A good place to check on pricing:

http://www.sunelec.com/

Posted By toddm on 12 Apr 2012 08:14 AM
From Lee's website, in a description of his home:
" Energy Star rated ceiling fans throughout, with no air conditioning "

To summarize, were residential solar electric to be more than a bit player in a decentralized, non capital intensive electric grid, we'd need centralized big dollar storage.

To elaborate on government hamhandedness: Tax credits for high dollar energy projects automatically cut out the half of Americans who would benefit most, those being the folks who pay no federal taxes but genuinely need help with heating and cooling bills. We might be down to the top 10 percent of filers before we find people who can recover the credit in a reasonable timeframe of two or three years. Add to that, the credit scores necessary to qualify for capital improvements that your average neighborhood banker truly doubts that he could recover in a foreclosure sale. There is still a limited benefit here from people like Lee who are demonstrating the value of solar electric. But it's harder to stomach claims that tax incentives could add up to more than that.

People who pay no taxes who have the cash flow or cash resources to buy-in can still make it work in my neighborhood.  MA has taken a different approach on incentives beyond heavy subsidy through tax credits, by giving small PV generators access a market for production credits, and incentivizing utilities to buy them.  Municipalities to further incentived promote voluntary "self taxation" by the ratepayers to add 2-4 cent/kwh for partial funding of the expansion (though participation is expectedly pretty low, given the higher than national average residentential rates that exist here.)  More. 

Under the current MA regulation & incentives lenders are willing to fund the credit-worthy for small scale PV.  For energy-nerds extremely careful with their consumption it's possible to make it cash-positive, even when heating with electricity.

The effect of these solar boom incentivives on ratepayers & rates is modest, but since solar output occurs during demand-hours and the cost of solar is often lower than spot-market rates, it's not a burden, it's a price-moderator on the peak demand rates.  Annual absolute peak demands here are still from air conditioning loads, but the fraction of the regional total at which PV becomes uneconomic is well below that of the AZ & NV grids.  The PV boom here is just beginning, and the grid fraction VERY small.  The regional grid here is heavily weighted toward natural gas (~40% of the New England total), with mid and small scale  hydro being the largest renewable source (~ 8%).  Since 1980 coal has been largely phased out, a response to the acid-range damage to regional forests, but it's still in low-double-digit percentages of the regional fraction. (Most new capacity in the past 2 decades has been in combined cycle natural gas.)  The grid & ratepayer effects of the PV boom will probably become more apparent after it breaks over 5% of the regional grid total. 

Unlike Germany, the air conditioning loads of this region can soak up double-digit percentages of the grid total without having to build out storage for the excess capacity.  Large offshore wind arrays are likely to outstrip PV here in grid fraction for the next decade or two, but we'll see.  The land-based wind resources here are relatively small by comparison, but less expensive to implement.  As the installed price per peak watt for PV continues to fall I expect PV to outstrip land-based wind's fraction handily. (Just  a WAG.)

NJ has a similar program although the incentives are being scaled back as solar penetration increases. Early adopters got a super sweet deal that has most earning money on their pv installations. (Yes, a genuine ROI.) Pa electric rates are low and destined to stay that way thanks to marcellus shale gas development. I'd install PV to cover my monthly base load if the life cycle cost worked out. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Dana1-

Lots of interesting links on SREC's and about the fellow on Martha's Vineyard. I see Colorado has a goal of 20% of the grid power being renewables by 2015. I think that Colorado is around 10.1% as of 2010, although summer capacity is at 14.6%.

The fastest growing PV market in North America is in Ontario. The govt here said, a few years ago, that the utilities would pay $.80/kwh to anyone with up to 10kw of Pv on the roof. The catch is that a percentage of each component must be made in this province so many panel, inverter, racking etc companies have set up shop here.

I have 4kw on my roof and I will make about $4000 annually from it. The whole idea was borrowed from the Germans and to be re-assessed every 2 years. It was designed to give the owner an 11% ROI with a power purchase contract for 20 years. It has gone under review and the new rate looks like it will be about $.55/kwh. This reflects the reduced cost of installation.

The govt goal is to get rid of coal plants and there associated health costs, which is paid for through our universal health care. It is also to spur green industry when the auto industry is taking such a beating. There is general approval for the system and after a few bumps, seems to be working well.

I truly believe that if the USA had the population density of Europe, there would be world war three with some of the attitudes I hear. Germany, and Europe learned some valuable lessons after the wars and the biggest one is that the govts had to support the population and vise versa, without that the wars would start again. This is why they all have universal health care, a working welfare state, and a LOT of public infrastructure that would be hard to find over here. We grew up differently with more room to get away from our neighbour if we wanted to but they don't have that option. Work together or go through the wars again.

