Solar panels installed in France in 1992 found to retain a remarkable 79% of original output

[Endymio]

You apparently are *forgetting* how Germany shut down all its nuclear plants after Fukushima. Shot in the dark, but that might have resulted in the need for increased production from other sources.

Oops! In 2013, Germany had 10.02 GW of nuclear capacity -- since then, they've added substantially more than that in wind and solar sources, much more than enough to entirely replace nuclear. Yet still their natural gas consumption has increased. Why? Because every solar and wind farm needs an attached baseline source, for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

Even worse than natural gas is the fact that Germany's attempts to rely on wind and solar have forced a resurgence of that dirtiest of sources: coal.

"...Energy crisis fuels coal comeback in Germany.

...Coal-to-power generation output rose by 13.3% year-on-year [during] which overall German power output lagged the same period in 2021 by 0.5 percent..."

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/energy-crisis-fuels-coal-comeback-germany-2022-12-16/

 

[lonetac]

When you force a utility to purchase electricity at a loss, you cost them money. When that utility has government contracts guaranteeing it a certain minimum profit, those losses translate eventually into higher rates for all other consumers. You're essentially using -- for free -- billions of dollars of utility infrastructure as a gigantic battery. The effect may be small today because only a tiny fraction of consumers do this, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Except the opposite is true -- as Germany found out. Forcing wind and solar on the nation actually increased their use of natural gas. And this won't change until we have a quantum revolution in energy storage technology.

Also note that Germany's solar-power expansion took it from the cheapest electricity rates in Western Europe to one of the most expensive ... five times what we pay here in the USA, sometimes higher.

And yet Norway had no issues moving practically their entire infrastructure to renewable energy.

You like to leave out a lot of real world examples and are just stuck on "no you cant because I say so".

Sorry man, you dont get to decide what works and doesnt work. And your assessment of me using solar costing my neighbors more money couldnt be further from the truth.

Anyone here can go solar and stop paying the electric company. These businesses in america are designed to not be able to fail.

The tax incentives are coming from Tax's, not the electric companys profit margins. Me having solar has no impact on the cost of their electricity, with or without it, they are paying the same. Prior to the incentives, it was still the same (outside of general inflation).

You just cant fathom solar actually doing good so you word salad your way through mental gymnastics to prove a non existent point.

Not today Endymio, me having solar has no impact on my neighbors electrical costs. You can sing it all you want, its patently false.

The tax incentives are coming from Tax's, not the electric companys profit margins. Me having solar has no impact on the cost of their electricity, with or without it, they are paying the same. Prior to the incentives, it was still the same (outside of general inflation).

The other benefit of electric vehicles - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

OOOPS... you fail to accept real world examples.

"Norway provides a real-world example of what’s possible. About 80% of new cars sold now are fully electric (and another 10% are plug-in hybrids) and are powered by an electricity grid that is already very green (91.8% hydropower and 6.4% wind). As a result, between 2000 and 2020, the emissions of particles under 2.5 micrometers in size (a particularly dangerous type known as PM2.5) plunged by nearly three-quarters, according to Statistics Norway."

 

[lonetac]

That's an excellent ROI.

And one could tell the oil and coal companies' shills from some of those outraged individuals here... how their beloved fossil junk is getting less relevant by the day.

And the most hypocritical thing to read? Those same people who would kill any critter that moves...suddenly showing concern about birds allegedly because of wind mills!!

And they wont mention a single oil spill that has ruined entire ecosystems.

Ever heard of a Solar spill? LOL.

And thats not to say there is not some environmental impact from solar and wind farms because there is. I actually research this topic and know it quite well so im not going to act like some and spin it into something it isnt.

 

[Endymio]

And yet Norway had no issues moving practically their entire infrastructure to renewable energy.

Oops again! Norway generates more than 90% of its energy from hydroelectricity, and almost none from solar. A rather sneaky attempt to move the goalposts from "solar" to "renewable", eh?

Hydro is indeed a terrific source of cheap, clean electricity because -- unlike wind and solar -- you can match production with demand. Unfortunately, environmentalists hate hydro even more than they do nuclear.

