Solar panels on your house - why not?

[roseyscot]

Considering signing a 20 year lease for solar panels on our new house because
1. I want to cut my electricity costs
2. We get really good sunlight all day long and it seems ridiculous not to capture it.

The wife is not willing to put them on the front side, but even with them on the back, we'd be able to gather 50% of our electrical needs from the solar panels. Anyone else have a solar panel lease for their home? What's been your experience? How truthful are the companies (Sungevity in my case) that sell these leases?

[Tom]

Interesting concept, the lease. I had assumed I'd be purchasing them. I haven't yet because my plan is to wait until the mortgage is paid, then I'm in, we're close. I have heard of an interesting system where the converters are on each of the panels so if you have a shaded panel or one goes wonky it doesn't drag down the whole system's efficiency. I understand you get about 20% better output.

[RickM]

Scott---> This is interesting to me. Can you share any/all info you've collected on this subject? My house would be a great candidate for this. It's an idea I've tossed around in my mind..but I have done 0 homework so far. Any info appreciated.

Best,

Rick

[vertical_doug]

State green energy rebates and tax credits are the drivers here. Since you are probably looking at your taxes right now, it's a good time to figure it out and work through the numbers. And as always, read the fine print on the Sungevity contracts.

[MisterDangerPants]

I would strongly recommend against leasing. My father was in a Sun Run lease for a couple years when he died back in 2012. My father’s house was built specifically for solar power (back in 1987) and he took the plunge in 2010. He lived on Cape Cod (Barnstable Village) which has super high electricity rates.

Basically, if you just want a low, fixed monthly payment, well then, I suppose it’s okay. I suppose if you don’t want to maintain the panels, a lease would be beneficial too. When you lease, there are no tax benefits. Zero. At least none in my father’s situation. And that extra power that is generated? You get none of that money back to make your monthly payments lower. Sun Run gets that, which makes sense because they own the panels. My father paid about $45/month. Extremely low for Cape Cod. It worked for him, but if you ever need to move, well, be prepared to either shell out a ton of cash (to buy out the contract) or get the new buyer to assume the lease (been there, done that and very few prospective buyers wanted to deal with the panels). It was a royal pain-in-the-ass dealing with Sun Run when I needed to get the panels removed in anticipation for the sale of the house. Basically, Sun Run wanted about $20,000. I was fortunate the buyer opted to take over the lease.

[RickM]

Thanks Rosey, Mr. DP and V-Doug....looking at Sungevity language fine print right now...

[nahtnoj]

Is your roof good for 20 years?

Read the contract carefully...and don't be afraid to negotiate...these companies are pushing leasing because it is good for them.

[MarkC]

This space is changing quickly too. Potential regulatory changes on how the power companies deal with integrating you into the grid, tax rebates dropping and cost is coming down in a big way. The latter is very important in a long term lease vs buy deal.

I look at this every now and then because NJ is very solar friendly. Probably should have pulled the trigger 4-5 years ago because we have a good roof with southern exposure and the tax rebates made it low cost. But I dawdled and since this isn't our "forever" home I'll just wait for retirement. Plus, I really want a windmill...

Looking briefly, it seems that a 6 KW system is now in the 15K dollar range and payback is under ten years for a 2500 sq/ft house with normal requirements. Panels have a 20-25 year lifespan now. So if you are in it for the long term I'd just buy it and get it over with. Pocket your tax credits and enjoy the payback.

That said, my brother in law can afford any size system he wants and after crunching the numbers decided to take a third option which was to "rent" his roof to a solar company in exchange for a significantly lower rate on electricity to him. That option worked for them as they will keep this house "forever" and they get lower rates and a green feeling with low hassle factor.

Good luck - be interesting to hear from someone(s) in the biz.

[j44ke]

Friends in the Catskills with a pretty big house did the numbers and figured out the energy $ they saved doing solar hot water was better than the energy $ they saved doing electric given the space they had on their roof and water/electricity use. I am not sure of the details, but I do know their original plan was for electric. Super nice setup. Endless hot water.

