[Pheonix]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

See that's another strike against it here, the electric companies won't pay for excess production that goes back into the grid. You just have to live with your excess capacity feeding the grid for free.

Sorry but you are incorrect here!
He is getting credits for excess power produced.
This is what they called Net Mettering in Solar Industry. Net Mettering is vary greatly from State to State and the Ultilities Companies and their lobbyists are trying to getting rid of it.
Here in California, the owners would get credits for the excess energies based the time of generated (Time of Use rate). For instance, I would get a credit of $0.56 for energy produced during Peak Time and pay PG&E $$0.25 for Energy consumed during Off Peak Time.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

Lot of good points and information here!
However, you are wrong about the life and efficiency of the panels! Most of the reputable Solar panels makers warranty annual degradation of 0.25%-0.50% per year and power production of 85%-92% after 25 years so the life of the panels are much longer than 25 years.

I can tell you the grade of panels being used for home is not going to last past 25yrs. The one installed 20 yrs ago are staring to fail or product less than 50% of what they were when they were new. Solar panel tech has not advance that much in the last 20 yrs. If people were told the panels had to be replace every 20/25 yrs they would never make the buy. Panel life degrade exponentially it not linear, so as time going on the drop in efficiency accelerates. As an engineer I use to have to do the life expectancy calculations so I am very familiar with the failure rate of electronics and silicon base devices. There is not a single panel manufacture who will warrant the panel for 25 yrs. They would all be out of business.

[leopard print]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Here is the part no one is talking about and this coming from an engineer who worked in the electronic industry.

Panel life is only about 20 to 25 yrs, which means its efficiency drops by 50% the power output in way less than in the beginning of the life when the load calculations are done to size the panels for your home. Yes the panel may last longer but will not get much power out of them especially when it is over cast and low sun. This is important to know if you are buying the panels verse renting/leasing. You have to look carefully at the agreement on how you are reimbursed for the power you use verse what it sold to the grid and if it is the same every year from day one to 20 yrs later. I will tell you there is nothing on the horizon to make panel more efficient or last longer. It is just the physics and chemistry behind semiconducting technologies.

If you do not own the panels this does not apply to you. When the panel are no longer producing enough power and you have to depose of them and depending on where you live Panels are consider hazardous waste, because the solar cell contain heavy metals and can not be recycles or put in a land fill and you may have to pay lots of money to properly depose of them. This information is just coming to light since no one thought about any of these when they start first installing them 20+ years ago.

Here is the other down side depending on the install method on your roof, some of the them require multiply mounting points on your roof and if they are not properly done you may develop leaks over time. Some of these install company have not been around a long time and it may take 10+ years for leaks to develop the company who installed is long gone and you have to deal with the problems.

Next most roofs have a life of 15 to 20 yrs which means that if you put the panels on an old roof and when comes time to replace the roof you have to pay to remove the panels and then reinstall which could add thousands to your roof replacement and the new roof most likely will not be guaranteed. For this reason I would not place them on the roof and most roof do not face directly south so you power out is not the max it could be if the roof faced south.

If you are installing solar since you think it is doing something for the environment think again, everything being said today is not 100% accurate. Trust me I was serious considering putting panel on my new property in which we are building a retirement home. Was doing it to offset of some of what I pull from the grid, second I live in area where weather knocks out power and it would be nice to have something other than a generator when those events happen. I have enough property to put the panels on the ground, but since this is our retirement home I did not want to have to deal with replacing panel 20 yrs out. The most knowledgeable company around me who does solar only sells they will not rent/lease and they been around 10yrs all the rental companies seem to come and go. I still weighing whether to put them in, but today I buy my power from the company on the east coast who operates most all the nuclear power plants and so my power comes from Nuclear and one of their power pants is 20 miles away.

