## Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity

Expand Messages
• Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that was part of the bank bail out bill.   There is now a Federal Tax Credit for
Message 1 of 19 , Nov 14, 2008
Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that was part of the bank bail out bill.   There is now a Federal Tax Credit for solar photovoltaic systems.  This tax credit is very significant for home owners in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is comparable to buying electricity from your utility company.

Here's the math (simple version):
PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed.
Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit).
Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed
The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in Houston over 25 years
The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh
That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP).

Example:
3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000
Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward)

Here's the math another way (complex version)
Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money.  If I had the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get a certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free investment at this time, let me know!).
We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other number) and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on our investment.  If we do that, we also have to assume that electric rates are going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have increased at an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas over the last decade.  If you escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation (0.5% per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you still come up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%.  This may not seem like a high return; however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the system if damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the nation toward sustainability.

Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the same rate that you expect electricity to escalate.

Now you have every reason to put solar on your home.

Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%:
(Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to incomprehensible jibberish).

 Year Generation     (kWh/yr) Elect (\$/kWh) \$Solar Revenue 0 0 0.20 -8000 1 1280 0.20 2656 2 1274 0.22 280 3 1267 0.24 307 4 1261 0.27 336 5 1255 0.29 367 6 1248 0.32 402 7 1242 0.35 440 8 1236 0.39 482 9 1230 0.43 527 10 1224 0.47 577 11 1217 0.52 632 12 1211 0.57 691 13 1205 0.63 757 14 1199 0.69 828 15 1193 0.76 906 16 1187 0.84 992 17 1181 0.92 1086 18 1175 1.01 1188 19 1170 1.11 1301 20 1164 1.22 1423 21 1158 1.35 1558 22 1152 1.48 1705 23 1146 1.63 1866 24 1141 1.79 2043 25 1135 1.97 2236

• Greetings, Chris, where do we find the actual information on the bill? For a farm, there often are caviets about what is used for the home vs the actual farm.
Message 2 of 19 , Nov 15, 2008
Greetings,
Chris, where do we find the actual information on the bill? For a farm,
there often are caviets about what is used for the home vs the actual
farm. Also, contractors in the rural areas are generally a bad idea, so
we would need to know if the credits apply to diy.
Bright Blessings,
Kim

Chris Boyer wrote:
>
>
• Chris, You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase over 25 years, you d have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less favorable.
Message 3 of 19 , Nov 15, 2008

Chris,

You are missing the capital cost.  If you financed the purchase over 25 years, you’d have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less favorable.  Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased property taxes, and maintenance costs, and you’ll jack the price up even further.  BTW, I just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy yesterday (for Brazoria County), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high.

Robert Johnston

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Boyer
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM
To: HREG
Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity

Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that was part of the bank bail out bill.   There is now a Federal Tax Credit for solar photovoltaic systems.  This tax credit is very significant for home owners in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is comparable to buying electricity from your utility company.

Here's the math (simple version):

PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed.

Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit).

Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed

The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in Houston over 25 years

The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh

That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP).

Example:

3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000

Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward)

Here's the math another way (complex version)

Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money.  If I had the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get a certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free investment at this time, let me know!).

We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other number) and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on our investment.  If we do that, we also have to assume that electric rates are going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have increased at an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas over the last decade.  If you escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation (0.5% per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you still come up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%.  This may not seem like a high return; however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the system if damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the nation toward sustainability.

Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the same rate that you expect electricity to escalate.

Now you have every reason to put solar on your home.

Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%:

(Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to incomprehensible jibberish).

 Year Generation     (kWh/yr) Elect (\$/kWh) \$Solar Revenue 0 0 0.20 -8000 1 1280 0.20 2656 2 1274 0.22 280 3 1267 0.24 307 4 1261 0.27 336 5 1255 0.29 367 6 1248 0.32 402 7 1242 0.35 440 8 1236 0.39 482 9 1230 0.43 527 10 1224 0.47 577 11 1217 0.52 632 12 1211 0.57 691 13 1205 0.63 757 14 1199 0.69 828 15 1193 0.76 906 16 1187 0.84 992 17 1181 0.92 1086 18 1175 1.01 1188 19 1170 1.11 1301 20 1164 1.22 1423 21 1158 1.35 1558 22 1152 1.48 1705 23 1146 1.63 1866 24 1141 1.79 2043 25 1135 1.97 2236

• I agree that neglecting the capital cost is a major omission. I hadn t thought of insurance, but that seems significant too. However, I seem to remember that
Message 4 of 19 , Nov 15, 2008
I agree that neglecting the capital cost is a major omission. I
hadn't thought of insurance, but that seems significant too.

However, I seem to remember that the increased value is exempt from
property tax (in Texas). So that's not too bad.

I also agree that 4% is not bad considering how risk free it is.
However, it's not -entirely- risk free - if there is a decrease in the
price of electricity instead of the assumed increase then you have
pretty significant risk. It's up to you to decide how likely you
think that situation is; there is really no accurate way to predict
that 25 years into the future. Most prices fall over the long run,
but non-renewable resources can act rise. Since energy can be
generated by renewable and non-renewable means - it's anyone's guess!

--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Johnston" <junk1@...> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
>
>
> You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase over 25
> years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less
> favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased
property taxes,
> and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even further.
BTW, I
> just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy
> yesterday (for Brazoria County), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high.
>
>
> Robert Johnston
>
>
>
> From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Chris
> Boyer
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM
> To: HREG
> Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
>
>
>
>
> Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that
was part
> of the bank bail out bill. There is now a Federal Tax Credit for solar
> photovoltaic systems. This tax credit is very significant for home
owners
> in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is
comparable
>
>
>
> Here's the math (simple version):
>
> PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed.
>
> Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit).
>
> Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed
>
> The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in Houston over
25 years
>
> The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh
>
> That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP).
>
>
>
> Example:
>
> 3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000
>
> Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward)
>
>
>
> Here's the math another way (complex version)
>
> Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money.
> the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get a
> certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free
investment at
> this time, let me know!).
>
> We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other
number)
> and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on our
> investment. If we do that, we also have to assume that electric
rates are
> going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have
increased at
> an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas over the last decade. If you
> escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation
(0.5%
> per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you
still come
> up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%. This may not seem like a high
return;
> however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the
system if
> damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the nation
toward
> sustainability.
>
>
>
> Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the
same rate
> that you expect electricity to escalate.
>
>
>
> Now you have every reason to put solar on your home.
>
>
>
> Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%:
>
> (Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to incomprehensible
> jibberish).
>
>
>
>
> Year
>
> Generation
>
> (kWh/yr)
>
> Elect
>
> (\$/kWh)
>
> \$Solar Revenue
>
>
> 0
>
> 0
>
> 0.20
>
> -8000
>
>
> 1
>
> 1280
>
> 0.20
>
> 2656
>
>
> 2
>
> 1274
>
> 0.22
>
> 280
>
>
> 3
>
> 1267
>
> 0.24
>
> 307
>
>
> 4
>
> 1261
>
> 0.27
>
> 336
>
>
> 5
>
> 1255
>
> 0.29
>
> 367
>
>
> 6
>
> 1248
>
> 0.32
>
> 402
>
>
> 7
>
> 1242
>
> 0.35
>
> 440
>
>
> 8
>
> 1236
>
> 0.39
>
> 482
>
>
> 9
>
> 1230
>
> 0.43
>
> 527
>
>
> 10
>
> 1224
>
> 0.47
>
> 577
>
>
> 11
>
> 1217
>
> 0.52
>
> 632
>
>
> 12
>
> 1211
>
> 0.57
>
> 691
>
>
> 13
>
> 1205
>
> 0.63
>
> 757
>
>
> 14
>
> 1199
>
> 0.69
>
> 828
>
>
> 15
>
> 1193
>
> 0.76
>
> 906
>
>
> 16
>
> 1187
>
> 0.84
>
> 992
>
>
> 17
>
> 1181
>
> 0.92
>
> 1086
>
>
> 18
>
> 1175
>
> 1.01
>
> 1188
>
>
> 19
>
> 1170
>
> 1.11
>
> 1301
>
>
> 20
>
> 1164
>
> 1.22
>
> 1423
>
>
> 21
>
> 1158
>
> 1.35
>
> 1558
>
>
> 22
>
> 1152
>
> 1.48
>
> 1705
>
>
> 23
>
> 1146
>
> 1.63
>
> 1866
>
>
> 24
>
> 1141
>
> 1.79
>
> 2043
>
>
> 25
>
> 1135
>
> 1.97
>
> 2236
>
• We were on the verge of putting in a PV system, so I ran what you might call a “real time” spreadsheet. I’ll say up front that every system is going to
Message 5 of 19 , Nov 16, 2008

We were on the verge of putting in a PV system, so I ran what you might call a “real time” spreadsheet.  I’ll say up front that every system is going to be different.  I factored in the 30% tax credit, the financing I had arranged, etc.  The financing (an LOC) was set for a 15 year payout at ??% (I don’t have my data in front of me.) to start at a time of my choosing.  I planned to pay an arbitrary monthly payment until I received the tax credit (taken all the first year) & then start the 15 year payout.  This means I would be paying over a total of about 16-17 years.  During that time the amount I would be paying for the PV portion of my electricity would average about \$0.41/kwh.  Of course the PV electricity after the payout would be “free” based on this approach, but we’re at the age that we might not benefit much from this “free” period.  My figures could easily be used to justify putting in a system now, particularly if you factor in the predicted increase in electric rates (an unknown).  We will probably put in a system eventually….just no right now.

I’ve got to go to church…..more later….

HHH

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:46 PM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity

I agree that neglecting the capital cost is a major omission. I
hadn't thought of insurance, but that seems significant too.

