$9 heating and electric bill combined

[Seasoned Oak]

I think my garage has more windows. Reminds me of some old prison in Europe.

Id go with bigger and more windows and some kind of insulated closable shutters inside. On the few winter days(and nights) thats cloudy and cold you could close them up for the better insulation. 98 % of the rest of the year you could enjoy the light and the view.

 

[DougA]

OK, this is the first quote I found doing a simple Google search:

"Let's Be Realistic About Solar Economics Today
Solar electricity still costs more than fossil fuel electricity. Despite the fact that sunshine is free, it is still economically impossible to invest in a photovoltaic (PV) system and beat the per unit price advantage utilities have achieved for power generation through economies of scale and the low cost of traditional fossil fuel technologies. The installed cost per watt for PV technology continues to go down, but it has not yet reached a competitive level. This is why the simple payback calculation will consistently yield a discouraging result when used to analyze the return-on-investment for a residential renewable energy system."
Source: http://www.ecw.org/wisconsun/learn/learn_payback.shtml

They go on to say:
"Increasing energy efficiency remains the most cost effective way to reduce the impact of fossil fuel use."

I certainly don't disagree with that and I doubt anyone would. An added perspective is that buying new fridges and a/c units helps the economy in America, compared to PV units that are primarily made in China. Helping the US economy helps all of us by lowering taxes and lowering the debt, in addition to helping the environment.

Next is the Minnesota Dept of Natural Resources Solar Payback Calculator:
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/energysmart/solar_payback_calculator.htm
This should be somewhere near you jebatty. I used Minneapolis with $.12 KWh for electricity rate since that's the national average number I could find (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state) plus 25 KW system, $4. PV cost /watt, zero rebates and 2% inflation and price increase with zero maintenance. The payback is 21 years or 3% ROI. If I got 3% ROI on any investment, I would fire the fund manager. My wife got 16% last year for her retirement fund and it's a conservative fund. Last year, the DJIA was 25.41% The returns for stock markets in the past 5 years are: DJIA 12.95%; S&P500 15.20% NASDAQ 21.33%. I've done a some searching for the current cost of solar panel systems and I can't find an accurate number. Either the information is outdated (see burning cutlery below) or industry BS. I want something that takes into account the recent costs with imposed anti dumping charges, inspections, and especially the cost of panels if they were manufactured without gov't rebates or incentives. I strongly suspect that you cannot buy panels that have not been made without gov't assistance. I used the $4. provided because I can't refute it (yet). So, really, if you are getting 3% ROI and could have got 13% by putting your money into DJIA, you are losing 10% /year for the last 5 years. That's a BAD investment looking just for a $$ point of view.

In your chart, you are using a 5% increase in electricity rates but 3.5% inflation and 3.75% investment. All of these are BS. No one can project the increase in hydro prices but tying it to the rate of inflation would be more fair. The avg. rate of inflation in the US for the past 5 years is 1.736%, so I used 2% for both.

Even though I believe the payback is closer to 30+ yrs without gov't incentives, the bottom line is that I consider 21 year payback to not be viable for the vast majority of people. You disagree and that's your choice but the general public agree with me and that's why so few solar installations are being constructed, even with gov't rebates. It has just not become widely accepted. If it were a 10 yr. payback, everyone would be doing it, don't you think? No doubt the fiasco of fed $$ into failed solar mfgs. and the conviction of China for dumping solar panels on the US market has had some impact. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-10/u-s-sets-anti-dumping-duties-on-china-solar-imports.html

Here's another consumer installation: http://burningcutlery.com/solar/
Great site with lots of info. Their cost was $9. KW prior to any gov't rebates. Only after you add in all the rebates of 65% of the total cost did they manage to work out a payback of 12 years. Without rebates, the payback becomes impossible. Also, they clearly show photos of snow covered panels, which can be cleared if you are willing and able. In my brother in laws case, he's 62 and in ill health. That's an added cost (or lack of power & $$) if you have to hire someone to clear them. Also, it a fairly dangerous job with a fair expectation of problems.