Sorry man, you dont get to decide what works and doesnt work.

It's not me deciding, it is science, and the technological limitations of energy generation and storage.

Anyone here can go solar and stop paying the electric company. These businesses in america are designed to not be able to fail.

Utilities are designed to not be able to fail because the government requires consumers to pay them guaranteed profits. And when your solar hobby costs the utility money, your neighbors pick up the slack.

The tax incentives are coming from Tax's, not the electric companys profit margins.

I already explained this to you; no one is trying to deny it. But (a) those taxes are paid by your neighbors, and (b) the costs you force upon the electric utility by forcing it to purchase your electricity at above-market rates DOES come from their profit margins.

 

[WhoCaresAnymore]

This is true only because (a) you used a huge portion of other taxpayer's dollars to fund your system, through federal, state, and (possibly) local tax credits and incentives. And more importantly, (b) because you're increasing your neighbor's electricity bills, through mandates that force utilities to purchase excess power from you at above-market rates, whether or not they actually need it.

It's a nice racket ... but one that works only as long as a small percentage of the population engages in it. And even then, it doesn't work for people who live in apartments, or in homes in areas with low solar insolation due to high latitude, cloud cover, and/or nearby trees or tall buildings.

You hit the nail on the head with this one. Stop taking from the taxpayers to subsidize the few, and see how well it sells.

The electric bill at peak summer where I live is about 350'ish USD a month, and we keep the house COLD. A solar setup to power this house costs close to $40,000. We are talking close to 10 years before it's even break even for it. That's using my max bill. In the winter it drops to under 200 a month, thus probably more like 15 years. By that time, the repairs/components start to come into play.

It's just no feasible.

 

[WhoCaresAnymore]

Hydroelectric and Nuclear. Only long term, affordable energy.

 

[kiwigraeme]

You hit the nail on the head with this one. Stop taking from the taxpayers to subsidize the few, and see how well it sells.

The electric bill at peak summer where I live is about 350'ish USD a month, and we keep the house COLD. A solar setup to power this house costs close to $40,000. We are talking close to 10 years before it's even break even for it. That's using my max bill. In the winter it drops to under 200 a month, thus probably more like 15 years. By that time, the repairs/components start to come into play.

It's just no feasible.

I can get a topup solar system on my roof for USD 4000 , doesn't even have to be on my house roof.
Only doomsday preppers or those offgrid need to go full setup . Of course that is going to be expensive , batteries , control systems etc. Farmers will have generators to keep milking machines going etc - or In USA the factory farm killing machine- where cattle never see the sun.

In my country the govt used to give you free grid nearly everywhere, now you must be X metres from a supply point, So now cheaper to go offgrid in remote areas

Most people in the world are only using solar panels as supplement, selling excess back to grid. If my country day and evening power most expensive, so off-peak much cheaper when no solar - We have a lot of hydropower that goes all night when factories/offices closed etc.

Just get a $8000 to knock off that extra $600 a month in Summer
It's not all or nothing

That $4000 is the cheaper control system ( 2 main types , can't remember offhand- more expensive one is more robust, but cheaper one now has improved in leaps and bounds )

 

[scavengerspc]

I can get a topup solar system on my roof for USD 4000 , doesn't even have to be on my house roof.

Which is funny as well as true. In 2011 that simple setup, and I installed it myself, cost me $13k just for the panels and the support monitoring hardware.
I built a quick battery wall, but that was on me. I wanted the building to have sufficient power 24-7.

 

[lonetac]

You hit the nail on the head with this one. Stop taking from the taxpayers to subsidize the few, and see how well it sells.

The electric bill at peak summer where I live is about 350'ish USD a month, and we keep the house COLD. A solar setup to power this house costs close to $40,000. We are talking close to 10 years before it's even break even for it. That's using my max bill. In the winter it drops to under 200 a month, thus probably more like 15 years. By that time, the repairs/components start to come into play.

It's just no feasible.