However, I seem to remember that the increased value is exempt from
property tax (in Texas ). So that's not too bad.

I also agree that 4% is not bad considering how risk free it is.
However, it's not -entirely- risk free - if there is a decrease in the
price of electricity instead of the assumed increase then you have
pretty significant risk. It's up to you to decide how likely you
think that situation is; there is really no accurate way to predict
that 25 years into the future. Most prices fall over the long run,
but non-renewable resources can act rise. Since energy can be
generated by renewable and non-renewable means - it's anyone's guess!

--- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Robert Johnston" <junk1@...> wrote:

>
> Chris,
>
>
>
> You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase over 25
> years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less
> favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased
property taxes,
> and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even further.
BTW, I
> just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy
> yesterday (for Brazoria
County ), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high.
>
>
> Robert Johnston
>
>
>
> From: hreg@yahoogroups. com
[mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
Of Chris
> Boyer
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM
> To: HREG
> Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
>
>
>
>
> Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that
was part
> of the bank bail out bill. There is now a Federal Tax Credit for solar
> photovoltaic systems. This tax credit is very significant for home
owners
> in Houston
because it now means that buying solar electricity is
comparable
>
>
>
> Here's the math (simple version):
>
> PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed.
>
> Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit).
>
> Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed
>
> The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in
w:st="on">Houston over
25 years
>
> The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh
>
> That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP).
>
>
>
> Example:
>
> 3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000
>
> Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward)
>
>
>
> Here's the math another way (complex version)
>
> Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money.
> the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get a
> certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free
investment at
> this time, let me know!).
>
> We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other
number)
> and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on our
> investment. If we do that, we also have to assume that electric
rates are
> going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have
increased at
> an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas
over the last decade. If you
> escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation
(0.5%
> per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you
still come
> up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%. This may not seem like a high
return;
> however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the
system if
> damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the nation
toward
> sustainability.
>
>
>
> Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the
same rate
> that you expect electricity to escalate.
>
>
>
> Now you have every reason to put solar on your home.
>
>
>
> Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%:
>
> (Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to incomprehensible
> jibberish).
>
>
>
>
> Year
>
> Generation
>
> (kWh/yr)
>
> Elect
>
> (\$/kWh)
>
> \$Solar Revenue
>
>
> 0
>
> 0
>
> 0.20
>
> -8000
>
>
> 1
>
> 1280
>
> 0.20
>
> 2656
>
>
> 2
>
> 1274
>
> 0.22
>
> 280
>
>
> 3
>
> 1267
>
> 0.24
>
> 307
>
>
> 4
>
> 1261
>
> 0.27
>
> 336
>
>
> 5
>
> 1255
>
> 0.29
>
> 367
>
>
> 6
>
> 1248
>
> 0.32
>
> 402
>
>
> 7
>
> 1242
>
> 0.35
>
> 440
>
>
> 8
>
> 1236
>
> 0.39
>
> 482
>
>
> 9
>
> 1230
>
> 0.43
>
> 527
>
>
> 10
>
> 1224
>
> 0.47
>
> 577
>
>
> 11
>
> 1217
>
> 0.52
>
> 632
>
>
> 12
>
> 1211
>
> 0.57
>
> 691
>
>
> 13
>
> 1205
>
> 0.63
>
> 757
>
>
> 14
>
> 1199
>
> 0.69
>
> 828
>
>
> 15
>
> 1193
>
> 0.76
>
> 906
>
>
> 16
>
> 1187
>
> 0.84
>
> 992
>
>
> 17
>
> 1181
>
> 0.92
>
> 1086
>
>
> 18
>
> 1175
>
> 1.01
>
> 1188
>
>
> 19
>
> 1170
>
> 1.11
>
> 1301
>
>
> 20
>
> 1164
>
> 1.22
>
> 1423
>
>
> 21
>
> 1158
>
> 1.35
>
> 1558
>
>
> 22
>
> 1152
>
> 1.48
>
> 1705
>
>
> 23
>
> 1146
>
> 1.63
>
> 1866
>
>
> 24
>
> 1141
>
> 1.79
>
> 2043
>
>
> 25
>
> 1135
>
> 1.97
>
> 2236
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1790 - Release Date: 11/15/2008 9:32 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1792 - Release Date: 11/16/2008 10:04 AM

• Greetings, For anyone in a rural area, we have no choice about who we buy from and \$0.179 is cheaper than I pay, now. No choice, I am on a coop. Also, is that
Message 6 of 19 , Nov 16, 2008
Greetings,
For anyone in a rural area, we have no choice about who we buy from and
\$0.179 is cheaper than I pay, now. No choice, I am on a coop. Also, is
that the published rate or the entire electric bill divided by kwhs
used, which is a real price. All those 'extra' charges are part of the
cost that also can't be ignored.
Bright Blessings,
Kim

Robert Johnston wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase over 25
> years, you’d have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less
> favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased property
> taxes, and maintenance costs, and you’ll jack the price up even
> further. BTW, I just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan
> from Spark Energy yesterday (for Brazoria County), so your 17.9
> cents/kWh sounds high.
>
>
> Robert Johnston
>
> _._,___
• The 12.9 I mentioned was before taxes/fees, which should bring it to about 13.1. Robert ... From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Message 7 of 19 , Nov 16, 2008
The 12.9 I mentioned was before taxes/fees, which should bring it to about
13.1.

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Garth
& Kim Travis
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:53 AM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity

Greetings,
For anyone in a rural area, we have no choice about who we buy from and
\$0.179 is cheaper than I pay, now. No choice, I am on a coop. Also, is
that the published rate or the entire electric bill divided by kwhs
used, which is a real price. All those 'extra' charges are part of the
cost that also can't be ignored.
Bright Blessings,
Kim

Robert Johnston wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase over 25
> years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less
> favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased property
> taxes, and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even
> further. BTW, I just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan
> from Spark Energy yesterday (for Brazoria County), so your 17.9
> cents/kWh sounds high.
>
>
> Robert Johnston
>
> _._,___

------------------------------------

• All: Excel spread sheet showing the national trends in kW rates since 1960-2007 from DOE....In 1960 national residential rates were @ 2.6 cents and 2007 are
Message 8 of 19 , Nov 17, 2008
All:

Excel spread sheet showing the national trends in kW rates since 1960-2007 from DOE....In 1960 national residential rates were @ 2.6 cents and 2007 are 10.64 cents according to DOE....

don

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Haynes"
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:15:05 -0600

We were on the verge of putting in a PV system, so I ran what you might call a “real time” spreadsheet.  I’ll say up front that every system is going to be different.  I factored in the 30% tax credit, the financing I had arranged, etc.  The financing (an LOC) was set for a 15 year payout at ??% (I don’t have my data in front of me.) to start at a time of my choosing.  I planned to pay an arbitrary monthly payment until I received the tax credit (taken all the first year) & then start the 15 year payout.  This means I would be paying over a total of about 16-17 years.  During that time the amount I would be paying for the PV portion of my electricity would average about \$0.41/kwh.  Of course the PV electricity after the payout would be “free” based on this approach, but we’re at the age that we might not benefit much from this “free” period.  My figures could easily be used to justify putting in a system now, particularly if you factor in the predicted increase in electric rates (an unknown).  We will probably put in a system eventually….just no right now.

I’ve got to go to church…..more later….

HHH

From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:46 PM
To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
Subject: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity

I agree that neglecting the capital cost is a major omission. I
hadn't thought of insurance, but that seems significant too.

However, I seem to remember that the increased value is exempt from
property tax (in Texas ). So that's not too bad.

I also agree that 4% is not bad considering how risk free it is.
However, it's not -entirely- risk free - if there is a decrease in the
price of electricity instead of the assumed increase then you have
pretty significant risk. It's up to you to decide how likely you
think that situation is; there is really no accurate way to predict
that 25 years into the future. Most prices fall over the long run,
but non-renewable resources can act rise. Since energy can be
generated by renewable and non-renewable means - it's anyone's guess!

--- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Robert Johnston" <junk1@...> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
>
>
> You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase over 25
> years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less
> favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased
property taxes,
> and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even further.
BTW, I
> just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy
> yesterday (for Brazoria County ), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high.
>
>
> Robert Johnston
>
>
>
> From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
Of Chris
> Boyer
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM
> To: HREG
> Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
>
>
>
>
> Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that
was part
> of the bank bail out bill. There is now a Federal Tax Credit for solar
> photovoltaic systems. This tax credit is very significant for home
owners
> in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is
comparable
>
>
>
> Here's the math (simple version):
>
> PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed.
>
> Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit).
>
> Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed
>
> The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in Houston over
25 years
>
> The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh
>
> That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP).
>
>
>
> Example:
>
> 3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000
>
> Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward)
>
>
>
> Here's the math another way (complex version)
>
> Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money.
> the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get a
> certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free
investment at
> this time, let me know!).
>
> We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other
number)
> and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on our
> investment. If we do that, we also have to assume that electric
rates are
> going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have
increased at
> an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas over the last decade. If you
> escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation
(0.5%
> per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you
still come
> up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%. This may not seem like a high
return;
> however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the
system if
> damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the nation
toward
> sustainability.
>
>
>
> Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the
same rate
> that you expect electricity to escalate.
>
>
>
> Now you have every reason to put solar on your home.
>
>
>
> Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%:
>
> (Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to incomprehensible
> jibberish).
>
>
>
>
> Year
>
> Generation
>
> (kWh/yr)
>
> Elect
>
> (\$/kWh)
>
> \$Solar Revenue
>
>
> 0
>
> 0
>
> 0.20
>
> -8000
>
>
> 1
>
> 1280
>
> 0.20
>
> 2656
>
>
> 2
>
> 1274
>
> 0.22
>
> 280
>
>
> 3
>
> 1267
>
> 0.24
>
> 307
>
>
> 4
>
> 1261
>
> 0.27
>
> 336
>
>
> 5
>
> 1255
>
> 0.29
>
> 367
>
>
> 6
>
> 1248
>
> 0.32
>
> 402
>
>
> 7
>
> 1242
>
> 0.35
>
> 440
>
>
> 8
>
> 1236
>
> 0.39
>
> 482
>
>
> 9
>
> 1230
>
> 0.43
>
> 527
>
>
> 10
>
> 1224
>
> 0.47
>
> 577
>
>
> 11
>
> 1217
>
> 0.52
>
> 632
>
>
> 12
>
> 1211
>
> 0.57
>
> 691
>
>
> 13
>
> 1205
>
> 0.63
>
> 757
>
>
> 14
>
> 1199
>
> 0.69
>
> 828
>
>
> 15
>
> 1193
>
> 0.76
>
> 906
>
>
> 16
>
> 1187
>
> 0.84
>
> 992
>
>
> 17
>
> 1181
>
> 0.92
>
> 1086
>
>
> 18
>
> 1175
>
> 1.01
>
> 1188
>
>
> 19
>
> 1170
>
> 1.11
>
> 1301
>
>
> 20
>
> 1164
>
> 1.22
>
> 1423
>
>
> 21
>
> 1158
>
> 1.35
>
> 1558
>
>
> 22
>
> 1152
>
> 1.48
>
> 1705
>
>
> 23
>
> 1146
>
> 1.63
>
> 1866
>
>
> 24
>
> 1141
>
> 1.79
>
> 2043
>
>
> 25
>
> 1135
>
> 1.97
>
> 2236
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1790 - Release Date: 11/15/2008 9:32 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1792 - Release Date: 11/16/2008 10:04 AM

`Don SandrosSandEnergy, LLC`

• Did anyone read the Chronicle article this morning about the mini-nuclear plants? They said  they would be about the size of SUVs & cost about \$250 million
Message 9 of 19 , Nov 17, 2008
 Did anyone read the Chronicle article this morning about the mini-nuclear plants? They said  they would be about the size of SUVs & cost about \$250 million each.  But, they would power about 100,000 (?) homes, so that's not bad.  Technical articles like this in newspapers are notoriously wrong, though.HHH --- On Mon, 11/17/08, Don Sandros wrote:From: Don Sandros Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility ElectricityTo: hreg@yahoogroups.comDate: Monday, November 17, 2008, 10:20 AM All:  Excel spread sheet showing the national trends in kW rates since 1960-2007 from DOE....In 1960 national residential rates were @ 2.6 cents and 2007 are 10.64 cents according to DOE....don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry Haynes" To: hreg@yahoogroups. com Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:15:05 -0600 We were on the verge of putting in a PV system, so I ran what you might call a “real time” spreadsheet.  I’ll say up front that every system is going to be different.  I factored in the 30% tax credit, the financing I had arranged, etc.  The financing (an LOC) was set for a 15 year payout at ??% (I don’t have my data in front of me.) to start at a time of my choosing.  I planned to pay an arbitrary monthly payment until I received the tax credit (taken all the first year) & then start the 15 year payout.  This means I would be paying over a total of about 16-17 years.  During that time the amount I would be paying for the PV portion of my electricity would average about \$0.41/kwh.  Of course the PV electricity after the payout would be “free” based on this approach, but we’re at the age that we might not benefit much from this “free” period.  My figures could easily be used to justify putting in a system now, particularly if you factor in the predicted increase in electric rates (an unknown).  We will probably put in a system eventually….just no right now.  I’ve got to go to church…..more later….  HHH  From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Jay Ring Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:46 PM To: hreg@yahoogroups. com Subject: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity  I agree that neglecting the capital cost is a major omission. I hadn't thought of insurance, but that seems significant too. However, I seem to remember that the increased value is exempt from property tax (in Texas ). So that's not too bad. I also agree that 4% is not bad considering how risk free it is. However, it's not -entirely- risk free - if there is a decrease in the price of electricity instead of the assumed increase then you have pretty significant risk. It's up to you to decide how likely you think that situation is; there is really no accurate way to predict that 25 years into the future. Most prices fall over the long run, but non-renewable resources can act rise. Since energy can be generated by renewable and non-renewable means - it's anyone's guess! --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Robert Johnston" wrote: > > Chris, > > > > You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase over 25 > years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less > favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased property taxes, > and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even further. BTW, I > just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy > yesterday (for Brazoria County ), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high. > > > Robert Johnston > > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Chris > Boyer > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM > To: HREG > Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity > > > > > Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that was part > of the bank bail out bill. There is now a Federal Tax Credit for solar > photovoltaic systems. This tax credit is very significant for home owners > in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is comparable > to buying electricity from your utility company. > > > > Here's the math (simple version): > > PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed. > > Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit). > > Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed > > The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in Houston over 25 years > > The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh > > That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP). > > > > Example: > > 3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000 > > Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward) > > > > Here's the math another way (complex version) > > Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money. If I had > the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get a > certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free investment at > this time, let me know!). > > We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other number) > and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on our > investment. If we do that, we also have to assume that electric rates are > going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have increased at > an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas over the last decade. If you > escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation (0.5% > per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you still come > up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%. This may not seem like a high return; > however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the system if > damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the nation toward > sustainability. > > > > Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the same rate > that you expect electricity to escalate. > > > > Now you have every reason to put solar on your home. > > > > Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%: > > (Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to incomprehensible > jibberish). > > > > > Year > > Generation > > (kWh/yr) > > Elect > > (\$/kWh) > > \$Solar Revenue > > > 0 > > 0 > > 0.20 > > -8000 > > > 1 > > 1280 > > 0.20 > > 2656 > > > 2 > > 1274 > > 0.22 > > 280 > > > 3 > > 1267 > > 0.24 > > 307 > > > 4 > > 1261 > > 0.27 > > 336 > > > 5 > > 1255 > > 0.29 > > 367 > > > 6 > > 1248 > > 0.32 > > 402 > > > 7 > > 1242 > > 0.35 > > 440 > > > 8 > > 1236 > > 0.39 > > 482 > > > 9 > > 1230 > > 0.43 > > 527 > > > 10 > > 1224 > > 0.47 > > 577 > > > 11 > > 1217 > > 0.52 > > 632 > > > 12 > > 1211 > > 0.57 > > 691 > > > 13 > > 1205 > > 0.63 > > 757 > > > 14 > > 1199 > > 0.69 > > 828 > > > 15 > > 1193 > > 0.76 > > 906 > > > 16 > > 1187 > > 0.84 > > 992 > > > 17 > > 1181 > > 0.92 > > 1086 > > > 18 > > 1175 > > 1.01 > > 1188 > > > 19 > > 1170 > > 1.11 > > 1301 > > > 20 > > 1164 > > 1.22 > > 1423 > > > 21 > > 1158 > > 1.35 > > 1558 > > > 22 > > 1152 > > 1.48 > > 1705 > > > 23 > > 1146 > > 1.63 > > 1866 > > > 24 > > 1141 > > 1.79 > > 2043 > > > 25 > > 1135 > > 1.97 > > 2236 >No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1790 - Release Date: 11/15/2008 9:32 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1792 - Release Date: 11/16/2008 10:04 AM `Don SandrosSandEnergy, LLC`
• Very informative chart, thanks! One point I would add is that the GDP deflator http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflateGDP.html
Message 10 of 19 , Nov 17, 2008

Very informative chart, thanks!

One point I would add is that the GDP deflator http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflateGDP.html for the same 1960-2007 period was 433% change, so the increase in cost of electricity was similar to the change in nominal GDP over the same period.  If you look at CPI (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl ) the increase in CPI was 700%.  Thus, electricity has risen relatively slowly compared to the cost of the overall basket of goods that CPI is calculated on.

What this implies to me is that if stock prices continue to rise faster than inflation over the next 25 years as they have over long periods in the past (and today being a potentially great <low cost> entry point), one would be better off investing \$50,000 in a diversified stock portfolio than investing it in solar panels to replace/augment utility-provided electricity.  The stocks would rise faster than the cost of utility-provided electricity, if the trend in your spreadsheet continues.  Of course, “past performance is no guarantee of future results”, as financial advisors always say, and that would be true of both stocks and electricity prices.

I think investing in solar electricity is “cool” and has environmental benefits, but except for special situations, is still not cost-competitive with utility-provided electricity.  I think solar will take off without rebates once the technology is developed to be truly cost-competitive (and not just when energy prices are an cyclical highs).

Robert

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Sandros
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:21 AM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity

All:

Excel spread sheet showing the national trends in kW rates since 1960-2007 from DOE....In 1960 national residential rates were @ 2.6 cents and 2007 are 10.64 cents according to DOE....

don

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Haynes"
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:15:05 -0600

We were on the verge of putting in a PV system, so I ran what you might call a “real time” spreadsheet.  I’ll say up front that every system is going to be different.  I factored in the 30% tax credit, the financing I had arranged, etc.  The financing (an LOC) was set for a 15 year payout at ??% (I don’t have my data in front of me.) to start at a time of my choosing.  I planned to pay an arbitrary monthly payment until I received the tax credit (taken all the first year) & then start the 15 year payout.  This means I would be paying over a total of about 16-17 years.  During that time the amount I would be paying for the PV portion of my electricity would average about \$0.41/kwh.  Of course the PV electricity after the payout would be “free” based on this approach, but we’re at the age that we might not benefit much from this “free” period.  My figures could easily be used to justify putting in a system now, particularly if you factor in the predicted increase in electric rates (an unknown).  We will probably put in a system eventually….just no right now.

I’ve got to go to church…..more later….