The other factor is the value or cost of the system both through it's life span plus at the end of it's life. As my brother in law found out, it costs a great deal to remove the panels and reshingle when they are installed on a roof. There is also the upkeep and maintenance. He's already had 2 panels that have become defective and were replaced under warranty but once the warranty expires, the panels become expensive to replace. The BIG concern I have is the rapid changes in the industry with new technology making the old systems cost in-effective and the resulting disposal of them. I don't know anyone who does not believe that we will see significant changes in the industry in the very near future. Investing significant $$ in a system today IMHO is just not wise IF you are already have easy access to the grid.

Lastly, using a PV system is only viable when can rely upon power from the grid to provide power when there is no sun or unless you invest substantial $$ in a battery system. Both solar and wind power generation have real drawbacks. In our area, the high cost of electricity in the winter is early morning (7-9 am) and early evening (5-7 pm). Exactly when solar panels are producing nothing. Funny that. So, if your panels are producing power at non-peak times, when no one is home, how much value does it really have when you use the power at other times?

BTW, I have no idea what the breakdown of costs were for my brother in laws system. I have not been to his house in 2 years and not spoken of the system since them. I do get to hear 'things' when my wife talks to her sister though. I know he almost fell off the roof when shovelling snow off the grid. I've got 2,000 sf of flat roof facing south and the solar salesmen (vultures) have called on us a few times. I had a long discussion one and the guy knew very, very little - just how to make a sale. I am not anti gov't but as I stated earlier, IMHO, gov't money is better spent on people reducing their power usage though conservation than supporting PV or wind turbines. In Ontario, there's been a HUGE outcry over the thousand plus wind generators that have been installed and property values near them have plummeted. That's another discussion entirely.

I will jump when the price of PV systems come down to a realistic level and the output comes up to a realistic level. Until then, I use as little power during peak hours as possible and keep the wood stove running hard.

Back to you

 

[DBoon]

So, really, if you are getting 3% ROI and could have got 13% by putting your money into DJIA, you are losing 10% /year for the last 5 years. That's a BAD investment looking just for a $$ point of view.

For what it's worth, I just checked the annualized total return of the Vanguard S&P 500 Index fund from 11/13/2000 (inception) to January 31, 2014. It is 4.10%. I suspect that if I could go back 20 years it would not be much better. And this is not a guaranteed return.

 

[jebatty]

Doug - Your DJIA numbers are interesting but bogus. You use the same numbers that my brokerage company uses to convince me how much money I'm making. And conveniently the broker talks big during boom periods but falls silent when the market falls. When inflation is taken into account and the focus is on real rate of return, constant value dollars, and using your DJIA averages, you better fire your fund manager right now:

Doug: If I got 3% ROI on any investment, I would fire the fund manager. My wife got 16% last year for her retirement fund and it's a conservative fund. Last year, the DJIA was ...

because "The historical DJIA average real return is just 1.9% per year." http://johnvashonblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/real-djia-returns-adjusted-for-inflation-startling/ And even this 1.9% real rate of return is an overstatement because it fails to take into account taxes which still must be paid on that return.

I've computed the real rate of return on my chart using 20 year averages as a basis for valuing the investment. And the rate of return on a home solar system is tax free. Over the long term a 3% tax free ROI, and just about guaranteed as good as anything can be guaranteed, always beats the market.

Your argument reminds of the run-up in real estate values. I recall over a 3 year period the market value of our home jumped 35% in one year, 25% the next, and another 15% the third year. Every rational person knew this was bogus. Yet the funny money and greed drove a feeding frenzy. Then all *ell broke loose and the housing market along with the economy tanked with great fears of total collapse.

From the same source quoted above: "Take the 12 year period from 2000 to 2012. The DJIA moved from 11,497 to 13,104 for an increase of 14%. But after inflation of 25% during the same period, the real return was negative with a loss in purchasing power of 13%!"