Here is some interesting reading and this should factor into your decisions as well. This information is not new, I have been and Electrical Engineer for a long time and the industry has know about this from the beginning. Also if you are considering a batteries as part of the install those only last 5 to 7 yrs and they too can not be recycled and you could be stuck unable to dispose of them.

https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...r-waste-crisis

https://interestingengineering.com/r...ir-toxic-waste

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=2931fd385fe5

Holy shit. The data via those links are pretty scary.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

Sorry but you are incorrect here!
He is getting credits for excess power produced.
This is what they called Net Mettering in Solar Industry. Net Mettering is vary greatly from State to State and the Ultilities Companies and their lobbyists are trying to getting rid of it.
Here in California, the owners would get credits for the excess energies based the time of generated (Time of Use rate). For instance, I would get a credit of $0.56 for energy produced during Peak Time and pay PG&E $$0.25 for Energy consumed during Off Peak Time.

Actually you both are correct. Some states and power companies no longer offer net metering, this is why they now offering battery systems so you can store locally and use the power at night when so you do not have to pull back from the gird. California has created it own set of problems and other states learn from this.

[carseatsm5]

That is a good point above. Don’t put them on an old roof otherwise will be an expensive uninstall/reinstall exercise down the line. Also I needed an updated electrical panel to have them installed so that’s another potential expense to consider.

I figure payback was 5yrs. For next 15yrs let’s say I save just $1K/yr (even though I’m currently saving $2K/yr) due to panels growing less efficient (conservative assumption) and not accounting for power prices going up (also conservative). That’s $15K. I don’t think disposal cost will offset that benefit. And anyways I’m probably out of the house by then so it’s someone else’s problem.

[Pheonix]

Originally Posted by Maestro

I can tell you the grade of panels being used for home is not going to last past 25yrs. The one installed 20 yrs ago are staring to fail or product less than 50% of what they were when they were new. Solar panel tech has not advance that much in the last 20 yrs. If people were told the panels had to be replace every 20/25 yrs they would never make the buy. Panel life degrade exponentially it not linear, so as time going on the drop in efficiency accelerates. As an engineer I use to have to do the life expectancy calculations so I am very familiar with the failure rate of electronics and silicon base devices. There is not a single panel manufacture who will warrant the panel for 25 yrs. They would all be out of business.

Sorry but you are wrong again!
Go check out warranty information from LG, Panasonic, Sunpower, Silfab, REC,etc...these are more reputable Solar Panels Manufacturers. We could debate whether they will be in business 25 years from now to to honor their warranties but that what they are offering🤣
I know many many early Solar adapter in Northern California and their Solar panels are still chugging along.
Don't get me wrong, Solar panels are not for the masses! It is probably make sense to swtich for less than 5% of USA households (just like EV).

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by leopard print

Yes, the tenant pays the electric bill. She asked me if I wanted to switch to solar to help her save on her monthly bill. I'm ok with helping her out as long as there are no negative affects to myself financially and the home.

A few questions I had are: Will solar truly add value to the home? Does solar work as promised? What are the cons?

The sales rep I have been speaking with makes it sound too good to be true. He says there will be absolutely no money out of pocket to myself and can only save money for the person occupying the home and paying the electric bill. I asked him what are the options of terminating the contract if solar doesn't provide the energy promised and he says I can have them removed any time if I'm not satisfied and that it would only cost $50-$100 per panel to remove. I asked where that's stated in the proposal and contract and he said that's not something they promote, to which I said I will need that in writing. He was supposed to go to his legal team to get something in writing but instead sent a Google image with vague information. Lastly, he says he's being generous by giving me an $1800 incentive to cover the removal and that he's never done that for any other client. I told him I'd have to think about it, then he immediately upped the incentive to $2000. Not sure what makes me so special (sarcasm) and if he's never done $1800 for any his other clients why he would suddenly up that amount. Seems like a sleazy sales tactic.

I handle mostly the marketing tech side of the business, my business partners handles the sales. CA has more regulations regarding solar so it's SLIGHTLY less shady. However around here these guys selling solar are seriously shady. This is why we started the business. We want to actually show people the pros and cons and let them make an informed decision.

All that to say my partner who has a background in finance absolutely refuses to do leases which is what it seems you are looking at. I could not tell you the specifics of why, I just know he is morally opposed to offering solar leases. So watch out for those.

As for none leases it basically boils down to the system will typically pay for itself in X years. Depending on price, how much power it offsets, your power rates, loan vs cash etc the payoff time changes.

