Solar Panels Review
Take a Look at Solar Panels
Yes, its true that last few years have seen a considerable amount of reduction in the prices of the solar panels which has made the solar roof top technology a feasible option for the people in America. Moreover, incentives and the rebates offered by the federal and the state government have made the solar technology actually a lucrative option for the residents. Well, through my research I have found that the average cost of the off grid residential solar system in USA is around $3.75 per watt and it is without any rebate and tax credit offered by the government. You made a right point that state like Arizona has lower payback period than the other states in America because of its excellent policy for the solar roof top. Along with its favorable solar policies, Arizona is one of the top states which receives highest amount of the solar radiations on its surface, around 6.5 KW/m2 in a day. In a nut shell, I want to say that feasibility of any solar system is going to be decided majorly by the following main parameters: (i) The cost of the system (ii) The intensity of the solar radiation in that location (iii) The state and the Federal incentives offered (iv) The cost of the grid electricity in comparison to the solar electricity.
Solar Panels for Homes: What to Look For
You think $0.30 cents is bad? Here in Australia I am paying .35 for peak hours (7am to 11pm Mon - Fri). Off peak (all other times) is just under $0.15 On the plus side, I get paid $0.68c for power I export during the day (which makes it uneconomical to install batteries). My total power bill for 2015 was just $165 which includes a service fee of $1 per day. The power exported paid for all the power we bought, plus more than half the fixed $1 per day ripoff fee the utility Co hits us with. HAIL SOLAR - LONG LIVE SOLAR !!!
Because some grids have a lot of paid up coal, nuclear and hyddro generation that lowers their cost. Other grids have much more expensive sources. Do remember that those paid off coal and nuclear plants will not last forever. Even those that are not closed because they can't compete in the market will eventually wear out and need to be replaced. If all the places that enjoy lower priced electricity were to replace their coal and nuclear plants with new coal and nuclear plants they would have the highest cost electricity in the country. The average lifespan for a coal or nuclear plant is 40 years. Take a look at how old our coal and nuclear fleet is. We've got a lot of thermal plants that won't be with us long. If you live in a 8c-9c area (that isn't getting its low electricity price from hydro) then you might want to be pushing for more wind and solar so that your prices don't go through the roof later on.
I just installed a "plug and play" solar system on my house for $2.89/watt, a 4410 watt system. The payback is calculated at 12 years without the subsidy and 9 years with the federal tax subsidy. Is it worth it? That depends on how you play the economics of the system. If it last 30 years I would say emphatically yes.
It depends on the person too. How many traffic lights you get stuck at verse a person with a 100,000k career. A disabled person Is likely to be faced with constant clouds, birds dropping stones, strong winds and many other (life defying odds) that would make a frugal living disastrous. I'd look at your lifestyle before spending a dime on solar panels. I'll just stick with my regular electric company who threatens to shut my power off when my payments are late.
The measurements of a particular panel will determine how many youвЂ™ll be able to install. At some point, youвЂ™ll probably want to consult with a professional installer to determine whether your roof can handle the weight of a particular solar-panel system, whether it meets local building and fire codes, and whether it will work effectively.
WOW, a numberless critique of solar without the REAL COSTS of coal: over 13,000 premature deaths per year, $100 BILLION in health care costs, environmental disasters like coal ash spills, AND billions of dollars in tax subsidies like percentage depletion.
Let's say that a utility company in a certain region of the country (Denver or LA, for example) foresees a need for 2.2GW of electricity within 10 years (due to rapid residential and commercial / industrial growth).
At these low solar prices, wouldn't it be cost competitive for the utility company to offer distributed solar installations at very advantageous pricing, not only applying gov't subsidies but perhaps applying their own discount, or offering zero interest solar system loans -- instead of building a $14 billion dollar Vogtle-sized (#3+#4) nuclear power plant rated at 2.2GW?
I realize that solar produces no power at night, but peak demand happens in the daytime anyway.
If 3.0GW of distributed solar was added to the grid to ensure that a full 2.2GW was always available during the daylight hours, and even if the utility company was giving out once-in-a-lifetime rooftop solar installation deals -- it would still cost far less than the $14 billion (and 10 years of construction time) required for the 2.2GW Vogtle #3 and #4 reactors.
And, no expensive fuel rods to replace every 3 years, and no nuclear security concerns to spend even more money on, and no spent fuel that must be babysat and cooled for the next 20,000 years.
Not that I hate nuclear, but the tipping point must already be long passed IF we factor all costs into the equation.
Wouldn't you agree?
By the time all the costs are totaled, not only could a utility have installed free rooftop solar for everyone in the city, they could also have bought everyone a new Tesla -- IF all of the costs of nuclear power plant construction, nuclear security, fuel rod costs, operating costs, maintenance costs, labour costs and spent fuel storage costs are factored in. (I'm joking about the Tesla thing, btw)
Obviously, I've deliberately left nuclear disaster/contamination, earthquake/reactor SCRAM costs out of the equation, as that's too difficult to predict.
Utility companies could be giving panels away for next-to-nothing (as long as they get installed in their territory, of course, and as long as that installed capacity does eventually total 3.0GW) rather than building $14 billion dollar nuclear power plants with their ongoing and ultra-high running/security/spent fuel storage costs, IMHO.