I am very comfortable with my tax free ROI. I have nearly erased the cost of energy as a factor in my life. And I now need to quote my son: "Solar is a good hedge against inflation. Financial independence is just having more coming in than going out. I see the wisdom in controlling outflow. Outflow can be predicted/prevented by securing a supply of necessities. Once the supply is secure, the effect of the economy as a whole has less influence on the individual. No need to worry about the markets if your necessities are met."

 

[woodgeek]

Doug, your first link from Wisconsin is from 2004, and assumes a $10/W after rebate install price. The current no-rebate price is 2.5X better than they used. Your final link is from a 2007 install that costs more like $8/W.

As for snow....in my area and much of the midwest, the 3 months of winter have only about 10% of the annual solar resource. Not removing snow might hurt your bottom line about 10% or so. And a lot of folks up there remove snow from their rooves with long handled snow rakes, from the ground. Safe if you can handle the rake. Sounds like you could give your BIL some useful advice if he talked to you.

And everyone here would agree with you that energy efficiency comes first, and has better payback than PV. We disagree with you that PV is a viable strategy, in some markets, often using available rebates, to further reduce (fossil) energy use.

Unsurprisingly, this discussion has devolved into one not of whether PV pays for itself, but whether it beats Wall Street. Jim covered the real earnings issue: PV returns are inflation corrected if you assume elec tracks inflation. And tax free.

If your wife made 16% on her IRA last year, this suggests she is 50:50 bonds and stocks, and the bonds were flat while the DJIA was up more like 30% with dividends. I would expect savvy investors to consider their investment in PV to be equivalent to a bond investment, zero risk, low guaranteed return, or perhaps better like an I-bond, and to adjust their asset allocation accordingly.

 

[Ehouse]

Governments like to promote common good issues, to get votes, then make everyone ineligible, to get special interest money. Easiest way to squelch self interest is expensive qualifiers for a subsidy. Non qualifying solar schemes are cheap to build and work quite well[/quot

Governments like to promote common good issues, to get votes, then make everyone ineligible, to get special interest money. Easiest way to squelch self interest is expensive qualifiers for a subsidy. Non qualifying solar schemes are cheap to build and work quite well

+1

 

[DougA]

The figures for DJIA, etc. came from this site: www.measuringworth.com/DJIA_SP_NASDAQ/
I used: December 31 2008 to January 2, 2014 If this info is inaccurate, let me know and I will report it. Otherwise, what you guys are blabbing about with lower #'s is garbage. I clearly said that my wife's return was 16% in a conservative fund. It's her $$, she's retirement age so her option.

To me, this has little to do with comparing PV to other investments. It has everything to do with PV being far too expensive for the value received. A 20+ yr. payback IMHO stinks and I can't find any data anywhere that says you get a faster payback unless gov't money is used. Actually, I can find a lot of information that the payback is much more than 20 yrs with gov't funding.

When i used the chart, I adjusted the cost to $4. - exactly as I stated.

25 KW system, $4. PV cost /watt, zero rebates and 2% inflation and price increase with zero maintenance

Yes, the information is old but the chart works perfectly once you have made the adjustments.

And everyone here would agree with you that energy efficiency comes first, and has better payback than PV. We disagree with you that PV is a viable strategy, in some markets, often using available rebates, to further reduce (fossil) energy use.

Agreed EXCEPT that I disagree with gov't rebates. I would also agree that in more southern areas, PV may indeed pay for itself without rebates and certainly for off-grid, PV is the number 1 choice.

Circus quote again:
Governments like to promote common good issues, to get votes, then make everyone ineligible, to get special interest money. Easiest way to squelch self interest is expensive qualifiers for a subsidy. Non qualifying solar schemes are cheap to build and work quite well

Yup, agree there too. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, a conservationist and half way to an environmentalist. I still DO NOT want gov't rebates on PV. Rebates create an artificially high price and demand that is timed to only work with rebates. Let the industry work harder to bring prices down where it can sustain itself.