Another thing to consider, at least here in FL, they will show you a low rate for finance say 1.9%. However what they don't tell you is if you choose finance there is usually a "dealer fee" of around 25% charged by the finance company up front. So your cost for cash will be significantly less than the financed cost. You are essentially buying down that lower rate.

You also want a relatively new roof as the systems are usually warrantied for around 25 years. We will typically not install on roofs over 5 years old.

As a rental, I'm not sure it would make much sense for you.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

Sorry but you are incorrect here!
He is getting credits for excess power produced.
This is what they called Net Mettering in Solar Industry. Net Mettering is vary greatly from State to State and the Ultilities Companies and their lobbyists are trying to getting rid of it.
Here in California, the owners would get credits for the excess energies based the time of generated (Time of Use rate). For instance, I would get a credit of $0.56 for energy produced during Peak Time and pay PG&E $$0.25 for Energy consumed during Off Peak Time.

This is correct and it's also how it works in FL. I know recently DeSantis just vetoed a bill that was trying to kill net metering so we lucked out on that one.

The power generated by the solar system never actually powers anything in your home. It actually goes to the grid and you get credit for it. Your home still technically runs off the grid power. This is why even if you have solar if the power is out you will not have power unless you opt for a battery pack also.

[leopard print]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

I handle mostly the marketing tech side of the business, my business partners handles the sales. CA has more regulations regarding solar so it's SLIGHTLY less shady. However around here these guys selling solar are seriously shady. This is why we started the business. We want to actually show people the pros and cons and let them make an informed decision.

All that to say my partner who has a background in finance absolutely refuses to do leases which is what it seems you are looking at. I could not tell you the specifics of why, I just know he is morally opposed to offering solar leases. So watch out for those.

As for none leases it basically boils down to the system will typically pay for itself in X years. Depending on price, how much power it offsets, your power rates, loan vs cash etc the payoff time changes.

Another thing to consider, at least here in FL, they will show you a low rate for finance say 1.9%. However what they don't tell you is if you choose finance there is usually a "dealer fee" of around 25% charged by the finance company up front. So your cost for cash will be significantly less than the financed cost. You are essentially buying down that lower rate.

You also want a relatively new roof as the systems are usually warrantied for around 25 years. We will typically not install on roofs over 5 years old.

As a rental, I'm not sure it would make much sense for you.

Thanks for the response! I really appreciate it. I'm going to turn down the lease option. The more I speak to the rep, the more shady sales tactics he throws at me. It's almost as if he's just going down a list a of talking points.

[2000cs]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

Sorry but you are incorrect here!
He is getting credits for excess power produced.
This is what they called Net Mettering in Solar Industry. Net Mettering is vary greatly from State to State and the Ultilities Companies and their lobbyists are trying to getting rid of it.
Here in California, the owners would get credits for the excess energies based the time of generated (Time of Use rate). For instance, I would get a credit of $0.56 for energy produced during Peak Time and pay PG&E $$0.25 for Energy consumed during Off Peak Time.

Net metering should end. It is a subsidy paid by the poor who can’t afford solar to the rich who can (like the tax credit on EVs). There are fixed costs to the electric system which any facility connected to the grid should pay. These are the capital costs of the wires (distribution and transmission) plus the generation when needed (so some of that capital cost and all of the variable cost of electricity consumed). Fair pricing for solar (or any DG) would be a monthly fixed charge for the connection, variable cost for the energy taken from the grid, a profit for the utility, all reduced by the market value (wholesale) of the energy put onto the grid (can be measured at 15 minute or hourly intervals to get the correct price). If a solar user wants to avoid the utility costs, they should disconnect and get their own batteries, and size their system for peak load.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by 2000cs

Net metering should end. It is a subsidy paid by the poor who can’t afford solar to the rich who can (like the tax credit on EVs). There are fixed costs to the electric system which any facility connected to the grid should pay. These are the capital costs of the wires (distribution and transmission) plus the generation when needed (so some of that capital cost and all of the variable cost of electricity consumed). Fair pricing for solar (or any DG) would be a monthly fixed charge for the connection, variable cost for the energy taken from the grid, a profit for the utility, all reduced by the market value (wholesale) of the energy put onto the grid (can be measured at 15 minute or hourly intervals to get the correct price). If a solar user wants to avoid the utility costs, they should disconnect and get their own batteries, and size their system for peak load.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but your "fair pricing" is basically describing net metering...