HHH

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:46 PM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity

I agree that neglecting the capital cost is a major omission. I
hadn't thought of insurance, but that seems significant too.

However, I seem to remember that the increased value is exempt from
property tax (in Texas). So that's not too bad.

I also agree that 4% is not bad considering how risk free it is.
However, it's not -entirely- risk free - if there is a decrease in the
price of electricity instead of the assumed increase then you have
pretty significant risk. It's up to you to decide how likely you
think that situation is; there is really no accurate way to predict
that 25 years into the future. Most prices fall over the long run,
but non-renewable resources can act rise. Since energy can be
generated by renewable and non-renewable means - it's anyone's guess!

--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Johnston" <junk1@...> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
>
>
> You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase over 25
> years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less
> favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased
property taxes,
> and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even further.
BTW, I
> just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy
> yesterday (for Brazoria County), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high.
>
>
> Robert Johnston
>
>
>
> From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Chris
> Boyer
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM
> To: HREG
> Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
>
>
>
>
> Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that
was part
> of the bank bail out bill. There is now a Federal Tax Credit for solar
> photovoltaic systems. This tax credit is very significant for home
owners
> in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is
comparable
>
>
>
> Here's the math (simple version):
>
> PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed.
>
> Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit).
>
> Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed
>
> The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in Houston over
25 years
>
> The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh
>
> That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP).
>
>
>
> Example:
>
> 3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000
>
> Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward)
>
>
>
> Here's the math another way (complex version)
>
> Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money.
> the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get a
> certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free
investment at
> this time, let me know!).
>
> We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other
number)
> and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on our
> investment. If we do that, we also have to assume that electric
rates are
> going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have
increased at
> an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas over the last decade. If you
> escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation
(0.5%
> per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you
still come
> up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%. This may not seem like a high
return;
> however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the
system if
> damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the nation
toward
> sustainability.
>
>
>
> Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the
same rate
> that you expect electricity to escalate.
>
>
>
> Now you have every reason to put solar on your home.
>
>
>
> Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%:
>
> (Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to incomprehensible
> jibberish).
>
>
>
>
> Year
>
> Generation
>
> (kWh/yr)
>
> Elect
>
> (\$/kWh)
>
> \$Solar Revenue
>
>
> 0
>
> 0
>
> 0.20
>
> -8000
>
>
> 1
>
> 1280
>
> 0.20
>
> 2656
>
>
> 2
>
> 1274
>
> 0.22
>
> 280
>
>
> 3
>
> 1267
>
> 0.24
>
> 307
>
>
> 4
>
> 1261
>
> 0.27
>
> 336
>
>
> 5
>
> 1255
>
> 0.29
>
> 367
>
>
> 6
>
> 1248
>
> 0.32
>
> 402
>
>
> 7
>
> 1242
>
> 0.35
>
> 440
>
>
> 8
>
> 1236
>
> 0.39
>
> 482
>
>
> 9
>
> 1230
>
> 0.43
>
> 527
>
>
> 10
>
> 1224
>
> 0.47
>
> 577
>
>
> 11
>
> 1217
>
> 0.52
>
> 632
>
>
> 12
>
> 1211
>
> 0.57
>
> 691
>
>
> 13
>
> 1205
>
> 0.63
>
> 757
>
>
> 14
>
> 1199
>
> 0.69
>
> 828
>
>
> 15
>
> 1193
>
> 0.76
>
> 906
>
>
> 16
>
> 1187
>
> 0.84
>
> 992
>
>
> 17
>
> 1181
>
> 0.92
>
> 1086
>
>
> 18
>
> 1175
>
> 1.01
>
> 1188
>
>
> 19
>
> 1170
>
> 1.11
>
> 1301
>
>
> 20
>
> 1164
>
> 1.22
>
> 1423
>
>
> 21
>
> 1158
>
> 1.35
>
> 1558
>
>
> 22
>
> 1152
>
> 1.48
>
> 1705
>
>
> 23
>
> 1146
>
> 1.63
>
> 1866
>
>
> 24
>
> 1141
>
> 1.79
>
> 2043
>
>
> 25
>
> 1135
>
> 1.97
>
> 2236
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1790 - Release Date: 11/15/2008 9:32 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1792 - Release Date: 11/16/2008 10:04 AM

```Don Sandros
SandEnergy, LLC```

• I read it, but thought they were \$25M and powered 10,000 homes. Kevin Conlin Solarcraft, Inc. 4007-C Greenbriar Drive Stafford, TX 77477 Local (281) 340-1224
Message 11 of 19 , Nov 17, 2008

I read it, but thought they were \$25M and powered 10,000 homes.

Kevin Conlin

Solarcraft, Inc.

4007-C Greenbriar Drive

Stafford, TX 77477

Local (281) 340-1224

Toll Free (877) 340-1224

Fax (281) 340-1230

Cell (281) 960-8979

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Henry H Haynes
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:43 AM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity

 Did anyone read the Chronicle article this morning about the mini-nuclear plants? They said  they would be about the size of SUVs & cost about \$250 million each.  But, they would power about 100,000 (?) homes, so that's not bad.  Technical articles like this in newspapers are notoriously wrong, though. HHH --- On Mon, 11/17/08, Don Sandros wrote:From: Don Sandros Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity To: hreg@yahoogroups. com Date: Monday, November 17, 2008, 10:20 AMAll:  Excel spread sheet showing the national trends in kW rates since 1960-2007 from DOE....In 1960 national residential rates were @ 2.6 cents and 2007 are 10.64 cents according to DOE.... don----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry Haynes" To: hreg@yahoogroups. com Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:15:05 -0600We were on the verge of putting in a PV system, so I ran what you might call a “real time” spreadsheet.  I’ll say up front that every system is going to be different.  I factored in the 30% tax credit, the financing I had arranged, etc.  The financing (an LOC) was set for a 15 year payout at ??% (I don’t have my data in front of me.) to start at a time of my choosing.  I planned to pay an arbitrary monthly payment until I received the tax credit (taken all the first year) & then start the 15 year payout.  This means I would be paying over a total of about 16-17 years.  During that time the amount I would be paying for the PV portion of my electricity would average about \$0.41/kwh.  Of course the PV electricity after the payout would be “free” based on this approach, but we’re at the age that we might not benefit much from this “free” period.  My figures could easily be used to justify putting in a system now, particularly if you factor in the predicted increase in electric rates (an unknown).  We will probably put in a system eventually….just no right now. I’ve got to go to church…..more later…. HHH  From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Jay Ring Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:46 PM To: hreg@yahoogroups. com Subject: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity I agree that neglecting the capital cost is a major omission. I hadn't thought of insurance, but that seems significant too. However, I seem to remember that the increased value is exempt from property tax (in Texas ). So that's not too bad. I also agree that 4% is not bad considering how risk free it is. However, it's not -entirely- risk free - if there is a decrease in the price of electricity instead of the assumed increase then you have pretty significant risk. It's up to you to decide how likely you think that situation is; there is really no accurate way to predict that 25 years into the future. Most prices fall over the long run, but non-renewable resources can act rise. Since energy can be generated by renewable and non-renewable means - it's anyone's guess! --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Robert Johnston" wrote: > > Chris, > > > > You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase over 25 > years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less > favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased property taxes, > and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even further. BTW, I > just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy > yesterday (for Brazoria County ), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high. > > > Robert Johnston > > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Chris > Boyer > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM > To: HREG > Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity > > > > > Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that was part > of the bank bail out bill. There is now a Federal Tax Credit for solar > photovoltaic systems. This tax credit is very significant for home owners > in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is comparable > to buying electricity from your utility company. > > > > Here's the math (simple version): > > PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed. > > Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit). > > Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed > > The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in w:st="on">Houston over 25 years > > The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh > > That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP). > > > > Example: > > 3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000 > > Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward) > > > > Here's the math another way (complex version) > > Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money. If I had > the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get a > certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free investment at > this time, let me know!). > > We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other number) > and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on our > investment. If we do that, we also have to assume that electric rates are > going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have increased at > an average to ~5 to 10% per year in w:st="on">Texas over the last decade. If you > escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation (0.5% > per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you still come > up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%. This may not seem like a high return; > however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the system if > damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the nation toward > sustainability. > > > > Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the same rate > that you expect electricity to escalate. > > > > Now you have every reason to put solar on your home. > > > > Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%: > > (Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to incomprehensible > jibberish). > > > > > Year > > Generation > > (kWh/yr) > > Elect > > (\$/kWh) > > \$Solar Revenue > > > 0 > > 0 > > 0.20 > > -8000 > > > 1 > > 1280 > > 0.20 > > 2656 > > > 2 > > 1274 > > 0.22 > > 280 > > > 3 > > 1267 > > 0.24 > > 307 > > > 4 > > 1261 > > 0.27 > > 336 > > > 5 > > 1255 > > 0.29 > > 367 > > > 6 > > 1248 > > 0.32 > > 402 > > > 7 > > 1242 > > 0.35 > > 440 > > > 8 > > 1236 > > 0.39 > > 482 > > > 9 > > 1230 > > 0.43 > > 527 > > > 10 > > 1224 > > 0.47 > > 577 > > > 11 > > 1217 > > 0.52 > > 632 > > > 12 > > 1211 > > 0.57 > > 691 > > > 13 > > 1205 > > 0.63 > > 757 > > > 14 > > 1199 > > 0.69 > > 828 > > > 15 > > 1193 > > 0.76 > > 906 > > > 16 > > 1187 > > 0.84 > > 992 > > > 17 > > 1181 > > 0.92 > > 1086 > > > 18 > > 1175 > > 1.01 > > 1188 > > > 19 > > 1170 > > 1.11 > > 1301 > > > 20 > > 1164 > > 1.22 > > 1423 > > > 21 > > 1158 > > 1.35 > > 1558 > > > 22 > > 1152 > > 1.48 > > 1705 > > > 23 > > 1146 > > 1.63 > > 1866 > > > 24 > > 1141 > > 1.79 > > 2043 > > > 25 > > 1135 > > 1.97 > > 2236 >  No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1790 - Release Date: 11/15/2008 9:32 AM  No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1792 - Release Date: 11/16/2008 10:04 AM  ```Don Sandros SandEnergy, LLC```