 

[woodgeek]

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, a conservationist and half way to an environmentalist. I still DO NOT want gov't rebates on PV. Rebates create an artificially high price and demand that is timed to only work with rebates. Let the industry work harder to bring prices down where it can sustain itself.

Based on your BIL's experience, I would feel the same way. But I think you are describing the situation in Ontario. Or Spain 5 years ago. Or Solar DHW in the US 35 years ago (or today for that matter). There can be bad incentives that make for messed up markets and vulture contractors (your word).

Sounds like you are in support of PV if it were cheap enough to reach grid parity (cheaper that current market grid power) w/o subsidies. We are trying to tell you that that has already happened in several markets in the US. Right now that $4/W installed, pre-rebate, (which you seem to think is in doubt, despite coming from a 'Science/Academia source without industry funding') will get you there. You want ROI? Go read about PV in Hawaii or the desert Southwest. And of the $4/W, the panels themselves are now just $1/W! The rest is permitting and installation (and inverters). That can vary immensely WRT local COL and govt bureaucracy, as described in the LBL link above.

Are we saying that your BIL didn't get took? No, he got took by a shady installer who only exists b/c of the messed up incentives up there.

Lastly, I think you moved the goalposts from 'payback' to 'beats Wall Street'. Very few people have 100% of their cash in index funds....most have a good chunk (or all of it) in bonds, CDs etc. Jim is arguing that those folks could do better to move some of that chunk into PV, and assuming they get a good installer and quote, beat the returns at equally low risk.

 

[DougA]

Are you referring to: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-rele...the-u-s-continues-to-decline-at-a-rapid-pace/ ???

If so, this is what I read: "The report indicates that the median installed price of PV systems completed in 2012 was $5.30/W for residential and small commercial systems smaller than 10 kilowatts (kW) in size and was $4.60/W for commercial systems of 100 kW or more in size. "

plus "The study also highlights the significant variability in PV system pricing. For example, among PV systems less than 10 kW in size and completed in 2012, 20 percent of systems had an installed price less than $4.50/W while another 20 percent were priced above $6.50/W.
This variability is partly associated with differences in pricing across states, where the median installed price of PV systems less than 10 kW ranged from $3.90/W to $5.90/W in 2012. "

I did some further research and made a few calls to see what my cost would be. Hadn't done that in a few years. With the gov't rebates via mandates to the electrical utility to buy my power at 10 times the cost of wholesale power and 4x the cost of retail power, I can indeed buy a system that will pay for itself in 6 years. The installed price is indeed just below $4./W. If you remove the rebates (at least in my case) the payback is 24 years. That still does not account for the rebates that have gone to the manufacturers directly. In Ontario, the gov't (of the time) signed a contract giving Samsung ONE BILLION DOLLARS to build a plant in the province. The contract cannot be cancelled without huge cancellation costs. Ya think I like that?? I still cannot find anything that shows me that a residential PV system, properly installed without any gov't rebates will pay for itself in anything under 20 years in the northern states/southern Canada.

Here's the best link that summarizes my opposition perfectly:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/29/blame-solar-for-sky-high-ontario-power-bills/
Quote, "In 2013, solar projects caused electricity bills to be about $550-million higher than they would otherwise have been." This does not even account for substantial rebates elsewhere in the system, only the cost of power. Is it fair that my neighbours pay for my solar system? Is it fair that I make a profit off my neighbours who do not have a roof that will work with a PV system? That bothers me A LOT.

Another link with firefighter's concerns: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/winds...se-dangers-ontario-firefighters-say-1.1700070

 

[DougA]

I just wanted to add the whole comparison with DJIA is not about where to invest money. My assumption is that very few of us have the cash on hand to buy a complete solar system. The comparison is that you need to factor in the cost of borrowing that money. And if you are borrowing it, are you not farther ahead to invest it and end up with enough money in 20 years that you can buy a whole PV system with cash and still have lots left over to buy a car.