My friend in Sen. Murkowski's office says that Republicans, if they win the House in mid-year elections, have the curtailing of alternative energy subsidies/tax breaks for consumers and producers very high on their to-do list. They blame this form of unfair competition as part of the reason energy costs have been so high this winter. Eroding profit for the domestic energy industry blah blah blah. They'd have to override President Obama I guess, but if Nate Silver is correct, they may not have too much of a problem with that. Not sure how that would figure into your decision but it might shift cost-benefit calculations eventually.

[maunahaole]

What he said. Water is the better bang for the buck than PV. A lot will depend on how much hot water you use. We had solar hot water on our house in Mass. In the 70's and on a sunny day in the winter it made plenty of hot water.

[znfdl]

What he said. Water is the better bang for the buck than PV. A lot will depend on how much hot water you use. We had solar hot water on our house in Mass. In the 70's and on a sunny day in the winter it made plenty of hot water.

Hope this is not a thread hijack, but I would be interested in seeing any numbers on solar hot water, as my wife and I will be building a house in Arizona in two years and will most likely do hot water radiant floor heat. Therefore, solar hot water is big on our list. We are just in the planning stages of telling a builder what rooms we want and then we will be starting from there. For the next ten years, we will be mostly in Arizona during the winter and not the summers.

[Jonathan]

Hope this is not a thread hijack, but I would be interested in seeing any numbers on solar hot water, as my wife and I will be building a house in Arizona in two years and will most likely do hot water radiant floor heat. Therefore, solar hot water is big on our list. We are just in the planning stages of telling a builder what rooms we want and then we will be starting from there. For the next ten years, we will be mostly in Arizona during the winter and not the summers.

I like to sleep late while on vacation, please put the guest room on the north side of the house.

[znfdl]

I like to sleep late while on vacation, please put the guest room on the north side of the house.

Jonathan, just so happens that the guest bedroom will be on the north side of the house and facing west. It will give you a clear view of Garro's house.

[bking]

solar is not economics. it's green, if you want to pay for it, and not very green. my folks in Phoenix jumped on the fed/state rebate about 5 or 6 years ago (my business partner did the same). Got 130K (yes) in panels for about 25K. It's a big house, it's a lot of panels. IF they keep the house 25 years, use and maintain the panels, they'd see their 25K...not come close to the retail cost w/o gov't subsidies.
Heat water perhaps, solar panels, not unless you're the gov't (they have stupid, or is that stupid's, money)

[sine]

Friends in the Catskills with a pretty big house did the numbers and figured out the energy $ they saved doing solar hot water was better than the energy $ they saved doing electric given the space they had on their roof and water/electricity use. I am not sure of the details, but I do know their original plan was for electric. Super nice setup. Endless hot water.

My friend in Sen. Murkowski's office says that Republicans, if they win the House in mid-year elections, have the curtailing of alternative energy subsidies/tax breaks for consumers and producers very high on their to-do list. They blame this form of unfair competition as part of the reason energy costs have been so high this winter. Eroding profit for the domestic energy industry blah blah blah. They'd have to override President Obama I guess, but if Nate Silver is correct, they may not have too much of a problem with that. Not sure how that would figure into your decision but it might shift cost-benefit calculations eventually.

Our county (Montgomery) next to Washington, D.C eliminated county tax credits for solar and geothermal 2 years ago. Tax credits for the wealthy or unfair subsidies for green energy….really.

Anyhow, outright purchasing of solar for me makes no sense (financially) at current prices. I would need another 50% off. On top of that, based on our previous experience with roof mounted solar panels, I would build a separate structure for the panels and put in a lap pool underneath.

[maunahaole]

Our electricity usage went down by 30-40% after doing hot water. There are only two of us and we don't have any heat or a/c. If you are going to heat with hot water, the savings would probably be greater. Part of the calculation is to figure out how long it takes for the savings to pay back the cost of the system. Since heating water is very energy intensive and the cost for installation of a hot water system is less, the payback is quicker.