I don't know about other states, but here in FL FPL charges a $25 connection fee (raised recently from like $8) so even if you managed to offset all your power all the time (unlikely) you would still have to pay FPL $25.

[Pheonix]

Originally Posted by 2000cs

Net metering should end. It is a subsidy paid by the poor who can’t afford solar to the rich who can (like the tax credit on EVs). There are fixed costs to the electric system which any facility connected to the grid should pay. These are the capital costs of the wires (distribution and transmission) plus the generation when needed (so some of that capital cost and all of the variable cost of electricity consumed). Fair pricing for solar (or any DG) would be a monthly fixed charge for the connection, variable cost for the energy taken from the grid, a profit for the utility, all reduced by the market value (wholesale) of the energy put onto the grid (can be measured at 15 minute or hourly intervals to get the correct price). If a solar user wants to avoid the utility costs, they should disconnect and get their own batteries, and size their system for peak load.

You are completely misinformed or misunderstood what Net Metering is all about.
Solar Panels customers are still paying connection fee. On top of that, we are still paying Transmission and Distribution fees when we are using grid power during off peak.
Technically, Resident Solar Panels are helping the Ultilities companies during high Peak usages! Here in California, they usually ask people to shuttting down pretty much everything because the Grid can't handle the demands.

[floridaorange]

Just to add my 2 cents. Make sure you go with a very very reputable company with lots of reviews. A company you don't think is going to go belly up and leave you with a crappy solar setup. It happens here in FL.

[leopard print]

Just an update for anyone who is interested.

The rep just got back to me but couldn't provide any documentation on terminating the contract and said I didn't need to worry because he always keeps his word. I was going to decline his services anyways but used him not being able to provide that in contract form as the reason. He then goes into his talking points again about how solar is the greatest thing ever, how great he is at his job, and how amazing the incentive is. I decline again and he tries to make it sound like I'm making a terrible decision. End call.

[2000cs]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

You are completely misinformed or misunderstood what Net Metering is all about.
Solar Panels customers are still paying connection fee. On top of that, we are still paying Transmission and Distribution fees when we are using grid power during off peak.
Technically, Resident Solar Panels are helping the Ultilities companies during high Peak usages! Here in California, they usually ask people to shuttting down pretty much everything because the Grid can't handle the demands.

I know what I’m talking about. I’ll leave it at that since the thread is on another topic.

[2000cs]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but your "fair pricing" is basically describing net metering...

I don't know about other states, but here in FL FPL charges a $25 connection fee (raised recently from like $8) so even if you managed to offset all your power all the time (unlikely) you would still have to pay FPL $25.

Net metering is literally the same as spinning the meter backwards. In other words, full retail credit for the energy that is put back into the grid. There are other variations with partial credit, time of use/put back, etc.

The connection fee doesn’t come close to the system fixed cost in almost all cases. You can read rate case filings to get a better picture of the costs (look for the cost of service and rate class allocations) in your utility’s case.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by 2000cs

Net metering is literally the same as spinning the meter backwards. In other words, full retail credit for the energy that is put back into the grid. There are other variations with partial credit, time of use/put back, etc.

The connection fee doesn’t come close to the system fixed cost in almost all cases. You can read rate case filings to get a better picture of the costs (look for the cost of service and rate class allocations) in your utility’s case.

Sounds like what you said

Originally Posted by 2000cs

Fair pricing for solar (or any DG) would be a monthly fixed charge for the connection, variable cost for the energy taken from the grid, a profit for the utility, all reduced by the market value (wholesale) of the energy put onto the grid

Fixed charge we have a connection fee, you still pay for energy taken from the grid as you would normally and its reduced/credited by what you put back. So the only difference seems to be the actual dollar amounts you think someone with solar should be paying or being credited. Plus like you said not all places offer 1:1 credit so in some places it's even closer to what you describe where the power you are being credited for is being credited at a discount aka "wholesale".