This discussion has prompted me to check into the current cost and payback as mentioned in my last post. I have sent in my info to see IF my address qualifies for the gov't program. If it does, I will have to wrestle with the moral dilemma of whether my neighbours should pay me to use solar.

 

[woodgeek]

On the contrary, having to borrow the money makes the whole deal much harder to turn a profit. I think there are plenty of folks with the cash on hand to buy a solar system, and trying to find safe, inflation hedged investments.

Sounds like ON is using a different model than the US to promote solar. The $1/W panels I buy from China do not have a US rebate hidden in them. The other $3/W goes to US-based installers, accountants and inspectors. And then I sell my kWh to the grid for the same rate they sell kWh to my neighbor. The only go'vt involvement is a tax rebate that might pay me back upfront for $1-2/W. From the gov't point of view, it might also look like a good investment.

In the ON deal, how long will they pay me $.82/kWh, forever, or does it phase out?

 

[DougA]

The .82 was for the full 20 yr. contract and is now gone, due to public outcry. The Premier (same as Governor) quit when the sh*t hit the fan. The current deal is .42 for a 20 yr. contract. At the end of 20 yrs. you either buy batteries or sell the system as scrap. The utility has the right to unhook you at the end of the contract. To be fair, the .42 is almost identical and perhaps better. The panels are better now and the cost is less than half of what they were.
So, I pay $30K for a system and then the taxpayer is on the hook for $60K total in the last 12 yrs. The taxpayers are already under water for the program. From the article: "By the end of 2014, solar will be costing Ontarians $1.25-billion per year – while generating a paltry 2% of Ontario’s total electricity requirement." Maybe you get an idea where my anger comes from.

I think there are plenty of folks with the cash on hand

I didn't realize that people were so wealthy now. lol

 

[Seasoned Oak]

I didn't realize that people were so wealthy now. lol

Lots of older retired folks out there making squat on their investments. .25% saving accounts ect . Anything with a return in whole numbers looks good nowadays.
And every $1 saved in reduced bills is another part of $1 in all the associated taxes and fees. For wage earners its even worse, as they need to earn $1.50 or more for every $1 they get to bring home.

 

[DougA]

Lots of older retired folks out there making squat on their investments. .25% saving accounts ect . Anything with a return in whole numbers looks good nowadays. And every $1 saved in reduced bills is another part of $1 in all the associated taxes and fees. For wage earners its even worse, as they need to earn $1.50 or more for every $1 they get to bring home.

Yes & no. Lots of retired people are afraid to put their savings into a fund and feel safer in an almost zero interest bond. It's their choice but our choice is a balanced fund that makes half as much as the DJIA with a lot less risk. It is a sad fact though that they counted on a reasonable retirement and got shafted by Wall St. greed.
The second part is my argument against gov't funding for solar installations. The industry needs to survive without tax money. I'm no tea party person but lower taxes is a big thing. We're paying a ton higher taxes in Canada than you are in the US. It hurts when everything I buy except food is 13% HST at time of sale PLUS higher income taxes that are mostly from gov't mismanagement.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

I'm no tea party person but lower taxes is a big thing. We're paying a ton higher taxes in Canada than you are in the US. It hurts when everything I buy except food is 13% HST at time of sale PLUS higher income taxes that are mostly from gov't mismanagement.

Thats the beauty of being off grid or offsetting utility costs with PV or even a wood stove. Here in Pa we have a boatload of taxes on utility bills. When you eliminate the bill you also eliminate all the taxes. Sometimes eliminating utility bills has a good return vs watching inflation and near zero earnings eat up your savings.

 

[woodgeek]

The .82 was for the full 20 yr. contract and is now gone, due to public outcry. The Premier (same as Governor) quit when the sh*t hit the fan. The current deal is .42 for a 20 yr. contract. At the end of 20 yrs. you either buy batteries or sell the system as scrap. The utility has the right to unhook you at the end of the contract. To be fair, the .42 is almost identical and perhaps better. The panels are better now and the cost is less than half of what they were.
So, I pay $30K for a system and then the taxpayer is on the hook for $60K total in the last 12 yrs. The taxpayers are already under water for the program. From the article: "By the end of 2014, solar will be costing Ontarians $1.25-billion per year – while generating a paltry 2% of Ontario’s total electricity requirement." Maybe you get an idea where my anger comes from.