[j44ke]

Hope this is not a thread hijack, but I would be interested in seeing any numbers on solar hot water, as my wife and I will be building a house in Arizona in two years and will most likely do hot water radiant floor heat. Therefore, solar hot water is big on our list. We are just in the planning stages of telling a builder what rooms we want and then we will be starting from there. For the next ten years, we will be mostly in Arizona during the winter and not the summers.

We lived in Arizona and began researching alternative sources of energy while there. At the time, hot water seemed like a no brainer in Arizona. Simple thermosiphon units will heat enough water for personal use in some areas, but Arizona is the land of microclimates so best to have some local knowledge, especially if you are going to live in the mountains with greater temperature variation. However, after tallying up costs versus savings, we decided against doing anything (heat, electricity, gray water.) Power and water in Arizona (at that time) were cheap. I think we compared water bills with friends in Olympia, Washington, and our water bill was cheaper. In a desert. WTF. But the bigger deal was that the pay-off for alternative stuff was far enough in the future that we weren't sure we would still be living in the house, and strangely we were told by several realtors that it wouldn't appreciably affect the sale price of our house. Then a year later, we moved to Europe. That's probably not very helpful.

So I agree that price is not the main consideration. World view is. But this may be moot, because many subdivisions have neighborhood beautification rules about panels etc. As in you aren't allowed to have them, which again makes no sense.

[vertical_doug]

j44ke

World view is a bit nebulous. Price and cost savings seems like something more readily quantified. For heating your water, a noritz tankless water heater running on natural gas may be the more cost effective. (except in Hawaii where natgas probably isn't a real option.)

Most green discussions still don't deal with the total consumption cycle - manufacture, use, recycle/disposal. I am pretty confident driving my 10 yr old mercedes until the wheels fall off is more green than buying a new Tesla and disposing of my old car.

Since solar panels are subsidized, I'm guessing total manufacturing footprint makes the panels pretty eco unfriendly. However, from a consumer point of view, if you are given subsidies and tax credits, you should use and save yourself some money.
(This is the 1st 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics at work)

[j44ke]

j44ke

World view is a bit nebulous. Price and cost savings seems like something more readily quantified. For heating your water, a noritz tankless water heater running on natural gas may be the more cost effective. (except in Hawaii where natgas probably isn't a real option.)

Most green discussions still don't deal with the total consumption cycle - manufacture, use, recycle/disposal. I am pretty confident driving my 10 yr old mercedes until the wheels fall off is more green than buying a new Tesla and disposing of my old car.

Since solar panels are subsidized, I'm guessing total manufacturing footprint makes the panels pretty eco unfriendly. However, from a consumer point of view, if you are given subsidies and tax credits, you should use and save yourself some money.
(This is the 1st 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics at work)

Oh sure. What I was saying is that over the 5-10 or so years we originally thought we'd be in the house, cost/savings didn't work out. But people do things for nebulous reasons too, though helping to preserve the environment and minimizing one's footprint doesn't seem so nebulous to me. But I suppose merely feeling good about oneself might have exchange value and that's pretty nebulous.

Total consumption cycle is a good point though. Actually when it comes to "green" products, it might actually be the most important part. Unfortunately, like you said, it always gets left out. Seems like there should be some quantification of that on the label like salt content or cholesterol on food. But then that kind of non-nebulous information might mean a lot of this stuff might not actually sell.

[nahtnoj]

My friend in Sen. Murkowski's office says that Republicans, if they win the House in mid-year elections, have the curtailing of alternative energy subsidies/tax breaks for consumers and producers very high on their to-do list. They blame this form of unfair competition as part of the reason energy costs have been so high this winter. Eroding profit for the domestic energy industry blah blah blah. They'd have to override President Obama I guess, but if Nate Silver is correct, they may not have too much of a problem with that. Not sure how that would figure into your decision but it might shift cost-benefit calculations eventually.

I'd be curious what your friend is hearing about how they intend to achieve this, and what they believe the connection is between solar and oil/natural gas prices.