without referring to my earlier correction of the errant poster.

To resummarize:
I discussed return on investment and said that solar panels installed in 2008 cost me 10k (after rebates) and eliminated all my electric bills, which totaled about $700 annually.
I also said that because of TOU billing, I am able to charge my LEAF -- bought in 2011 -- at home almost entirely, and my electric bill is still zero.

I mentioned that $2400 in gasoline purchases were eliminated in a separate paragraph. It had no relation to return on investment, which earlier I calculated and stated was about 7%.
$700/$10,000 = 7%

I did not include no longer paying for the cost of gasoline as part of ROI, it is simply an added joy.

I want to apologize that my comment caused you so much angst. I did read your entire post, and I made my (incorrect) conclusion. My point still stands, it just doesn't apply to you.

As for ripping it out of context, I certainly did not do so out of spite. I simply highlighted what I thought was the crux of your argument. Again I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[thankyouOB]

Oh, ugh. JUST UGH!!!

That is not a point that I made. If you go back to the original post, you will see that my statement was ripped OUT OF CONTEXT, and now you are quoting the misquote, without referring to my earlier correction of the errant poster.

To resummarize:
I discussed return on investment and said that solar panels installed in 2008 cost me 10k (after rebates) and eliminated all my electric bills, which totaled about $700 annually.
I also said that because of TOU billing, I am able to charge my LEAF -- bought in 2011 -- at home almost entirely, and my electric bill is still zero.

I mentioned that $2400 in gasoline purchases were eliminated in a separate paragraph. It had no relation to return on investment, which earlier I calculated and stated was about 7%.
$700/$10,000 = 7%

I did not include no longer paying for the cost of gasoline as part of ROI, it is simply an added joy.

I want to apologize that my comment caused you so much angst. I did read your entire post, and I made my (incorrect) conclusion. My point still stands, it just doesn't apply to you.

As for ripping it out of context, I certainly did not do so out of spite. I simply highlighted what I thought was the crux of your argument. Again I apologize for the misunderstanding.

thank you. of course, it was not done malevolently.
it wasnt your selectively quoting it that was really annoying; rather, it was the misquote taking on a life of its own.
i think, along with Queen Bee, that it is an important point that you make.
the car gets me off gasoline. over time, the solar reduces/eliminates the cost of the alternative fuel.

the solar does not replace the cost of gasoline.
both provide a huge daily smile.

 

[QueenBee]

Oh, ugh. JUST UGH!!!

That is not a point that I made. If you go back to the original post, you will see that my statement was ripped OUT OF CONTEXT, and now you are quoting the misquote, without referring to my earlier correction of the errant poster.

To resummarize:
I discussed return on investment and said that solar panels installed in 2008 cost me 10k (after rebates) and eliminated all my electric bills, which totaled about $700 annually.
I also said that because of TOU billing, I am able to charge my LEAF -- bought in 2011 -- at home almost entirely, and my electric bill is still zero.

I mentioned that $2400 in gasoline purchases were eliminated in a separate paragraph. It had no relation to return on investment, which earlier I calculated and stated was about 7%.
$700/$10,000 = 7%

I did not include no longer paying for the cost of gasoline as part of ROI, it is simply an added joy.

I want to apologize that my comment caused you so much angst. I did read your entire post, and I made my (incorrect) conclusion. My point still stands, it just doesn't apply to you.

As for ripping it out of context, I certainly did not do so out of spite. I simply highlighted what I thought was the crux of your argument. Again I apologize for the misunderstanding.

thank you. of course, it was not done malevolently.
it wasnt your selectively quoting it that was really annoying; rather, it was the misquote taking on a life of its own.
i think, along with Queen Bee, that it is an important point that you make.
the car gets me off gasoline. over time, the solar reduces/eliminates the cost of the alternative fuel.

the solar does not replace the cost of gasoline.
both provide a huge daily smile.

It's nice find other people that understand this distinction. For the life of me no matter how hard I tried I couldn't get it through to a board member of a local pro-solar non-profit that the two things are not at all linked.

Now that this horse is beat and we all agree how do we feel about cutting down trees to make room for solar PV? I'm about half way through (Cutting down trees and cleaning up is a big job). I'll be able to triple the size of my solar PV system and get to about the break even point. While the solar PV was the impetus for the tree removal I've been looking for reasons to get rid of them for a long time.