Its absolutely... I dont know, ridiculous to say stop taking tax incentives. What are you even getting at? They are there and paid for. You ever heard a corporation or extremely rich person say something so ridiculous? Absolutely not. If you dont, someone else will, you are only holding yourself back. Its a really odd stance to take and I highly doubt you have never benefited from an incentive or write off in one way shape or form. If you have an issue, then dont file for it. Simple. You do you and stand for what you believe in. You give that 10k back to the government! They will know what to do with it.

Take the incentive away, its still viable.

My 30k system will supply me with energy for the next 30 years. My dependency on the grid is reduced to 18% for off hours. Not to mention I am giving back. Even if they dont pay me for it, its still worth it and amortizes itself over 6 years.

If I buy a battery, I can stop using power on the grid entirely.

 

[lonetac]

Hydroelectric and Nuclear. Only long term, affordable energy.

I dont disagree with the current tehcnology but solar is also viable for many folks. Id say 1 in 10 here have it.

Its not about also using 1 100% of the time. They can all be used to help reduce our need for fossil fuels and work towards more clean energy solutions where viable.

 

[daffy duck]

I went for N-type panels with a guaranteed 87% performance after 25 years. No way I care that much as these will be replaced no doubt in probably half that time. Anticipating perskovite panels which already hit 34% efficiency and lifetime aside, that would give me 50% more capacity in same foot print. If they can achieve 20 year lifetime at same cost I'm in, unless something even better comes along.

 

[Endymio]

Just get a $8000 to knock off that extra $600 a month in Summer

Not even New Zealand has electricity that expensive. My 7000 sf home cost under $400/month to cool in the height of summer ... and an $8K system would generate only about 1/3 of my full load draw. Is your home entirely without insulation?

Its absolutely... I dont know, ridiculous to say stop taking tax incentives. What are you even getting at?

You've missed the point several times now. Tax incentives are a shell game. If everyone uses the incentive, then it saves no one any money. For a similar reason, if everyone attempts to sell power back to the utility, using it as a gigantic free battery, then that system breaks down as well.

My 30k system will supply me with energy for the next 30 years.... Even if they dont pay me for it, its still worth it and amortizes itself over 6 years.

I'll bet any sum you care to wager that your "6 year amortization" has at least three major errors in it ... probably more.

 

[DirtyLoad]

Hydroelectric and Nuclear. Only long term, affordable energy.

Read more about nuclear.....new plants are too expensive and ROI is too far out to be profitable unless government guarantees rates.

What we need is energy storage and I don't mean battery. Use pumped hydro and gravity energy storage.

 

[gamerk2]

Read more about nuclear.....new plants are too expensive and ROI is too far out to be profitable unless government guarantees rates.

What we need is energy storage and I don't mean battery. Use pumped hydro and gravity energy storage.

Gravity storage has it's own problems, and Hydro only works in *very* specific circumstances (although it works *outstanding* within those bounds). At least right now, battery storage is the best mechanism to hold excess power generation for later use.

And yes, the ROI on Nuclear is simply not there, because the expertise is not there. Barring letting a country that builds tons of the things (*cough* China) do it, you have to accept loosing Billions on at least the first few. And no one has ever come up with a good plan for storing waste long term. (No, Yuka Mountain is not sufficient, given it exists near an active geological fault, is built around limestome which is notoriously porous, and lies near a heavily used supply of water. Yuka Mountain is what you get when you select a location then try and write requirements to justify it.)

 

[gamerk2]

You've missed the point several times now. Tax incentives are a shell game. If everyone uses the incentive, then it saves no one any money. For a similar reason, if everyone attempts to sell power back to the utility, using it as a gigantic free battery, then that system breaks down as well.

You missed the point as well. The entire point of tax incentives are (generally, since there are some *really* bad exceptions) to make the product economically viable for purchase to allow economies of scale to kick in. Once everyone starts to purchase the item in question, the incentives are no longer economically justified, and should be removed.

The other thing you ignore is you only look at power *generation*, and not *utilization*. As power demands continue to increase, so to does the need for increased generation. And unfortunately, due to various reasons this does result in some dirty power generation being added in the short term. What's important is that the overall mix move in the correct direction.