[Kolyan2k]

I bought a house with 2 solar systems. Didn't really add any value, but it was a nice bonus and I don't have electric bill now. I actually get paid a little.
The reason why it didn't add any value, the owner didn't clearly provide info on systems and it was pretty confusing. People are afraid to buy houses with solar because many lease systems and it hurts resale.

[WER2XU]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

See that's another strike against it here, the electric companies won't pay for excess production that goes back into the grid. You just have to live with your excess capacity feeding the grid for free.

The money I get from the utility is not for excess, it is based on the amount of energy my solar makes...I get a flat rate for production.
There is something to be said for living in a consumer friendly state.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by WER2XU

The money I get from the utility is not for excess, it is based on the amount of energy my solar makes...I get a flat rate for production.
There is something to be said for living in a consumer friendly state.

I did a poor job of explaining, lets say your solar loan is $100/month. If your panels produce $200/month, the electric companies here don't pay you for any extra. You just have to deal with it.

It's the "good old boy" network in full force because of the oil and gas network here.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

Sorry but you are wrong again!
Go check out warranty information from LG, Panasonic, Sunpower, Silfab, REC,etc...these are more reputable Solar Panels Manufacturers. We could debate whether they will be in business 25 years from now to to honor their warranties but that what they are offering��
I know many many early Solar adapter in Northern California and their Solar panels are still chugging along.
Don't get me wrong, Solar panels are not for the masses! It is probably make sense to swtich for less than 5% of USA households (just like EV).

I am going to show you some charts the first is what the panel or sales companies are telling you. They are showing the efficiency of the panel output, not the actual efficiency of the the solar cells. they are saying that the panel when new outputs 95% to 98% of it actually output capability and will decline to 80% to 85% in year 25. First, solar cells are not anywhere near 95% efficient on converting photons to electricity most of the energy is lost in heat or inefficiency in the conversion. The bottom chart show all the current solar cell technologies and their actual output efficiencies. Notice none of them anywhere near 95%. Best is in the 44% range and the worse at 11%. most are in the 20% range. Those 44% ones are using in space on satellites.

If your output efficiency drop 10% or 15% in 25 yrs and you starting at 44% (which is 100% efficiency output for that cell) then you lost 25% of its ability to generate power, now if you start at 25% and lose 10% to 15% you power output is half of what it was. All the manufacturer or sales companies are warranting is panel it will not drop more than 10% or 15% from their starting point they never tell you the starting point which most people do not understand.

Also notice the flatness of lines of most of the technologies, those are the ones in mass production others with steep curves are not product or if they are not widely use, there is nothing on the horizon to the efficiencies up.



Notice how sunpower did not properly label their chart or left out the title the next chart is the real chart they are showing you,



This is the actual chart to look at it the actual output efficiency of the solar cell technology notice that Sunpower is on this chart with their technology which is in the middle of the pack. Also notice this is the best they can do in a lab, real world is far less since you have other factors reducing the output of the panel on any given day. Sorry the image is so large, could not find a more recent one which was smaller.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Pheonix

You are completely misinformed or misunderstood what Net Metering is all about.
Solar Panels customers are still paying connection fee. On top of that, we are still paying Transmission and Distribution fees when we are using grid power during off peak.
Technically, Resident Solar Panels are helping the Ultilities companies during high Peak usages! Here in California, they usually ask people to shuttting down pretty much everything because the Grid can't handle the demands.

Again you only pay the transmission fee when you drawing power back not when you transmitting to the grid this was the person point and if able to never draw power then you never incur those costs and everyone else pays them. What some utilities have done as power panel user show up their cost are the same and they still need to spread those cost they increase the rates on the balance of the users. Some states utilities are charging a hook up fees on to of having to pay for the transmission costs in both directions.

The reason Calif is in trouble and asking people to turn off things during peek load, they are shutting down the power plans. Your last Nuclear plants goes offline this year if I am not mistaken. At the least the idiots on our state PA realize what is happening in CA and decide not to turn off one of our Nuclear plants last year. We have 3 of them and they supply most our power in the state along with older Coal/LPN plants yes we have windmills and solar farms but most time the windmills are not turning for lots of various reason and we are state with lots of cloud cover.