I had a thought yesterday, "boy it would be nice to be off the grid." There is something about the self sufficiency that I find appealing. I have mentioned a couple of times that we are adding water catchment to our house. We already had a metal roof, have done the gutter work and this year we will be getting a storage tank.
We are nestled in a little valley such that we don't get a lot of wind but we do get a lot of sunlight like the little guy on the rock is taking in so what about solar?
Our cabin is small and our electric use is low. We average about 500 kWh per month. I did a little looking and the Suntech STP 175S-24/Ab-1 could produce 65 kWh per month assuming five hours of sunlight per day. We would need eight Suntech STP 175S-24/Ab-1 modules to pay our bill. The site I looked at netted out the cost (after tax credits and the like) to $2735 per module. So if I am figuring this correctly (and I may not be) that works out to $21,880 to get off the electric grid.
We bought this house in 1998. In almost eleven years I doubt we have paid $7000 in electric bills. Based on that math the solar modules would pay for themselves in 33 years. A few things then; anyone know about this stuff, is the general framework of the cost/benefit outlined above close to being right?
If so then how many people are going to convert to solar? Anyone building house where they need to bring electricity to the property could do it but if electric is already there or if it is an existing home then it does not seem to make economic sense. I would remind that the $21,000 is to replace a below average usage.
A possible use ties in with a joke I made along time ago about making desolate parts of Arizona and Nevada giant solar panel farms that the utility companies would then transmit into the home--I don't know what the economics of this would be but when I mentioned it a reader commented that there was something like this already in Nevada, on a smaller scale.
A hopeful item is that solar is a technology and the cost for most technologies comes down over time. There are cheaper concepts being worked on so maybe there can be something that could make more sense for more people. Given this, it seems difficult to get excited about the solar stocks for the next couple of years.
The psychic value of being off the electric grid is worth some amount of money (a different figure for different people). Maybe it is worth ten years worth of electric bills to do this, maybe only five years but for me nowhere close to 33 years.
Unrelated item, have you heard about this movie The International? My take from the commercials is that it is about a really bad bank. Given the timing of the release, why aren't there more jokes about this?
19 comments:
Roger, I have checked out solar panels as well. The only times there are reasonable payback periods are when tax credits are involved and when you can sell excess power back to the utility company. In my case, my utility is the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Their eyes just glazed over when I inquired about it. No profit motive for them.
That replacement cost seems a little high compared to what the city of Berkeley is expecting:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/26/MNAIT0DQO.DTL
But it's in the ball park -- and I like Berkeley's city bond solution, at least on paper.
Roger, I'm Treasurer of my HOA here in Prescott. Last month I went to a seminar on Alternative Energy and the applicable laws in AZ, given by APS. Your calculations for Solar conversion seem about right. In fact, I think your payback would even be longer because you didn't add in any costs for maintenance of the system over 30+ years. We concluded that very very few people will attempt solar or wind installations in our area until or unless the cost structure comes down substantially. It just doesn't make any economic sense at current pricing levels.
On a somewhat related note, several of my neighbors heat their homes with wood stoves (which actually burn corn and pellets, too.) It's a lot of work, especially if you split your own wood, it's dirty, and it pollutes. They enjoy smaller gas bills and get the last laugh when we lose power, which always seems to happen on the coldest winter days.
There's also a university spinoff nearby that's commercializing a small, home wind turbine. It's expected to sell for about $2000 and offset 20% or so of a typical electic bill. It will require professional installation, including a device to store the power that it generates.
Sadly, the whole movement to sustainable energy seems to have stalled with the pullback in oil prices.
Solar energy is where PCs were 30 years ago. I think you could buy a commodore 64 that would not do much for you.
It is going to take a while for reasonable cost units people want are available. The price of oil will also hasten or delay when we all convert and it will not be bad if it is delayed.
I would not waste time or effort looking at alternative energy until at least 2020.
OK, here's an idea. Invest $14K in your local utility. Assuming a 5% annual dividend, you'll receive $700 in annual income before taxes. That should offset your estimated electric bill, though it won't give you the psychic satisfaction of living off the grid.
If you're interested, stop by Home Depot or Border's. There's a special feature "energy" version of Fine Homebuilding magazine that I believe has a couple of features on using solar for houses. It also mentions federal subsidies, IIRC.
I've read about home geothermal use a bit lately; might be a pain to get the drilling equipment to your house, though. This stuff all seems to cost about $25k.
The answer!
Remember that This is Sportscenter commercial with Lance Armstrong? He is riding a stationary bike in the basement and powering the entire building.
We all need to do this in our homes. Solves electricity problems and health problems at the same time. It is a win-win.
Roger,
That win-win bicycle generator was featured in Soylent Green.
Surely that's a semi-decent solution, especially in cities where it may be difficult (and unhealthy) to run/cycle outdoors and a tower block can only house so many solar panels?
The problems arise if you're off the grid and
a)you're sick and can't cycle
b)the weather's lousy (and dull)
c)the weather's fine (and still)
d)your equipment fails and you're unable to get replacement parts for a time
But a nice idea in theory. A bit like communism.
now that we have solved that we need to figure out how to get Americans to stop drinking soda.
Roger, do you ever use electricity at night? or in the winter when the sun is low in the sky? I don't know what all is included in the Suntech module but you did not mention electricity storage, aka batteries.
i think the five hour benchmark addresses most of that, part of the equation obviously has to be the storage but I do not know if that was included in the Suntech info i included.
Part of the high cost of a solar install is battery capacity.
anon 6:59--There's a crusty retiree on one of the M* forums who bases his whole investing strategy on that premise. He pays his phone, cable, gas, and electric bills from utility dividend income. He got mad about all their rate increases and decided that was his best revenge.
If it makes you feel good about yourself, just do it...lots of way to spend money and you could do worse.
If you are looking for ROI wait. IMHO
Roger,
A little off topic but as a fellow (volunteer)fire fighter in NJ, we are researching the potential issues with fighting fires in homes that have solar panels. If you are interested I have attached a link that briefly explains the situtation.
http://www.firefighterclosecalls.com/fullstory.php?78136
I did a lot of research on solar back in the 70s during the first oil embargo. I ended up going passive solar. Of course you have to build your house with that in mind. South facing windows, big overhangs to keep the sun off the windows in the summer, a reasoable amount of masonry (brick, rock, cement) that catches the sun's rays and stores the heat, heavy insulation, and a gas fired back up heating system. Saved me about 60% on heating bills at a 10% increase in building costs. This was in Boulder, Colo., where they get 300 days of sunshine a year.
Had a friend who went off grid during that time. He used wind, passive and active solar. He built his electric system according to submarine technology. Had a big bank of submarine batteries to store excess energy, which could be converted to low voltage electricity when needed. But even he needed a back up propane stove for heat. His building costs were 25% higher, because submarine technology wasn't readily available at that time. He used both active solar and wind to generate electricity and the batteries were his standby source. Most of his heat was supplied through passive solar with a lot of storage mass to store the heat during the day.
The best energy saving heat device that can be retrofitted on a house today is the geothermal heat pump. They cost about $20,000 but will heat and cool a decent sized house for about $300/year. The pay back is not that good and you still need some system for electricity, but it is extremely green and will last a long time.
Check out the proposal in Scientific American, their Dec 2007 issue I believe. They cost out a proposal to move the US to solar energy, using current technologies and modest improvements over 10-20 years. And yes, the solar farms are in the arid southwest.
Post a Comment