Especially since the costs of *not* doing so are now starting to hit the hundreds of billions every single year.

 

[lonetac]

Not even New Zealand has electricity that expensive. My 7000 sf home cost under $400/month to cool in the height of summer ... and an $8K system would generate only about 1/3 of my full load draw. Is your home entirely without insulation?


You've missed the point several times now. Tax incentives are a shell game. If everyone uses the incentive, then it saves no one any money. For a similar reason, if everyone attempts to sell power back to the utility, using it as a gigantic free battery, then that system breaks down as well.


I'll bet any sum you care to wager that your "6 year amortization" has at least three major errors in it ... probably more.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. You just cant admit it because... I dunno, ego.

The numbers are real, you continually tell me that its not. I dont live in fairy land and make things up like you.

I have actual real solar engineers who helped build my system and the numbers are what they are. You saying there are errors doesnt make it true, it just makes you look delusional and in complete denial that you cant comprehend something. I dont operate on "trust me bro" like you do.

I think you just sound desperate at this point to be right when you are not. Its not hard to calculate how long it will take for your savings of not paying electricity to amortize the cost of the system.

And LOL about tax incentives. You fail to realize they are there for you to take advantage of. Your favorite billionaire Elon certainly uses every incentive he gets his hands on but you conveniently never criticize him for that. And I know you have benefited from tax incentives at some point in your life. Its just a stupid ignorant argument that has no meaning other than you trying to make it into something its not.

The double standard is egregious. I honestly dont know if you are just sitting here trolling at this point because if you are serious, man, are you lost.

 

[lonetac]

You missed the point as well. The entire point of tax incentives are (generally, since there are some *really* bad exceptions) to make the product economically viable for purchase to allow economies of scale to kick in. Once everyone starts to purchase the item in question, the incentives are no longer economically justified, and should be removed.

The other thing you ignore is you only look at power *generation*, and not *utilization*. As power demands continue to increase, so to does the need for increased generation. And unfortunately, due to various reasons this does result in some dirty power generation being added in the short term. What's important is that the overall mix move in the correct direction.

Especially since the costs of *not* doing so are now starting to hit the hundreds of billions every single year.

Thats half the battle. If the folks who CAN use solar to power their houses do, it means less reliance on other forms of energy.

His assumption that if everyone does it, the grid collapses is just pure fallacy. And you are absolutely right, once adoption rates get higher there shouldnt be any more incentives.

Even without the incentive, it would just make my amortized cost go up about 2-3 years and still makes the system worth it given its 30 year life cycle.

He is hell bent on thinking that moving to clean energy sources somehow negatively impacts other folks and isnt viable despite real life situations that have already been proven.

Hey, who needs facts when you have "trust me bro".

 

[Endymio]

Hydro only works in *very* specific circumstances

LOL, what "specific circumstances" do you believe must exist? As long as you have space to build the reservoir, it's by far the best, most flexible solution there is.

(No, Yuka [sic] Mountain is not sufficient, given it exists near an active geological fault, is built around limestome which is notoriously porous, and lies near a heavily used supply of water ... Yuka[sic] Mountain is what you get when you select a location then try and write requirements to justify it.

This demonstrates a near-criminal level of ignorance. I defy you to name a more suitable site anywhere in the country -- or the entire continent -- more suitable than Yucca Mountain. Let's disassemble a few of your falsehoods.

Yucca isn't built on "porous" limestone, but extremely hard volcanic rock:

"...Yucca Mountain in southwestern Nevada is a prominent, irregularly shaped upland formed by a thick apron of Miocene pyroclastic-flow and fallout tephra deposits...."

Geology of the Yucca Mountain site area, southwestern Nevada | U.S. Geological Survey

Yucca Mountain in southwestern Nevada is a prominent, irregularly shaped upland formed by a thick apron of Miocene pyroclastic-flow and fallout tephra deposits, with minor lava flows, that was segmented by through-going, large-displacement normal faults into a series of north-trending...

www.usgs.gov

"...The formation that makes up Yucca Mountain is composed of alternating layers of ignimbrite (welded tuff), non-welded tuff, and semi-welded tuff. The tuff surrounding the burial sites is expected to protect human health as it provides a natural barrier to the radiation...."