• You re probably right.  My memory lost the decimal point. One of my first thoughts was about how they are going to maintain security & monitor the location of
Message 12 of 19 , Nov 17, 2008
You're probably right.  My memory lost the decimal point.

One of my first thoughts was about how they are going to maintain security & monitor the location of these small units scattered across the country.

On the positive side, these units could potentially push the cost of electricity down w/ such a small capital investment.

HHH

--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Kevin Conlin <kconlin@...> wrote:
From: Kevin Conlin <kconlin@...>
Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 17, 2008, 12:29 PM

I read it, but thought they were \$25M and powered 10,000 homes.

Kevin Conlin

Solarcraft, Inc.

4007-C Greenbriar Drive

Stafford, TX 77477

Local (281) 340-1224

Toll Free (877) 340-1224

Fax (281) 340-1230

Cell (281) 960-8979

From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Henry H Haynes
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:43 AM
To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity

 Did anyone read the Chronicle article this morning about the mini-nuclear plants? They said  they would be about the size of SUVs & cost about \$250 million each.  But, they would power about 100,000 (?) homes, so that's not bad.  Technical articles like this in newspapers are notoriously wrong, though. HHH --- On Mon, 11/17/08, Don Sandros wrote:From: Don Sandros Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity To: hreg@yahoogroups. com Date: Monday, November 17, 2008, 10:20 AMAll:  Excel spread sheet showing the national trends in kW rates since 1960-2007 from DOE....In 1960 national residential rates were @ 2.6 cents and 2007 are 10.64 cents according to DOE.... don----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry Haynes" To: hreg@yahoogroups. com Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:15:05 -0600We were on the verge of putting in a PV system, so I ran what you might call a “real time” spreadsheet.  I’ll say up front that every system is going to be different.  I factored in the 30% tax credit, the financing I had arranged, etc.  The financing (an LOC) was set for a 15 year payout at ??% (I don’t have my data in front of me.) to start at a time of my choosing.  I planned to pay an arbitrary monthly payment until I received the tax credit (taken all the first year) & then start the 15 year payout.  This means I would be paying over a total of about 16-17 years.  During that time the amount I would be paying for the PV portion of my electricity would average about \$0.41/kwh.  Of course the PV electricity after the payout would be “free” based on this approach, but we’re at the age that we might not benefit much from this “free” period.  My figures could easily be used to justify putting in a system now, particularly if you factor in the predicted increase in electric rates (an unknown).  We will probably put in a system eventually….just no right now. I’ve got to go to church…..more later…. HHH  From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Jay Ring Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:46 PM To: hreg@yahoogroups. com Subject: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity I agree that neglecting the capital cost is a major omission. I hadn't thought of insurance, but that seems significant too. However, I seem to remember that the increased value is exempt from property tax (in Texas ). So that's not too bad. I also agree that 4% is not bad considering how risk free it is. However, it's not -entirely- risk free - if there is a decrease in the price of electricity instead of the assumed increase then you have pretty significant risk. It's up to you to decide how likely you think that situation is; there is really no accurate way to predict that 25 years into the future. Most prices fall over the long run, but non-renewable resources can act rise. Since energy can be generated by renewable and non-renewable means - it's anyone's guess! --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Robert Johnston" wrote: > > Chris, > > > > You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase over 25 > years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less > favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased property taxes, > and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even further. BTW, I > just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy > yesterday (for Brazoria County ), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high. > > > Robert Johnston > > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Chris > Boyer > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM > To: HREG > Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity > > > > > Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that was part > of the bank bail out bill. There is now a Federal Tax Credit for solar > photovoltaic systems. This tax credit is very significant for home owners > in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is comparable > to buying electricity from your utility company. > > > > Here's the math (simple version): > > PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed. > > Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit). > > Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed > > The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in Houston over 25 years > > The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh > > That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP). > > > > Example: > > 3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000 > > Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward) > > > > Here's the math another way (complex version) > > Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money. If I had > the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get a > certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free investment at > this time, let me know!). > > We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other number) > and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on our > investment. If we do that, we also have to assume that electric rates are > going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have increased at > an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas over the last decade. If you > escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation (0.5% > per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you still come > up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%. This may not seem like a high return; > however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the system if > damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the nation toward > sustainability. > > > > Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the same rate > that you expect electricity to escalate. > > > > Now you have every reason to put solar on your home. > > > > Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%: > > (Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to incomprehensible > jibberish). > > > > > Year > > Generation > > (kWh/yr) > > Elect > > (\$/kWh) > > \$Solar Revenue > > > 0 > > 0 > > 0.20 > > -8000 > > > 1 > > 1280 > > 0.20 > > 2656 > > > 2 > > 1274 > > 0.22 > > 280 > > > 3 > > 1267 > > 0.24 > > 307 > > > 4 > > 1261 > > 0.27 > > 336 > > > 5 > > 1255 > > 0.29 > > 367 > > > 6 > > 1248 > > 0.32 > > 402 > > > 7 > > 1242 > > 0.35 > > 440 > > > 8 > > 1236 > > 0.39 > > 482 > > > 9 > > 1230 > > 0.43 > > 527 > > > 10 > > 1224 > > 0.47 > > 577 > > > 11 > > 1217 > > 0.52 > > 632 > > > 12 > > 1211 > > 0.57 > > 691 > > > 13 > > 1205 > > 0.63 > > 757 > > > 14 > > 1199 > > 0.69 > > 828 > > > 15 > > 1193 > > 0.76 > > 906 > > > 16 > > 1187 > > 0.84 > > 992 > > > 17 > > 1181 > > 0.92 > > 1086 > > > 18 > > 1175 > > 1.01 > > 1188 > > > 19 > > 1170 > > 1.11 > > 1301 > > > 20 > > 1164 > > 1.22 > > 1423 > > > 21 > > 1158 > > 1.35 > > 1558 > > > 22 > > 1152 > > 1.48 > > 1705 > > > 23 > > 1146 > > 1.63 > > 1866 > > > 24 > > 1141 > > 1.79 > > 2043 > > > 25 > > 1135 > > 1.97 > > 2236 >  No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1790 - Release Date: 11/15/2008 9:32 AM  No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.4/1792 - Release Date: 11/16/2008 10:04 AM  `Don SandrosSandEnergy, LLC`

• Robert, Your criticism is welcome as it allows us to clear up some questions: 1) The second calculation in the e-mail did include the cost of capital. It
Message 13 of 19 , Nov 17, 2008
Robert,

Your criticism is welcome as it allows us to clear up some questions:
1) The second calculation in the e-mail did include the cost of
capital. It shows that the cost of capital is on par with the
historical increase in electric rates.
2) Insurance cost increases are minimum. A few dollars per year.
3) There is no property tax on solar equipment.
4) There is no maintenance on solar equipment (unless you want to
squeeze a little more juice out of them and rinse them every few
months).
5) Extrapolating historic electric trends assumes there is infinite
fossil resources available cheaply (clean, high BTU, close to the
surface), which is not the case, so logic tells us fossil costs will
continue to rise exponentially (although they went out of control in
the last year and are now re-adjusting). Or, it assumes that an
alternative solution will arise and reach mass-production economic
efficency (which only happens with an initial investment).

There are plenty of reasons to have a solar system (or other
renewable power source). And if you don't want to be part of the
American energy solution, that is your choice.

-Chris

You can hang with the dinasaurs, or evolve with the survivors.

--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Johnston" <junk1@...> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
>
>
> You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase
over 25
> years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less
> favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased
property taxes,
> and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even further.
BTW, I
> just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy
> yesterday (for Brazoria County), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high.
>
>
> Robert Johnston