 

[FairwoodRed]

My property has huge Maples just to the South. During the winter, they shade my entire roof at mid-day. I initially thought about trimming them up or cutting them down. But it turns out that micro-inverters are so good at helping with shade that I lose less than $200 per year in production. Here in Unincorporated King County, you have to get a permit to cut down a tree and that’s more hassle than I want. So I’ve left them as they are and I enjoy the shade during the summer.

To sum up, I have no problem cutting trees down to reduce PV shading, but found that it wasn’t worth the effort or money at my house.

 

[hill]

I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm - we've had solar for five years and I consider it the best investment we've made in improving our house - but doesn't Santa Cruz get quite a bit of fog? It may take more capacity than you think to reduce your electric bill to zero . . . . . snip . . .

Santa Cruz gets "quite a bit of fog" - is like saying Los Angeles gets quite a bit of fog. You move inland - say 5 or 10 miles of either city and again ... same result ... way less fog. Point is, Santa Cruz (as well as Sant Cruz county) is not just a strip running just a mile off the beach front.
That said, even if you ARE just on the watter - that doesn't make PV a waste. Consider this home right on the water - Newport Beach CA:

Point is, just because you have fog during the day doesn't mean your PV cuts out. You just have a decreased capacity. But it's not that bad.
.

 

[DaveEV]

Consider this home right on the water - Newport Beach CA

Nice looking array - isn't that the one a bunch of neighbors rose a big stink over because of aesthetics? Edit: it is.

I think it fits in well with the modern house, but could use a bit of landscaping around the array. Maybe it's grown in now.

 

[Weatherman]

Nice looking array - isn't that the one a bunch of neighbors rose a big stink over because of aesthetics?

http://articles.dailypilot.com/2010-08-14/news/tn-dpt-0815-cdmtoday-20100814_1_solar-panels-solar-system-solar-energy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Herm]

Have you people seen this article?

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Solar-power-adds-to-nonusers-costs-4124277.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Solar power adds to nonusers' costs

sounds a bit too conservative for San Francisco

 

[DaveEV]

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Solar-power-adds-to-nonusers-costs-4124277.php

Solar power adds to nonusers' costs

Let's write the contradicting article:

Coal and gas power adds to nonusers' health and environment costs

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm - we've had solar for five years and I consider it the best investment we've made in improving our house - but doesn't Santa Cruz get quite a bit of fog? It may take more capacity than you think to reduce your electric bill to zero . . . . . snip . . .

Santa Cruz gets "quite a bit of fog" - is like saying Los Angeles gets quite a bit of fog. You move inland - say 5 or 10 miles of either city and again ... same result ... way less fog. Point is, Santa Cruz (as well as Sant Cruz county) is not just a strip running just a mile off the beach front.
That said, even if you ARE just on the watter - that doesn't make PV a waste. Consider this home right on the water - Newport Beach CA:

Point is, just because you have fog during the day doesn't mean your PV cuts out. You just have a decreased capacity. But it's not that bad.
.

Fog is nothing. Snow kills. A light dusting of snow will reduce my panels' output by over 90%! Thank goodness I live in the snowiest city in the country (at least over 100k people). The good news is that it only snows during the winter (and fall, technically. and spring.) when the sun is much lower in the sky, and the days are much shorter. Overall, my panel get about 900-1000kWh / kW (DC). This is about 35-40% of what foggy San Diego will get, yet it still makes sense both as a financial and energy investment.

 

[Smidge204]

Have you people seen this article?

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Solar-power-adds-to-nonusers-costs-4124277.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Solar power adds to nonusers' costs

Problem: People installing solar power for their homes and businesses, causing the cost of grid power to increase.

Solution: Install solar power for your home or business and use less grid power, or even become a net producer rather than a net consumer.

:mrgreen:
=Smidge=

 

[thankyouOB]

adds to cost of non-users?



the state and the utility commission as well as lawmakers decided solar was a positive good. It is obvious that it would cost something and that would largely go on those who DONT have solar.
this just in...
it is like any other tax or tax credit or tax subsidy; there are winners and losers.
it costs us plenty to decide to subsidize McDonnell-Douglas to build third- and fourth-generation fighters. some benefit, others pay.
you could go on and on about that.
same thing with the EV tax credit or the oil depletion allowance or writing off mortgage interest, which is not fair to renters.