As for the "fault line" nonsense, there are dozens of fault lines in most US counties. The issue is how seismically active they are. The closest fault in question is Bow Ridge, one that since the US was founded more than 250 years ago, hasn't registered an earthquake even 1/10,000 as strong as required to cause disruption at the site.

And even if that one-in-a-billion event happened -- so what? Yucca Mountain, near Death Valley, is one of the driest desert regions in the country. A catastrophic earthquake that ruptured both the complex and the fuel containers themselves would -- due to the low levels of precipitation at the site -- take approximately 10,000 years to reach any major source of water. Environmental alarmists claim it might happen much faster -- as fast as one century ... but even if it did, that assumes we'd sit doing absolutely nothing to stop or mitigate it for 100 full years.

The true absurdity here is that the "nuclear waste problem" never existed in the first place. Vitrify it and drop it into the Marianas Trench, where natural movement of the tectonic plates would subduct it into the earth's mantle itself.

It's ironic that those who claim this fuel is dangerous "for thousands of years" fail to note that most elements -- including the waste products from the mining of rare earths for solar power or the leach fields for lithium production -- remain toxic forever. Forever. Whereas the most dangerous radionuclides (excluding plutonium, which we wouldn't dump anyway) lose most of their radioactivity within the first few years of storage.

 

[Endymio]

The numbers are real, you continually tell me that its not. I dont live in fairy land and make things up like you.

I have actual real solar engineers who helped build my system and the numbers are what they are.

Sounds quite defensive on your part. Sorry, I'm doubling down: your figures are false. Post the actual cost, wattage, and annual production of your array, the local cost per kW-hr of electricity, and your ROI calculation, including installation, maintenance and future-value cost of the purchase price. If it checks out, I'll retract my claim. And remember: without a battery array or sales to the utility, any excess production is immediately lost.

 

[kiwigraeme]

Not even New Zealand has electricity that expensive. My 7000 sf home cost under $400/month to cool in the height of summer ... and an $8K system would generate only about 1/3 of my full load draw. Is your home entirely without insulation?

Was using the posters other figures, My city doesn't get very hot. Only use air con it go out, shut windows for 14 year old dogs, or lots of summer insects in bushes outside in evening. Gnats can come in a bite my dogs.

I will get a top up solar power setup. mainly as don't know my future. Ie I have no money concerns of note. But who knows, better to reduce all expenses for when we are much older.
Plus as stated , will keep my old Toyota till it dies ( have an ebike ) or when new car tech becomes overwhelming to upgrade. If EV then free charging during day during low power use.

So is not just about ROI.
Some countries are subsidised, some not. Easy enough to get free consultants/contractors in

If I had lots of kids, a heat pump water heater might make sense.

There is no one size fits all, depending on country, grid , latitude, your house or garage roof etc

Also if 85 years old more susceptible to heat and cold.
My house has been retrofitted with insulation - double glazed PVC doors/windows etc.
Just need to redo some ceiling lights, so insulation can go about them, will add another layer in attic on top. need to remodel bathroom. Have done under floor insulation. But once bathroom done , will add ground moisture polythene protection. Ie live in a old style bungalow on piles

 

[lonetac]

Sounds quite defensive on your part. Sorry, I'm doubling down: your figures are false. Post the actual cost, wattage, and annual production of your array, the local cost per kW-hr of electricity, and your ROI calculation, including installation, maintenance and future-value cost of the purchase price. If it checks out, I'll retract my claim. And remember: without a battery array or sales to the utility, any excess production is immediately lost.

I have already told you what I paid and the amount of time it takes to amortize the cost of the system.

I have no reason to believe you are discussing in good faith as you have never once done that in any discussion I have engaged you.

You can choose to not believe me but thats fine, I dont really care, I have nothing to prove to you. Continue spewing non sense.