>
>
>
> From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Chris
> Boyer
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM
> To: HREG
> Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
>
>
>
>
> Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that
was part
> of the bank bail out bill. There is now a Federal Tax Credit for
solar
> photovoltaic systems. This tax credit is very significant for home
owners
> in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is
comparable
>
>
>
> Here's the math (simple version):
>
> PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed.
>
> Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit).
>
> Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed
>
> The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in Houston over
25 years
>
> The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh
>
> That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP).
>
>
>
> Example:
>
> 3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000
>
> Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward)
>
>
>
> Here's the math another way (complex version)
>
> Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money.
> the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get
a
> certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free
investment at
> this time, let me know!).
>
> We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other
number)
> and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on
our
> investment. If we do that, we also have to assume that electric
rates are
> going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have
increased at
> an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas over the last decade. If
you
> escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation
(0.5%
> per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you
still come
> up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%. This may not seem like a high
return;
> however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the
system if
> damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the
nation toward
> sustainability.
>
>
>
> Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the
same rate
> that you expect electricity to escalate.
>
>
>
> Now you have every reason to put solar on your home.
>
>
>
> Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%:
>
> (Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to
incomprehensible
> jibberish).
>
>
>
>
> Year
>
> Generation
>
> (kWh/yr)
>
> Elect
>
> (\$/kWh)
>
> \$Solar Revenue
>
>
> 0
>
> 0
>
> 0.20
>
> -8000
>
>
> 1
>
> 1280
>
> 0.20
>
> 2656
>
>
> 2
>
> 1274
>
> 0.22
>
> 280
>
>
> 3
>
> 1267
>
> 0.24
>
> 307
>
>
> 4
>
> 1261
>
> 0.27
>
> 336
>
>
> 5
>
> 1255
>
> 0.29
>
> 367
>
>
> 6
>
> 1248
>
> 0.32
>
> 402
>
>
> 7
>
> 1242
>
> 0.35
>
> 440
>
>
> 8
>
> 1236
>
> 0.39
>
> 482
>
>
> 9
>
> 1230
>
> 0.43
>
> 527
>
>
> 10
>
> 1224
>
> 0.47
>
> 577
>
>
> 11
>
> 1217
>
> 0.52
>
> 632
>
>
> 12
>
> 1211
>
> 0.57
>
> 691
>
>
> 13
>
> 1205
>
> 0.63
>
> 757
>
>
> 14
>
> 1199
>
> 0.69
>
> 828
>
>
> 15
>
> 1193
>
> 0.76
>
> 906
>
>
> 16
>
> 1187
>
> 0.84
>
> 992
>
>
> 17
>
> 1181
>
> 0.92
>
> 1086
>
>
> 18
>
> 1175
>
> 1.01
>
> 1188
>
>
> 19
>
> 1170
>
> 1.11
>
> 1301
>
>
> 20
>
> 1164
>
> 1.22
>
> 1423
>
>
> 21
>
> 1158
>
> 1.35
>
> 1558
>
>
> 22
>
> 1152
>
> 1.48
>
> 1705
>
>
> 23
>
> 1146
>
> 1.63
>
> 1866
>
>
> 24
>
> 1141
>
> 1.79
>
> 2043
>
>
> 25
>
> 1135
>
> 1.97
>
> 2236
>
• I would venture that many Houston -REG members may have come from Houston energy, oil, gas, or chemical industries. Many probably worked either directly
Message 14 of 19 , Nov 17, 2008

I would venture that many 'Houston'-REG members may have come from Houston energy, oil, gas, or chemical industries. Many probably worked either directly around energy technologies, or formed knowledgable realistic energy opinions just by being here. With all these experts we can have some fun and informative debates.

But it’s a gamble If you are trying to predict the future. Will Spark run out of juice in 2010? Or will someone turn my home's 50 lbs of weekly solid waste stew into a 20 gallons of butanol in 2012?  Maybe we should check with a gambling expert. How do Las Vegas odds maker lists whether fossil fuels will dramatically rise in the next two decade, or not?

I think they might note that the huge life style changing populations of China, India, and emerging North Africa may want food, clean water, lighting, heating, cooling, and transportation, just like we do. And then energy will just flow to the highest bidder. I'm betting those bookies would set their odds based on these clear and unarguable facts.  So…the wheel is spinning,…time to place your bets!

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:47 PM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity

Robert,

Your criticism is welcome as it allows us to clear up some questions:
1) The second calculation in the e-mail did include the cost of
capital. It shows that the cost of capital is on par with the
historical increase in electric rates.
2) Insurance cost increases are minimum. A few dollars per year.
3) There is no property tax on solar equipment.
4) There is no maintenance on solar equipment (unless you want to
squeeze a little more juice out of them and rinse them every few
months).
5) Extrapolating historic electric trends assumes there is infinite
fossil resources available cheaply (clean, high BTU, close to the
surface), which is not the case, so logic tells us fossil costs will
continue to rise exponentially (although they went out of control in
the last year and are now re-adjusting). Or, it assumes that an
alternative solution will arise and reach mass-production economic
efficiency (which only happens with an initial investment).

There are plenty of reasons to have a solar system (or other
renewable power source). And if you don't want to be part of the
American energy solution, that is your choice.

-Chris

You can hang with the dinosaurs, or evolve with the survivors.

--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Johnston" <junk1@...> wrote:

>
> Chris,
>
>
>
> You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase
over 25
> years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less
> favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased
property taxes,
> and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even further.
BTW, I
> just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy
> yesterday (for Brazoria County), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high.
>
>
> Robert Johnston
>
>
>
> From: hreg@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Chris
> Boyer
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM
> To: HREG
> Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
>
>
>
>
> Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that
was part
> of the bank bail out bill. There is now a Federal Tax Credit for
solar
> photovoltaic systems. This tax credit is very significant for home
owners
> in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is
comparable
>
>
>
> Here's the math (simple version):
>
> PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed.
>
> Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit).
>
> Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed
>
> The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in Houston over
25 years
>
> The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh
>
> That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP).
>
>
>
> Example:
>
> 3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000
>
> Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward)
>
>
>
> Here's the math another way (complex version)
>
> Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money.
> the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get
a
> certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free
investment at
> this time, let me know!).
>
> We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other
number)
> and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on
our
> investment. If we do that, we also have to assume that electric
rates are
> going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have
increased at
> an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas over the last decade. If
you
> escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation
(0.5%
> per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you
still come
> up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%. This may not seem like a high
return;
> however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the
system if
> damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the
nation toward
> sustainability.
>
>
>
> Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the
same rate
> that you expect electricity to escalate.
>
>
>
> Now you have every reason to put solar on your home.
>
>
>
> Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%:
>
> (Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to
incomprehensible
> jibberish).
>
>
>
>
> Year
>
> Generation
>
> (kWh/yr)
>
> Elect
>
> (\$/kWh)
>
> \$Solar Revenue
>
>
> 0
>
> 0
>
> 0.20
>
> -8000
>
>
> 1
>
> 1280
>
> 0.20
>
> 2656
>
>
> 2
>
> 1274
>
> 0.22
>
> 280
>
>
> 3
>
> 1267
>
> 0.24
>
> 307
>
>
> 4
>
> 1261
>
> 0.27
>
> 336
>
>
> 5
>
> 1255
>
> 0.29
>
> 367
>
>
> 6
>
> 1248
>
> 0.32
>
> 402
>
>
> 7
>
> 1242
>
> 0.35
>
> 440
>
>
> 8
>
> 1236
>
> 0.39
>
> 482
>
>
> 9
>
> 1230
>
> 0.43
>
> 527
>
>
> 10
>
> 1224
>
> 0.47
>
> 577
>
>
> 11
>
> 1217
>
> 0.52
>
> 632
>
>
> 12
>
> 1211
>
> 0.57
>
> 691
>
>
> 13
>
> 1205
>
> 0.63
>
> 757
>
>
> 14
>
> 1199
>
> 0.69
>
> 828
>
>
> 15
>
> 1193
>
> 0.76
>
> 906
>
>
> 16
>
> 1187
>
> 0.84
>
> 992
>
>
> 17
>
> 1181
>
> 0.92
>
> 1086
>
>
> 18
>
> 1175
>
> 1.01
>
> 1188
>
>
> 19
>
> 1170
>
> 1.11
>
> 1301
>
>
> 20
>
> 1164
>
> 1.22
>
> 1423
>
>
> 21
>
> 1158
>
> 1.35
>
> 1558
>
>
> 22
>
> 1152
>
> 1.48
>
> 1705
>
>
> 23
>
> 1146
>
> 1.63
>
> 1866
>
>
> 24
>
> 1141
>
> 1.79
>
> 2043
>
>
> 25
>
> 1135
>
> 1.97
>
> 2236
>

• For the system I am considering installing, I calculated approximately a 7.5% APR You can find some rough calculations here, and adjust it with your own
Message 15 of 19 , Nov 17, 2008
For the system I am considering installing, I calculated approximately
a 7.5% APR

You can find some rough calculations here, and adjust it with your own
assumptions if you like:
http://www.transcendent.us/static/200811/power.xls

If you getting a 5% return in an alternative investment, solar pulls
ahead in the 24th year. At a 10% return (10 year average on the dow),
you are approximately \$75,000 better off in 25 years. Well, that's
not chump change so consider it carefully - the expected outcome is
you are going to be down \$75,000.

You have to be pretty optimistic to think we don't have systemic
economic problems (unfunded social security comes to mind), and the
10% return may very well be a thing of the past. I don't want to get
too political, so lets just say risk management is always a good idea.

Most people diversify their portfolio with some safer, lower interest
investments - particularly as they age. A solar install might be a
good choice. I would say it's an approximate wash - do it for
portfolio diversity :)

I've beat that horse before but it's important!

Another thing we've all left out in the big gamble that is long term
investments -

How much will the same system cost in 5 years? If you think it's
getting cheaper (and it seems many people here do), then you should
probably wait.

--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Beck" <eco@...> wrote:
>