We are here, now and have issues that the founding fathers did not have so modern solutions need to be found and I don't think political blinders have a place in it (just my reaction to the anti govt attitudes).

OK, rant over.

Posted By MikeSolar on 06 May 2012 10:51 PM
The fastest growing PV market in North America is in Ontario. The govt here said, a few years ago, that the utilities would pay $.80/kwh to anyone with up to 10kw of Pv on the roof. The catch is that a percentage of each component must be made in this province so many panel, inverter, racking etc companies have set up shop here.

I have 4kw on my roof and I will make about $4000 annually from it. The whole idea was borrowed from the Germans and to be re-assessed every 2 years. It was designed to give the owner an 11% ROI with a power purchase contract for 20 years. It has gone under review and the new rate looks like it will be about $.55/kwh. This reflects the reduced cost of installation.

The govt goal is to get rid of coal plants and there associated health costs, which is paid for through our universal health care. It is also to spur green industry when the auto industry is taking such a beating. There is general approval for the system and after a few bumps, seems to be working well.

The problem here is that it still costs $20k+ to install a solar panel system in a residential home. The ROI is 20+ years and that is not including panel replacement, breakdowns and maintenance. Most people will not take a $20k hit for something that they might break even on in 20 years. That is the main reason WHY solar has not become popular here in the USA.

Unless the costs drop even more, it just will not catch on.

Posted By Lbear on 06 May 2012 11:12 PM

Posted By MikeSolar on 06 May 2012 10:51 PM
The fastest growing PV market in North America is in Ontario. The govt here said, a few years ago, that the utilities would pay $.80/kwh to anyone with up to 10kw of Pv on the roof. The catch is that a percentage of each component must be made in this province so many panel, inverter, racking etc companies have set up shop here.

I have 4kw on my roof and I will make about $4000 annually from it. The whole idea was borrowed from the Germans and to be re-assessed every 2 years. It was designed to give the owner an 11% ROI with a power purchase contract for 20 years. It has gone under review and the new rate looks like it will be about $.55/kwh. This reflects the reduced cost of installation.

The govt goal is to get rid of coal plants and there associated health costs, which is paid for through our universal health care. It is also to spur green industry when the auto industry is taking such a beating. There is general approval for the system and after a few bumps, seems to be working well.

The problem here is that it still costs $20k+ to install a solar panel system in a residential home. The ROI is 20+ years and that is not including panel replacement, breakdowns and maintenance. Most people will not take a $20k hit for something that they might break even on in 20 years. That is the main reason WHY solar has not become popular here in the USA.

Unless the costs drop even more, it just will not catch on.

With the rebates noted somewhere above, totaling about 50% in some states, and with the reductions in installed cost, I cannot see it taking 20 years to pay back for long. In Germany the current installed cost hovers around $3-4/watt, mostly based on installation efficiency. The Feed In Tariff system works quite well and with a guaranteed contract, lots of people are getting 5-6% loans based on 10-12% ROIs so they are not out of pocket.

Interestingly, the best incentive scheme I have seen for solar was here in Toronto a couple of years ago. It was a perfect storm of rebates for solar hot water, $1250 from the Feds, $1250 from the Province, there was a further renovation tax credit of about $1300 AND a sales tax credit. To top it off, the city give a 0% loan for 10 years. Typical installed cost for a system was $8k and this was the first time that i installed systems for people who were not middle to upper income and would not have been able to afford it before.  

Posted By Lbear on 06 May 2012 11:12 PM

The problem here is that it still costs $20k+ to install a solar panel system in a residential home. The ROI is 20+ years and that is not including panel replacement, breakdowns and maintenance. Most people will not take a $20k hit for something that they might break even on in 20 years. That is the main reason WHY solar has not become popular here in the USA.

Unless the costs drop even more, it just will not catch on.

What are the details for your calculated payback time?  In my sunny area, I have computed the payback times for three different PV systems with two different utilities, and the simple payback times are 9, 12, and 11 years.  See details and assumptions at: http://www.residentialenergylaborat...stems.html.  These payback times do not include the fact that energy prices in this area have increased faster than the overall inflation rate in the past, and likely will in the future.  For the period 1989 through 2010, the CPI inflation rate was 2.64% while the inflation rate for natural gas in this area was 4.69% and the inflation rate for electricity (from '97 through '09) was 3.08%.  Accounting for this higher inflation rate for energy compared to the overall CPI, the payback times are less than those given above.  For example, the 9-year payback becomes a 7-year payback.  This is a very favorable payback time compared to the payback for some "super-insulation" approaches, as shown at http://www.residentialenergylaboratory.com/costs.html.  This payback time is probably much less than for expensive European windows used by some folks in passive houses.   