Sounds like the model that Spain was using to promote PV, including the outcome.

 

[jebatty]

Doug, I won't argue your situation in Ontario. But you can't generalize and use that to argue that solar does not pay generally. I laid before you a real situation, black and white, and you argue with that and struggle to discount the truth. I'm not asserting my situation is for everyone. Some are in a better (state and utility incentives, etc.) and some worse (no net metering, etc.) situation than I am. My system does payback with a real rate of return that is very attractive when compared to other investments.

All I have is the US federal 30% tax credit. I don't know if there was any rationale for the US picking this number, but it may relate somewhat to estimates that the real cost of fossil fuel electricity is 170% on average of what US residents pay for electricity when the external costs of fossil fuel electricity are considered. If that is the rationale, and if my electric rate was 170% of what it now is, that is, $0.196/kwh, and if I had no federal tax credit at all, then with a cost of my system at $32,000, beginning kwh rate of $0.196/kwh, the economic payback for my system would occur in year 17 rather than year 20, a faster payback, and my rate of return has increased. One could argue that the incentive is less than it should be.

Please remember that you brought up your wife's 16% return on her retirement account as an argument to support your position that a fund manager should be fired if a 3% ROI was the investment return, the implication being that much better ROI's were available elsewhere than on a solar system. If you would look at the Dec 29, 2003 - Dec 30, 2013 DJIA, a 10 year period you would find that the DJIA rose from 10,405 to 16,470, but you also would find this increase to represent a 4.5% rate of return before inflation and before taxes, and if only inflation was considered, the rate of return is barely above $0.

I would never argue that it is impossible to get a better return on other investments than on solar. My position simply is that solar pays in my situation, it is a near guaranteed return, near risk-free, and on average it will out-perform or at worst be competitive with most if not all other investments after inflation and taxes over the long term. I also would argue that the federal tax credit incentive partially compensates for the real cost of fossil fuel electricity, a cost which the public now pays in health, environmental and other losses, but a cost which I am more than alleviating through my contribution of solar electric. And I also would argue that it is fair to compensate me with the tax credit, other tax payers paying the burden (in which I share as a taxpayer for credits given to others), because I am saving the public money in excess of my tax credit.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Iv seen stock fortunes disappear overnight. I dont think that is possible with a solar system. Never heard of one being stolen or destroyed by market forces,possibly a hailstorm is the worst peril. Should be able to get insurance for that.

 

[Circus]

Here's 5 years of numbers from 100 sq ft of disqualified solar air heaters. $300 worth of polycarbonate, sheet metal, four shopping bags, black paint and insulation, cut my heating bill in half. One LP fill per year instead of two. This week a 400 gallon LP fill cost $2800.
Disclosure: Some savings was from a disqualified solar water heater.
As for PV, Can the Micro inverter manufacturer shut you down with the web site you use to monitor your PVs? I noticed home monitoring is unavailable.

 

[jebatty]

... possibly a hailstorm is the worst [solar] peril. Should be able to get insurance for that.

Since our solar is ground mount in a field, forest or grass fire also is a risk. Homeowner's insurance on accessory buildings covers the ground mount solar, and no additional insurance cost for us as the coverage limit more than handles the value of the garage + solar.