The system cost us around 34k. We pay anywhere from 200-500 a month for electricity.

If im even generous in my electrical usage and say my bill is only 200 a month which it never is (its always bigger), thats 2400 a year. Thats 7 years to amortize itself. Just do the math. We will amortize much sooner than 7 years because our electric bills were well over 200 a month. We have yet to pay 1 cent to the electric company since we turned it on as we generate more than we use.

2400 / 34000 = .07 which is around 7 years. The solar system is gauged to last 30 years.

If you havent believed me thus far, you wont believe anything I say and I have no reason to believe you would.

Defensive? Nah man, you fit snide condescending remarks in every single post you make. If you could just let the ego go and actually discuss, it might be more valuable for everyone involved.

Year to date, I produced 5.8 MWh, Ive used 3.5MWh. Exported the rest. We have 26 panels. Despite every thing in my body saying to not engage you further, I am happy to show you the production of our system via my enphase app as proof. The app calculates our usage drawing off the grid at 18-25% (this doesnt calculate anything about exporting, simply how much of our total energy isnt coming from our system). What it means is we are generating 80% of our energy consumption.

With the summer kicking in obviously our usage is going to go up.

We also didnt turn our system on until like feb/march.

10.53kW-DC / 7.54kW-AC
12887 kWh for first year
Hanwha Q Peak 405w panels (26 of them)
Inverter: Enphase IQ8 plus

Total system cost: $34,197.95

Even without energy buy back and without a tax incentive, it still means we come out ahead. You could take away all the incentives, its still a win.

 

[Endymio]

The system cost us around 34k. If im even generous in my electrical usage and say my bill is only 200 a month which it never is (its always bigger), thats 2400 a year. Thats 7 years to amortize itself ... do the math.

It seems you didn't "do the math". 2400 x 7 is $16.8K, less than half your system cost. You're also not counting maintenance or financing (and even if you paid cash, there are future-value charges for the lump sum). There are rules on how ROI is calculated, rules you're not even attempting to follow, even excluding the math errors.

We have yet to pay 1 cent to the electric company since we turned it on as we generate more than we use.

Oops! Your original claim was "even if they [the utility] doesn't pay me" for the excess electricity, that your system would amortize in 6 years. Now we find the actual figure is more than 15 years -- and you are selling the excess to the utility. Or how else are you running your home free of charge at night in the depth of winter, when the sun isn't shining?

My statement that your original claim was pure fantasy is correct -- proven by your own admission.

2400 / 34000 = .07 which is around 7 years

I'm sorry, but this isn't how that calculation works. In deference to your complaints about my "snide and condescending attitude" (which contains more than a grain of truth) I won't say more.

 

[lonetac]

It seems you didn't "do the math". 2400 x 7 is $16.8K, less than half your system cost. You're also not counting maintenance or financing (and even if you paid cash, there are future-value charges for the lump sum). There are rules on how ROI is calculated, rules you're not even attempting to follow, even excluding the math errors.


Oops! Your original claim was "even if they [the utility] doesn't pay me" for the excess electricity, that your system would amortize in 6 years. Now we find the actual figure is more than 15 years -- and you are selling the excess to the utility. Or how else are you running your home free of charge at night in the depth of winter, when the sun isn't shining?

My statement that your original claim was pure fantasy is correct -- proven by your own admission.


I'm sorry, but this isn't how that calculation works. In deference to your complaints about my "snide and condescending attitude" (which contains more than a grain of truth) I won't say more.

Even if my math is off as you say, OOPS, the ROI is still as I said it is and well worth it. Double it to 14 years, doesnt matter. Its still worth it.

There is no maintenance required. There is no financing. It was paid in cash and we got over 11k back in taxes so it actually only costed us around 23k.

If you include the selling back, its even less.

You dont have any gotchya's, I got you to admit that it does amortize itself in 6 years, I just had to do it sneakily. Congrats.

OOPS again, nobody said I wasnt using electricity at night, I even said we are around 20% reliant on it.

Im waiting for you to concede.