When you talk about "panel replacement, breakdowns and maintenance," what is your experience?  My experience is that PV panels installed in about 1999 are still working with zero maintenance performed, and no equipment replaced.  Modern inverters are projected to need replacement every 10 to 15 years, but beyond that, there appears to be zero maintenance unless you want to clean the panels.  For the most part, it is like maintaining the insulation in the walls. 

At the subsidy levels in MA the payback on rooftop PV is well under a decade- in many instances it's under 4 years- about the same time period as low-E storm window retrofits onto single-pane double-hungs.

Subsidies really skew the market, but they are what they are- policy implementing tools. The externalized costs of fossil-fueled power are far more than what gets metered & billed. PV becomes an automatic peak-shaver on air-conditioning peak loads, and even at the un-subsidized price the lifecycle cost/kwh is much lower than the spot price for spot-market peak generated power- it's a healthy and cost effective thing for the grid as a whole, and there's a good rationale for having the ratepayers share the burden of the subsidy cost, particularly in regions with relatively high mid-day air conditioning loads.

Posted By Dana1 on 07 May 2012 04:19 PM
At the subsidy levels in MA the payback on rooftop PV is well under a decade- in many instances it's under 4 years- about the same time period as low-E storm window retrofits onto single-pane double-hungs.

Subsidies really skew the market, but they are what they are- policy implementing tools. The externalized costs of fossil-fueled power are far more than what gets metered & billed. PV becomes an automatic peak-shaver on air-conditioning peak loads, and even at the un-subsidized price the lifecycle cost/kwh is much lower than the spot price for spot-market peak generated power- it's a healthy and cost effective thing for the grid as a whole, and there's a good rationale for having the ratepayers share the burden of the subsidy cost, particularly in regions with relatively high mid-day air conditioning loads.

This study & example shows that it would cost $25k before incentives and $15k after incentives. It states that it would take 16 years to break even.

Solar Costs - Southwest

This is why the FIT system works well. When gas or nuc company can amortize a power plant over 30 years but we cannot get our heads around a 15 year payback, something is wrong.

Pay a reasonable price for the power and you will get more takers.

Depends on the interest rate, but generally a 15 year straight payback means it never pays off. Ie, net present value is negative.

Here in WA the incentives are quite generous. Using made-in-Washington components gets you a 7-8 year payback in conjunction with Federal tax credits. In rough terms, a 6 kW system will get you about 6,000 - 7,000 kW of annual production which is about $700 - $800 worth of juice at market rates. The production incentive payments, however, will garner an additional $3,500 each year.

After that, it's free electricity, baby.

Posted By Lbear on 07 May 2012 08:51 PM

Posted By Dana1 on 07 May 2012 04:19 PM
At the subsidy levels in MA the payback on rooftop PV is well under a decade- in many instances it's under 4 years- about the same time period as low-E storm window retrofits onto single-pane double-hungs.

Subsidies really skew the market, but they are what they are- policy implementing tools. The externalized costs of fossil-fueled power are far more than what gets metered & billed. PV becomes an automatic peak-shaver on air-conditioning peak loads, and even at the un-subsidized price the lifecycle cost/kwh is much lower than the spot price for spot-market peak generated power- it's a healthy and cost effective thing for the grid as a whole, and there's a good rationale for having the ratepayers share the burden of the subsidy cost, particularly in regions with relatively high mid-day air conditioning loads.

This study & example shows that it would cost $25k before incentives and $15k after incentives. It states that it would take 16 years to break even.

Solar Costs - Southwest

That's one of the many differences in subsidy structure that skews results, making for a dramatically different return on invetment.  Even though the SW has much more favorable compared to MA (and much higher peak air conditioning loads that would benefit from PV), the payback is more than 3x as long. 

There are a several parts to the difference in return but the bulk of it is this: In MA retail-residiential electricity is substantially more expensive (more expensive than the lifecycle kwh cost  of PV), and in MA production credits can be sold into a local market for green electricity,  purchased by utilities under the regulatory gun to green-up their grid sources.   Without the secondary market for production credits the payoff would still be quicker in MA than in Phoenix, AZ, but it would be over a decade.