 

[ihookem]

I read almost all the posts. It turned into a solar argument, not that I care. Owner claimed a 9 dollar heat and elevtric bill. That is just an all out lie. My gas bill is 9 bucks if I use nothing and my electric bill is 8 if I use nothing. So, I'm at 17 buck if I use nothing. I did however have a 17 dollar gas bill last month, my lowest in 20 yrs. My electric was 73 bucks. I use about 500 kw per month. 450 in summer when I don't need air and the sunn don't set till I go to bed. I think it is very odd that they would put in a 7k dollar furnace for a few days a year. And also 30k for solar cost more than 5 bucks a month for elevtric. True, the elecric bill wa only 5 bucks for joice but that is very deceiving with the solar pnels. I don't know why this stuff gets in the news at all. Some people buy into it cause they hate the gas and el electric co. so much they will cut their throats to spite them. I think 75 bucks for electric is darn cheap, especially since 18 of it is my pump to get heat to my house from the wood boiler. I am however interested in solar, but not for electricity. I want a type of panel that will heat air or water to pump into my house to supplement my wood burner. Not that my wood boiler needs supplement. I just see it as easier to spend a grand or something to heat water and pump it in the house and through a HX with a fan running on it so it will heat my basement and therfore heat my house a bit better. If it works, I may add on and heat my first floor. I read the way he built his house. I think I built mine better. Here is why. He insulated his walls very weird with 2x6 walls. He said he sprayed the interior part of exterior was with foam . 1" I suppose. Then pumped in fiberglass. I put 4" of closed cell in my 2x6 walls and sprayed against the sheathing. This leaves 1.5" of dead air space between foam and drywall for about an R 4 or 5. Now I have R 28 for foam, R 4 air space, R 2 from brick, and another R 1 from OSB and drywall. A R 35 or so wall - a bit where the studs are. I figure an honest R 30. I have most my windows with storms or an extra home made 1/8" glass. for a storm. I have at least R 60 in the attic. I caulked my walls before I raised them. No air gets under the bottom plate. All plates are caulked. Even between my energy heel rafters are foamed and sealed so no air gets in except where the attic vents are. I still use 4 cords of hardwood to heat my house. Any suggestions on how to make a solar panel to heat water, run it in the house, through a HX for heat. I believe solar is better to use for heating water.

 

[DougA]

There was a news item yesterday but I can't find the clip to post a link. The guy made a large box that was only 6" or so deep , painted everything black inside, then put a number of black aluminum downspouts inside and hooked it up so that cold air from the house was going in the bottom and hot air was coming out the top. It would be easy to make and cheap.

My house is heated with passive solar from 24' x 12' windows facing south. If you calculate the overhang correctly, you get tons of sun during the winter and very little during the summer. Works great on sunny days and our great room will easily get to 80*. The problem is that heat does not store well. Even with many tons of insulated cement floor, block walls, etc. once the sun has set, the chill is noticeable very fast. Theory is one thing, practicality is another. The other problem is that even with thermal windows & curtains, the R factor stinks compared to insulated walls. So, even though we get lots of heat on sunny days, we lose it on dark days and at night. For us, the windows are an extension of the home to our large property, so the aesthetics outweigh heat loss. The heat for our wood stove feels great but it pales in comparison to sitting in the living room on a bitterly cold winter day and having the sun heat your body and mind.

I used to heat water with solar and gave up. It did not perform well enough for the added PITA. If you use exterior panels, you need an exchanger with a tank and hookups.

My plan for 2014 is to try to build a masonry heater to replace my old VC stove and that will be able to accommodate a water heating circuit. Wood is much more reliable than sun.

BTW, we now have 2 quotes in for a 10 KW solar panel system. I will report back in a week or two. The numbers I get are still not that great, even with the gov't paying me four times the rate of electricity. It is clearly not a great deal but I will have to crunch numbers more. It may be an OK deal if you look at everything without any bias. Problems so far are added insurance costs, high cost of loan for equipment, etc. I spoke to two people who have 10 KW systems and one is getting $100. or so per month in the winter on a gov't contract paying them $.80 kw, the other says that he gets zilch for most of the winter. The bank doesn't care if it's sunny or not, they want their loan payments regardless. The one advantage I did not realize is that when the utility cuts off the contract at the end, you are still guaranteed to get the rate they charge you for hydro. In our case, as I posted earlier and as others have said, the utility has the upper hand because they can nail you on incidental charges that in our case represent nearly half the monthly invoice.