> I would venture that many 'Houston'-REG members may have come from
> Houston energy, oil, gas, or chemical industries. Many probably worked
> either directly around energy technologies, or formed knowledgable
> realistic energy opinions just by being here. With all these experts we
> can have some fun and informative debates.
>
>
>
> But it's a gamble If you are trying to predict the future. Will Spark
> run out of juice in 2010? Or will someone turn my home's 50 lbs of
> weekly solid waste stew into a 20 gallons of butanol in 2012? Maybe we
> should check with a gambling expert. How do Las Vegas odds maker lists
> whether fossil fuels will dramatically rise in the next two decade, or
> not?
>
>
>
> I think they might note that the huge life style changing populations of
> China, India, and emerging North Africa may want food, clean water,
> lighting, heating, cooling, and transportation, just like we do. And
> then energy will just flow to the highest bidder. I'm betting those
> bookies would set their odds based on these clear and unarguable facts.
> So...the wheel is spinning,...time to place your bets!
>
>
>
>
>
> From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Chris
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:47 PM
> To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
> Your criticism is welcome as it allows us to clear up some questions:
> 1) The second calculation in the e-mail did include the cost of
> capital. It shows that the cost of capital is on par with the
> historical increase in electric rates.
> 2) Insurance cost increases are minimum. A few dollars per year.
> 3) There is no property tax on solar equipment.
> 4) There is no maintenance on solar equipment (unless you want to
> squeeze a little more juice out of them and rinse them every few
> months).
> 5) Extrapolating historic electric trends assumes there is infinite
> fossil resources available cheaply (clean, high BTU, close to the
> surface), which is not the case, so logic tells us fossil costs will
> continue to rise exponentially (although they went out of control in
> the last year and are now re-adjusting). Or, it assumes that an
> alternative solution will arise and reach mass-production economic
> efficiency (which only happens with an initial investment).
>
> There are plenty of reasons to have a solar system (or other
> renewable power source). And if you don't want to be part of the
> American energy solution, that is your choice.
>
> -Chris
>
> You can hang with the dinosaurs, or evolve with the survivors.
>
> --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com> , "Robert
> Johnston" <junk1@> wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> >
> >
> > You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase
> over 25
> > years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less
> > favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased
> property taxes,
> > and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even further.
> BTW, I
> > just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy
> > yesterday (for Brazoria County), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high.
> >
> >
> > Robert Johnston
> >
> >
> >
> > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
>
> Of Chris
> > Boyer
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM
> > To: HREG
> > Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that
> was part
> > of the bank bail out bill. There is now a Federal Tax Credit for
> solar
> > photovoltaic systems. This tax credit is very significant for home
> owners
> > in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is
> comparable
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's the math (simple version):
> >
> > PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed.
> >
> > Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit).
> >
> > Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed
> >
> > The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in Houston over
> 25 years
> >
> > The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh
> >
> > That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP).
> >
> >
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > 3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000
> >
> > Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward)
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's the math another way (complex version)
> >
> > Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money.
> > the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get
> a
> > certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free
> investment at
> > this time, let me know!).
> >
> > We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other
> number)
> > and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on
> our
> > investment. If we do that, we also have to assume that electric
> rates are
> > going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have
> increased at
> > an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas over the last decade. If
> you
> > escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation
> (0.5%
> > per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you
> still come
> > up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%. This may not seem like a high
> return;
> > however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the
> system if
> > damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the
> nation toward
> > sustainability.
> >
> >
> >
> > Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the
> same rate
> > that you expect electricity to escalate.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now you have every reason to put solar on your home.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%:
> >
> > (Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to
> incomprehensible
> > jibberish).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Year
> >
> > Generation
> >
> > (kWh/yr)
> >
> > Elect
> >
> > (\$/kWh)
> >
> > \$Solar Revenue
> >
> >
> > 0
> >
> > 0
> >
> > 0.20
> >
> > -8000
> >
> >
> > 1
> >
> > 1280
> >
> > 0.20
> >
> > 2656
> >
> >
> > 2
> >
> > 1274
> >
> > 0.22
> >
> > 280
> >
> >
> > 3
> >
> > 1267
> >
> > 0.24
> >
> > 307
> >
> >
> > 4
> >
> > 1261
> >
> > 0.27
> >
> > 336
> >
> >
> > 5
> >
> > 1255
> >
> > 0.29
> >
> > 367
> >
> >
> > 6
> >
> > 1248
> >
> > 0.32
> >
> > 402
> >
> >
> > 7
> >
> > 1242
> >
> > 0.35
> >
> > 440
> >
> >
> > 8
> >
> > 1236
> >
> > 0.39
> >
> > 482
> >
> >
> > 9
> >
> > 1230
> >
> > 0.43
> >
> > 527
> >
> >
> > 10
> >
> > 1224
> >
> > 0.47
> >
> > 577
> >
> >
> > 11
> >
> > 1217
> >
> > 0.52
> >
> > 632
> >
> >
> > 12
> >
> > 1211
> >
> > 0.57
> >
> > 691
> >
> >
> > 13
> >
> > 1205
> >
> > 0.63
> >
> > 757
> >
> >
> > 14
> >
> > 1199
> >
> > 0.69
> >
> > 828
> >
> >
> > 15
> >
> > 1193
> >
> > 0.76
> >
> > 906
> >
> >
> > 16
> >
> > 1187
> >
> > 0.84
> >
> > 992
> >
> >
> > 17
> >
> > 1181
> >
> > 0.92
> >
> > 1086
> >
> >
> > 18
> >
> > 1175
> >
> > 1.01
> >
> > 1188
> >
> >
> > 19
> >
> > 1170
> >
> > 1.11
> >
> > 1301
> >
> >
> > 20
> >
> > 1164
> >
> > 1.22
> >
> > 1423
> >
> >
> > 21
> >
> > 1158
> >
> > 1.35
> >
> > 1558
> >
> >
> > 22
> >
> > 1152
> >
> > 1.48
> >
> > 1705
> >
> >
> > 23
> >
> > 1146
> >
> > 1.63
> >
> > 1866
> >
> >
> > 24
> >
> > 1141
> >
> > 1.79
> >
> > 2043
> >
> >
> > 25
> >
> > 1135
> >
> > 1.97
> >
> > 2236
> >
>
• Gary asked: ....will someone turn my home s 50 lbs of weekly solid waste stew into a 20 gallons of butanol in 2012? __ It s already been done. This waste
Message 16 of 19 , Nov 17, 2008

....will someone turn my home's 50 lbs of weekly solid waste stew into a 20 gallons of butanol in 2012? __

It's already been done. This waste disposal system in Stockholm, and a number of other cities, beats the heck out of refuse and recycling trucks once a week. Waste just disappears into pipes under homes and businesses and eventually is turned into biofuel of some sort where it is resold back to the residents.

Jim
• All, Attached is a link to an interesting perspective from a Permaculture group in Australia concerning the IEA.....
Message 17 of 19 , Nov 18, 2008
All,
Attached is a link to an interesting perspective from a
Permaculture group in Australia concerning the IEA.....

http://permaculture.org.au/2008/11/17/staring-at-the-future-from-the-
top-of-the-slippery-slide/

I too think it is well written, being also that it is not full of
ideals of "stay the course." It comes from the other side of the
world with its own hydrocarbon issues.
In an age when we know we should be cutting back on emissions and
developing another means of transportation we - collectively, are
getting ready to burn the rest of our resources and release it as
CO2.
The Great Northwest Passage was shown on one of the TV networks last
night. They indicate that now without the ice blocking the route it's
a much shorter route for shipping - Hooray! But they also say it is
one of the best areas for continued drilling and extraction of fossil
fuels - which one is it?
I personally believe that we have much more creativity than this -
than we are currently using. If America decides to do something "big"
and make major changes toward the future everybody's going to want
in, eventually. Oil and gas technology is at its best, it has to be.
I believe it can be a tool for many things.
Take my flathead screwdriver for instance. It is sharp and square and
perfect for attaching and detaching slotted screws and bolts. But it
also doubles as many, many things. A leverage tool,paint can opener,
chisel/wood splitter, extraction tool (magnetized) etc, etc...
So should oil/gas technology be used for other methods of energy
extraction.
We have to.

Bill
--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Beck" <eco@...> wrote:
>
> I would venture that many 'Houston'-REG members may have come from
> Houston energy, oil, gas, or chemical industries. Many probably
worked
> either directly around energy technologies, or formed knowledgable
> realistic energy opinions just by being here. With all these
experts we
> can have some fun and informative debates.
>
>
>
> But it's a gamble If you are trying to predict the future. Will
Spark
> run out of juice in 2010? Or will someone turn my home's 50 lbs of
> weekly solid waste stew into a 20 gallons of butanol in 2012?
Maybe we
> should check with a gambling expert. How do Las Vegas odds maker
lists
> whether fossil fuels will dramatically rise in the next two decade,
or
> not?
>
>
>
> I think they might note that the huge life style changing
populations of
> China, India, and emerging North Africa may want food, clean water,
> lighting, heating, cooling, and transportation, just like we do. And
> then energy will just flow to the highest bidder. I'm betting those
> bookies would set their odds based on these clear and unarguable
facts.
> So...the wheel is spinning,...time to place your bets!
>
>
>
>
>
• Chris, Thanks for the feedback. I m as eager as the next guy to see solar be cost competitive because I would like to use it. But I also am pretty hard-nosed
Message 18 of 19 , Nov 18, 2008

Chris,

Thanks for the feedback.  I’m as eager as the next guy to see solar be cost competitive because I would like to use it.  But I also am pretty hard-nosed about the money, so don’t want to jump in before there is a clear and convincing economic case, not just hype and not just environmental impact (call me selfish if you want; I don’t care, because I do other things that reduce my environmental impact/carbon footprint).

1.        The second calculation appears to use 4% as the expected return on an investment.  That is a lot lower than the cost of capital.  If I were to add solar to my home by taking out a home equity loan at my credit union, the cost would be approximately 7% APR for a 20 year loan.

