Home Solar Panels

Armueller2001 · #1 12-21-2008, 10:43 PM

How cost-effective are solar panels when it comes to reducing the amount of energy you have to buy from the utility company? Anyone use this technology on their home?

username n/a · #2 12-21-2008, 10:53 PM

I, for one, have never used, or studied solar panels. So I feel that given the fact I have no knowledge on this subject that I shouldn't really post on the matter. Though I do feel the need to commend you for having an interest in solar panels as a way to power your house.

Ericman197 · #3 12-21-2008, 11:00 PM

It depends on too many factors for me to say. For the most part, I would say they are not cost effective: you'd make a lot more money invested in just about anything else. Keep in mind that you need a location that receives a LOT of light for panels to be effective. Illinois is pretty far North. You want to be in an area as South as possible, with open flat land so you can receive light ALL day, unobstructed by trees. This may be possible on your roof, but the light in your area is not as strong as it would be in Mexico, for example. And if you have a lot of stormy weather, that's going to take away from the light. Hail can destroy the panels, so that's something else to watch out for.

Armueller2001 · #4 12-21-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by username n/a

Though I do feel the need to commend you for having an interest in solar panels as a way to power your house.

Yeah, it's really nothing to do with the "green" aspect of it, I just hate giving money every month to companies that I don't have to. I'd rather buy solar panels and stick it to the man.

hbarcat · #5 12-22-2008, 12:56 AM

Solar panels are about $5-$10 per watt. $5,000 gets you up to 1,000 watts.

Solar home packages including batteries and other crap start at $10,000. Typical complete installations are twice that.

A solar installation will pay for itself in about 6-10 years. You have to replace batteries about every 5 years. Locations where there is less than ideal lighting (more northerly or more cloudy) make the system a lot less efficient.

Southern Illinois isn't too bad in the summer months. About 70% of days are sunny. Winter is crap. 3 out of 4 days are cloudy and even on sunny days the sun is low and inefficient.

It isn't economical but if it makes you feel better to "save the planet", then go ahead.

You can go solar and "stick it to the man" at the electric company, but you're going to be forking over the same amount of money to "the man" who owns the solar panel company and the battery company.

Some typical prices:

http://www.solarhome.com/catalog.htm

Armueller2001 · #6 12-22-2008, 01:02 AM

Maybe I'll just wait until the technology becomes cheaper.

coffeelover23 · #7 02-06-2009, 10:27 AM

yeah, hbarcat's right. Unless you plan on living in your house for more than 7 years and you're ok waiting that long just to break even (more if you hire a solar panel installer), it's just not worth it right now.

New cheaper solar technologies are coming out in the next few years that will make it a lot more worth it. Personally I'm waiting for thin film or solar paint to come out before putting any up on my house.

MakiSupaStar · #8 02-06-2009, 10:30 AM

I have a buddy that bought a house in San Diego that had them pre-installed. He gets a check from Southern California Edison every month for contributing to the grid. I'm not sure how it works. It's not much, I think the biggest check he got was 40 bucks. Apparently, he generates enough electricity for his household and then gets paid for the surplus.

RWP · #9 02-06-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

I have a buddy that bought a house in San Diego that had them pre-installed. He gets a check from Southern California Edison every month for contributing to the grid. I'm not sure how it works. It's not much, I think the biggest check he got was 40 bucks. Apparently, he generates enough electricity for his household and then gets paid for the surplus.

The fact that he is powering his own home is amazing.

mrpackerguy · #10 02-06-2009, 11:03 AM

How about a mini-wind turbine instead?

nortonrider · #11 02-06-2009, 11:04 AM

You would be suprised how much you can save by just conserving (not wasting) the energy that you are paying for.
The amout of juice sucked up in this country on phantom loads alone requires the total output of 12 power plants. ( I read that somewhere).

The utility grid intertie of which maki speaks is for real. Any electricity that you produce over what you are using gets pumped back into grid and you get paid for it. It's pretty expensive to get set up so initial investment is high.

hbarcat · #12 02-06-2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

I have a buddy that bought a house in San Diego that had them pre-installed. He gets a check from Southern California Edison every month for contributing to the grid. I'm not sure how it works. It's not much, I think the biggest check he got was 40 bucks. Apparently, he generates enough electricity for his household and then gets paid for the surplus.

That's a good way to do it - install the system when the house is built. Saves a lot of money and ensures the system is efficiently integrated with the house.

It also helps to live in San Diego.

MakiSupaStar · #13 02-06-2009, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hbarcat

That's a good way to do it - install the system when the house is built. Saves a lot of money and ensures the system is efficiently integrated with the house.

It also helps to live in San Diego.

Yeah, I didn't explain that well. His situation is even better. The previous owner installed them, and he just kind of inherited them when he bought the house.

Yeah, San Diego, well especially where he lives is pretty sunny.

nortonrider · #14 02-06-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrpackerguy

How about a mini-wind turbine instead?

http://www.windenergy.com/index_wind.htm

They have put a lot of effort into it, check out the skystream as it was designed for just an application.

I was the quality assurance manager for these guys for a few years. They are the largest producers of micro wind turbines in the world.

Wind power is best used in conjuction with solar panels. Combined they provide a pretty steady supply of amps to the batterys when off grid.

The only real issue with Wind Turbines is that they are mechanical. That means they wear out and require alot more maintenance that the solar panels which are almost set and forget.

hbarcat · #15 02-06-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrpackerguy

How about a mini-wind turbine instead?

My folks seriously looked at doing that and concluded it wasn't cost effective for them.

It is about the same investment as solar power with the determining factor over which is better being your geographic location. Many places have a lot of sun but little wind and other places have a lot of wind and little sun.

You could actually install solar panels and a wind turbine because the solar and wind systems can both share the common batteries and related electrical system.

Ben B · #16 02-06-2009, 12:11 PM

I recently checked into solar panels. I agree with all that has been mentioned. I really don't think they are cost effective unless you use a lot of electricity. They probably make more sense for businesses than homes--at least at this time--maybe prices will come down in the next few years or better rebates or tax credits will be available.

One thing I would like to mention to anyone considering solar panels is get quotes and specs from at least 5 or 6 companies. I found that some companies either outright lie or have no idea of how to do math. I would think the goal would be to get the most cost effective system. Some companies will try to sell you a much bigger system than you need. They say its better to have a bigger system so that you can get credits/refunds for any extra watts your pump into the grid. But the amount of credits you get may not justify spending thousands more on a system that's too big. After a couple of quotes, I did the math and found their recommended systems would take 30 to 40 years to pay for themselves! And that's not including costs for repairs.

Ben