 

[jebatty]

Doug, a few things to think about:

1) Passive solar and heat: you are correct, air heats quickly but has very low heat storage capacity, so when the sun goes down, so does the heat. But this also means that your house is losing the heat, i.e., heat loss. Adding thermal mass (masonry) will not help very much, because your house is still losing the heat. Also, masonry has low specific heat, takes a long time to heat up, and of course releases that heat slowly. The low heat intensity and short period of winter sun will do little to heat the mass, little heat will be taken up by the mass, and you may barely notice any benefit. Sunny Fall and Spring may do much better than Winter.

2) Thermal windows & curtains do have a low R factor which stinks compared to well insulated walls. But as you say, aesthetics are important. With windows, you get what you pay for. The point I want to make is that really good windows are available, R12 and better if you want to pay for them. Aesthetics plus comfort ruled the day for us. We paid plenty for our 24' feet of glass across the front of our house, plus many more windows, all with R8 rated glass. While well insulated walls are better, these windows were about 3-4x the R value of other windows then available, and after 20 years still perform as well as when they were installed: no frost, no condensation, no cold air wash, warm to the touch on the inside even when it is -20F and colder outside. They block heat (infrared) from escaping to the outside when it is warm inside and cold outside, and block heat from coming into the house in the summer.

3) I have no objection to a masonry heater, but keep in mind that your house heat loss still will rule the day. You will need btu input to match your heat loss, masonry will not give you more btu's, although it may help to even out the btu swings if you have excessive btu input at one time of the day and less at another time. But just like concrete in-floor radiant, it will take a long time to heat the mass and the heat is released very slowly. If you need 35,000 btuh before the masonry heater, you will need 35,000 btuh after the heater.

4) Many of us will be interested in your solar quotes for a 10kw system. You and I may disagree on the payback, as you tend to look at short term stock market performance for comparison while I use long term (20 year) average inflation rate, CD interest rate (low risk), and rate of increase in US utility rates. For every stock market period you pick with high returns, I can pick a same period when you would have lost money. The stock market is very risky, unless you are very smart or very lucky, and I know I am not lucky and as to smart, no comment. I see solar as long term (30 and more years), very low risk, very strong hedge against utility rate inflation, and a real rate of return that beats the market over the long term. And I don't have to be smart or luck to get the return, it just pays every hour the sun shines and I don't worry or spend any effort to realize the benefit. Not too shabby in my book. You might call me a fiscal conservative and environmental liberal.

5) Solar "zilch" over the winter will depend on your local insolation and the vagaries of year to year weather. A good solar dealer/consultant, or perhaps even you with good research, can tell you how you will do during the winter, on average. Yes, winter production will be down compared to summer. So, depending on local conditions, the question is: do you get more annual production by optimizing for winter, for summer, or somewhere in between? My system is optimized for summer. I'm new at the game and in a year (or longer to account for averages) I will let you know. I used a consultant for my system design, as I did not feel comfortable working this all out by myself. [You can even out by a system which tracks the sun, both E/W and N/S. I opted not doing this because the cost was very high, added production did not "pay" over the long term, plus maintenance time and cost on mechanics in our very cold, snow and ice climate was not for me.]

6) For me during this 1st year of operation, production Nov-Dec was 60-65% of estimated, Jan was 80%, and so far in Feb is 115%. I would be very happy to see my first year meet or beat the average, but it could as easily fall below the average. I'm in the game for the long term.

 

[woodgeek]

I would crunch the numbers assuming the govt breaks the contract, and drops to say 21 cents, in a few years. I think requiring the system pay for itself during cloudy winter is unreasonable....have to look at annual average numbers.

 

[woodgeek]

Doug,

I'm going to make a cynical prediction....your quotes will come in 'just ok' in terms of ROI with a 41 cent/kWh subsidy, and well over the $4/W that is possible south of the border. I think the feed in subsidies tend to drive installers to charge more so they can 'get' part of the subsidy.