2.        I’m questioning your claim that insurance would just be a few dollars.  My homeowners, windstorm and flood policy is currently approximately a total of \$2832, only \$708 of which is homeowners (I live near about 12 miles from the coast).  Since windstorm and flood are basically controlled by the cost of the house and contents (whereas homeowners also includes a component that is “baseline” due to liabilities of people on my property, etc.), most of my insurance cost would, I think (I don’t have an actual quote), be proportional to my home cost.  Since my home’s limit of liability is \$179,000, I would expect a \$50,000 solar system (which wouldn’t even begin to cover all my electricity needs) to be an additional approximately (50/179)*2832 = \$791/yr.  If I’m reading you correctly, the 31,250 kWh is per rated kWh over the 25 year lifetime.  After the federal rebate, \$50,000 would buy me (50000/5600)*31250/25 = 11161 kWh/yr.  At my current utility rate of 12.9 cents/kWh, that amount of power would cost me \$1440.  Thus, the insurance alone would cost me more than half the cost of simply buying the power from my utility company.  Am I missing something?

3.       I was not aware of the property tax exemption until someone else brought it up earlier in this thread.  Is that statewide or does it vary by region?  Does it apply to all taxing authorities or only to city or school district?

4.       Are you saying you expect no damage over the course of 25 years to the control system (from some kind of surge?), the panels (from storms or hail), or any other components?  Sure, one can argue that this would be covered by insurance, but my experience with insurance is that typically you are out a couple grand in deductibles and if the damage were small (from a few hailstones or something) you might even end up paying all of it out of deductibles.  I find it hard to believe that I could put panels on my roof and nothing would happen for 25 years.  i.e., I doubt it is “risk-free” as you suggest.

5.       Critics have long underestimated the time it will take for energy sources to be depleted.  Even today, when it comes to electricity, there is plenty of coal and nuclear fuel, provided the plants are built.  Given that most people depend on utilities, I suspect that the political will to provide reasonably powered electricity will be there and we won’t see astronomical rates except as spikes from time to time.  If it were otherwise, the entire economy would screech to a halt.  In that case, I’d probably have to sit outside my house with an assault rifle 24x7 just to keep my solar panels from being stolen!  (look what thieves are doing with copper wiring today, and times are nearly as bad as they would be if electric rates doubled or tripled for an extended time).

Still seems to me that our best hope is to see costs of solar drop to be truly competitive with utility provided electricity.  I believe that is only a matter of time.  There are so many new and exciting solar technologies coming from new faces like Nanosolar etc.

Your last sentence was unwarranted:  “If you don’t want to be part of the American energy solution, that is your choice.”  I hope you didn’t intend to suggest that you are the one to define what is the “American energy solution”, that if I don’t install solar panels I am not part of the American energy solution, or even that the solar system I would install would necessarily be American in the first place.  I could, for instance, buy 100% renewable windpower from a utility provider for less than the cost of solar panels on my roof, and that would seem every bit as much a part of the American energy solution as solar panels would be, and maybe even more (given the manufacturers of windpower are dominated by Americans).  Even drilling for oil in ANWAR is an “American energy solution”, even if it isn’t one you like.  And as I said earlier, I am seeking cost effective solutions, since my budget doesn’t allow me to splurge on big systems just because I feel like it.  For example, for me, being a vegetarian happens to be a way I can both reduce cost of food, reduce health care costs, and reduce carbon footprint and environmental impact.  I certainly don’t criticize those who choose to eat differently than I do or suggest they aren’t part of the American energy solution, nor do I criticize those who choose to invest in solar now.  In fact, more power to them, as they are pioneers that are paving the way for eventual cost reduction as technology continues to improve.  However, I just don’t buy the idea that it is cost effective today, nor that our government should subsidize the industry (except to the extent that it subsidizes utilities, though I’d rather it didn’t subsidize anybody).  If I’m wrong, I hope you can provide more convincing figures.

Thanks for the discussion.  I’d like to see you post a comprehensive analysis using realistic financial assumptions and let’s see if it does in fact make financial sense to install solar panels now.

Robert

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:47 PM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hreg] Re: Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity

Robert,

Your criticism is welcome as it allows us to clear up some questions:
1) The second calculation in the e-mail did include the cost of
capital. It shows that the cost of capital is on par with the
historical increase in electric rates.
2) Insurance cost increases are minimum. A few dollars per year.
3) There is no property tax on solar equipment.
4) There is no maintenance on solar equipment (unless you want to
squeeze a little more juice out of them and rinse them every few
months).
5) Extrapolating historic electric trends assumes there is infinite
fossil resources available cheaply (clean, high BTU, close to the
surface), which is not the case, so logic tells us fossil costs will
continue to rise exponentially (although they went out of control in
the last year and are now re-adjusting). Or, it assumes that an
alternative solution will arise and reach mass-production economic
efficency (which only happens with an initial investment).

There are plenty of reasons to have a solar system (or other
renewable power source). And if you don't want to be part of the
American energy solution, that is your choice.

-Chris

You can hang with the dinasaurs, or evolve with the survivors.

--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Johnston" <junk1@...> wrote:

>
> Chris,
>
>
>
> You are missing the capital cost. If you financed the purchase
over 25
> years, you'd have a more realistic comparison, and it would be less
> favorable. Then add in the extra insurance costs, increased
property taxes,
> and maintenance costs, and you'll jack the price up even further.
BTW, I
> just purchased a 12.9 cent/kWh 12 month fixed plan from Spark Energy
> yesterday (for Brazoria County), so your 17.9 cents/kWh sounds high.
>
>
> Robert Johnston
>
>
>
> From: hreg@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Chris
> Boyer
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:18 PM
> To: HREG
> Subject: [hreg] Cost of Solar PV same as Utility Electricity
>
>
>
>
> Many of you may not know it, but there was a solar incentive that
was part
> of the bank bail out bill. There is now a Federal Tax Credit for
solar
> photovoltaic systems. This tax credit is very significant for home
owners
> in Houston because it now means that buying solar electricity is
comparable
>
>
>
> Here's the math (simple version):
>
> PV System cost ~\$8,000 per rated kW installed.
>
> Federal Tax credit ~\$2,400 per rated kW installed (no upper limit).
>
> Net Cost = ~\$5,600 per rated kW installed
>
> The PV system will produce ~31,250 kWh per rated kW in Houston over
25 years
>
> The cost of solar electricity is then \$5,600 / 31,250 = \$0.179/kWh
>
> That's what I'm paying the utility company now (actually the REP).
>
>
>
> Example:
>
> 3.5 kW System Cost \$28,000
>
> Fed Tax Credit gives you \$8,400 back (you can carry it forward)
>
>
>
> Here's the math another way (complex version)
>
> Some will say that we have to account for the time value of money.
> the money to spend on a PV system I could invest it instead and get
a
> certain return (Although, if any of you can find a risk free
investment at
> this time, let me know!).
>
> We can still start and initial payment at \$0.179/kWh (or any other
number)
> and add a required interest rate, or return percentage required on
our
> investment. If we do that, we also have to assume that electric
rates are
> going to increase with time over the next 25 years; they have
increased at
> an average to ~5 to 10% per year in Texas over the last decade. If
you
> escalate the electric price by 5% and account for panel degradation
(0.5%
> per year), and put your Tax Credit after the first year, they you
still come
> up with a NET POSITIVE RETURN of 4%. This may not seem like a high
return;
> however, it is absolutely risk free (home insurance will cover the
system if
> damaged) AND you are joining the millions who are leading the
nation toward
> sustainability.
>
>
>
> Even if you get a loan, you break even if you get the loan at the
same rate
> that you expect electricity to escalate.
>
>
>
> Now you have every reason to put solar on your home.
>
>
>
> Here's the numbers for the investment with a return of 4%:
>
> (Sorry, I know many browsers will turn this table to
incomprehensible
> jibberish).
>
>
>
>
> Year
>
> Generation
>
> (kWh/yr)
>
> Elect
>
> (\$/kWh)
>
> \$Solar Revenue
>
>
> 0
>
> 0
>
> 0.20
>
> -8000
>
>
> 1
>
> 1280
>
> 0.20
>
> 2656
>
>
> 2
>
> 1274
>
> 0.22
>
> 280
>
>
> 3
>
> 1267
>
> 0.24
>
> 307
>
>
> 4
>
> 1261
>
> 0.27
>
> 336
>
>
> 5
>
> 1255
>
> 0.29
>
> 367
>
>
> 6
>
> 1248
>
> 0.32
>
> 402
>
>
> 7
>
> 1242
>
> 0.35
>
> 440
>
>
> 8
>
> 1236
>
> 0.39
>
> 482
>
>
> 9
>
> 1230
>
> 0.43
>
> 527
>
>
> 10
>
> 1224
>
> 0.47
>
> 577
>
>
> 11
>
> 1217
>
> 0.52
>
> 632
>
>
> 12
>
> 1211
>
> 0.57
>
> 691
>
>
> 13
>
> 1205
>
> 0.63
>
> 757
>
>
> 14
>
> 1199
>
> 0.69
>
> 828
>
>
> 15
>
> 1193
>
> 0.76
>
> 906
>
>
> 16
>
> 1187
>
> 0.84
>
> 992
>
>
> 17
>
> 1181
>
> 0.92
>
> 1086
>
>
> 18
>
> 1175
>
> 1.01
>
> 1188
>
>
> 19
>
> 1170
>
> 1.11
>
> 1301
>
>
> 20
>
> 1164
>
> 1.22
>
> 1423
>
>
> 21
>
> 1158
>
> 1.35
>
> 1558
>
>
> 22
>
> 1152
>
> 1.48
>
> 1705
>
>
> 23
>
> 1146
>
> 1.63
>
> 1866
>
>
> 24
>
> 1141
>
> 1.79
>
> 2043
>
>
> 25
>
> 1135
>
> 1.97
>
> 2236
>

• I was curious, with regard to your discussion of Solar system costs, if there were more variables to be considered such as using cheaper thin film type
Message 19 of 19 , Nov 22, 2008

I was curious, with regard to your discussion of Solar system costs, if there were more variables to be considered  such as using cheaper thin film type panels.  I guess, for one, that these aren’t actually available for residential construction yet as I can’t find them on line anywhere. But I assume they soon will be. I think First Solar just signed an agreement to make theirs available (in California ?).

Anyway, when they do become available, won’t they dramatically reduce the cost? I realize also that they’ll take up more space since they are less efficient per square foot, but fortunately almost all of my roof is facing south so there’s plenty of room.

I’m glad to see that solar is already on par with other forms of energy when played out over the life of the panels.  I’m looking forward to the time I can jump in and ‘make a difference’, but in my situation, I still need a little more of a price break.