Nova on Solar energy

[saichele]

Don't know if anyone caught the Nova on Solar Energy (episode title "Saved by the Sun") but it was pretty interesting. Not the least of which was the discussion of the guy in Boston who cut his electric bill in half by installing $24K worth of panels. Of course, his bill was still higher than my combined gas and elec.

Steve

 

[mayhem]

My god, I have to wonder what his bill was before the $24k panel install...must have electric heat too.

 

[eba1225]

Yea cut his bill in half, but what is his ROI on that project. I would love to do the same but can't quite stomach the ROI of 12 - 15 years on a 5KW system. If I could get that ROI down to 5 - 7 then I can float the note to get it done.

 

[saichele]

Yup. He's in a little house in Somerville (basically in Boston). Proudly held up an electric bill for $125, as the post panel fee. So he's generating $125 worth of solar on his roof, $1500/yr. The system cost $24K, but the good taxpayers of Mass. ponied up $12K in credits. So the ROI is 8yrs, 16 without the credits.

I find it hard to beleive that in that part of the world they don't have NG, or at least oil, heat. And it's hard to see what Mass gets out of it.

Steve

 

[Corey]

It's always nice when the taxpayers get to pony up a few thousand dollars to help out some guy who already has multiple thousands laying around to buy solar panels!

On a side note, some utilities were offering incentives to go solar or reduce electric consumption - was that also part of this guys rebates? Some people questioned why the utility would care about people saving energy. I think that breaks down to the customer charge - they want you as a customer, just don't want you to use any energy. As an example:

1000 people using 1000 KWh/ month at 10 cents per KWh, and a customer charge of $10 per month would be $110 per month per person or $110,000 for the utility.

100,000 people using 100 KWh/month at 10 cents per KWh, and a customer charge of $10 per month would be $ 20 per month per person or $2 million for the utility.

So it seems that they would prefer to have many customers using very little power!

Corey

 

[saichele]

I think you're right, except that most places you don't get much choice on the electric provider. As you correctly surmise, most of the time the 'rate' is semi-regulated to be near the actual cost to the utility of generation (so it doesn't help the utility all the much) whereas the customer charge is really the operating funds for the labor, materials, etc.

Steve

 

[smirnov3]

It's always nice when the taxpayers get to pony up a few thousand dollars to help out some guy who already has multiple thousands laying around to buy solar panels!

On a side note, some utilities were offering incentives to go solar or reduce electric consumption - was that also part of this guys rebates? Some people questioned why the utility would care about people saving energy. I think that breaks down to the customer charge - they want you as a customer, just don't want you to use any energy. As an example:


Corey

Actually, Utilities are required by law to encourage customers to go green.

Ie: we (the people) voted to hold a gun to the Utilites heads so that the Utility company will force us to be good.
Sounds kind of sado-masochistic, when you put it that way.

 

[TMonter]

The system cost $24K, but the good taxpayers of Mass. ponied up $12K in credits.

Actually they didn't pony up anything, he was just able to keep money that was rightly his and apply it to his property. I think that's a great solution.