California - New homes required to have solar panels - Page 2



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: California - New homes required to have solar panels

  1. #21

    Re: California - New homes required to have solar panels

    Forum Sponsor
    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Mike View Post
    You won't break even unless you get a Microfit contract. Last time I did the math I needed a full 10kw install and 22 years to break even. That was based on:

    Revenue: $3168 based on 10kw array that generated 11,000kwh/year x $0.28 (Microfit rates)
    Cost: $2100 based on install cost of $30K financing at 3.5% for 20 years for ugly panels (or $4800/year for a $70K shingle install).

    Net $1068/year for ugly, and a loss of $1700 for shingled.

    I figure it's viable if you install a 10kw ugly panel array, get a Microfit contract, and have it reach potential (a shingle install is not cost viable). My main considerations:

    -Will I'll live here for long enough to enjoy the payoff? -- If I move the array stays and I pay it off the day the house is sold and the new owner benefits.
    -Will it add or reduce the resale value of my home?
    -How can I fix ugly?
    That was just about the same math for me. The kicker is the usable life of most panels is just about 20 years (just about when it is paid off). At this point many are at 50% output.

    As for ugly, depends on perspective of course. Also where they are on the house (side, front, back). For me the look does not bother me that much (indifferent to it) and they would be at the side of the house (not as visible). On the grand scheme of things there are lots of ugly houses so (like ALL track housing, specially pig-snouts)....

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Mike View Post
    My hope is that it will drive both cost and innovation. My main obstacle is the sheer ugliness of an array bolted to a roof. When I see a rooftop array slapped on a house, I think -- "why not store your winter tires up there too?". Did I mention I think solar is ugly?
    Agree on long term costs. Lots of ugly out there regardless...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Mike View Post
    Thank the Liberals for that. Over contracted generation has a supply glut that is regularly dumped at a cost to Ontarion users/taxpayers, generators are paid up to 40x market rates for power, AND 300,000 lost manufacturing jobs, many in power hungry factories, took a nice bite out of demand.

    They are still at it, Microfit still pays about 15x the wholesale rate for electricity in Ontario.
    Totally mismanaged by them, Doug and the pCs will fix it with Bigotry and Trickledown Economics...

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Markham
    Posts
    803

    Re: California - New homes required to have solar panels

    Quote Originally Posted by backmarkerducati View Post
    Totally mismanaged by them (sic Liberals), Doug and the pCs will fix it with Bigotry and Trickledown Economics...
    I don't think either of those has anything to do with Hydro.

    I will bet he'll do some cleaning at Hydro.

    • Replace Microfit with something that generates jobs/innovation.
    • Replace the CEO. Maybe recruit the Quebec execs -- their entire exec combined is paid less than Ontario's CEO alone. In fact, the raise Ontario Liberals allowed for Hydro's CEO last year was $1.7M alone -- just the raise would pay would pay Quebec's Hydro's CEO total salary and bonus for the next 3 years.
    • Mothball plants - is we're dumping energy, why are we paying to first generate it?
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    Present: FJR 1300, GSXR1300, XV920R, GL1000, TR25W
    Past: M50, EX250R, GL1500, XV250, TS200R, TW200, XV1100, CB750SS, H2 MIV, Rupp Roadster, MX125, MX250, DT400

  3. #23

    Re: California - New homes required to have solar panels

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Mike View Post
    I don't think either of those has anything to do with Hydro.

    I will bet he'll do some cleaning at Hydro.

    • Replace Microfit with something that generates jobs/innovation.
    • Replace the CEO. Maybe recruit the Quebec execs -- their entire exec combined is paid less than Ontario's CEO alone. In fact, the raise Ontario Liberals allowed for Hydro's CEO last year was $1.7M alone -- just the raise would pay would pay Quebec's Hydro's CEO total salary and bonus for the next 3 years.
    • Mothball plants - is we're dumping energy, why are we paying to first generate it?
    My sarcastic point, so far he has no solution....

    Microfit needs to go... Totally wrong solution to the problem. Buying it for way more than selling is dumb.

    The wages of the execs has so little impact on the overall cost of hydro, any changes here is just classic populist BS "Look how much they make, that is the problem...." He will solve a multi billion dollar problem by saving a few million...

    We over generate today but as more and more cars become electric (as an example, there are others like more people using the grid...) we will eventually need more capacity. Mothballing plants will come back to bite us hard! The way I see it is the Liberals mismanaged generation capacity by having way too much too soon. It will be needed in the next 10 years, trick right now is to not (or limit) what gets added in the next four or five...


    What will likely really happen, cuts to the system, underfunding, grid problems, plants shutdown in the next few years, like in the Harris era, then we pay more later to fix all that... One underspent, next one overspent, next one underspends, next one over... rinse and repeat.

  4. #24
    JTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Hamilton
    Posts
    601

    Re: California - New homes required to have solar panels

    Quote Originally Posted by nobbie48 View Post
    Solar was causing a problem in Hawaii as there were too many people not using the grid and therefore grid operating costs were not being covered. Not sure how it panned out.
    Ontario already has experience in what happens when people reduce their energy usage. The rates increase to make up for lost revenue. Also, on the main land, surplus production is sold into neighboring grids. Hawaii being an island, didn't have that luxury. So they likely just massively increased rates, and implemented storage.

    My recommendation to anybody that can do it, pick up Tesla stock. This is going to be HUGE for the sales of Solar City and Tesla Powerwalls. This explains why Elon had been so cocky about the future of Tesla stock recently, he probably lobbied for this and knew it was coming.
    Steed: 2017 Honda Shadow Phantom
    Cage: 2006 F150 4x4 Supercrew
    2002 Mustang GT Convertible

    Quote Originally Posted by jc100 View Post
    Hmm...if criminals are just going to go ahead and ignore laws can you explain why we have them?

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Markham
    Posts
    803

    Re: California - New homes required to have solar panels

    Quote Originally Posted by backmarkerducati View Post
    Microfit needs to go... Totally wrong solution to the problem. Buying it for way more than selling is dumb.
    We agree here.
    Quote Originally Posted by backmarkerducati View Post
    The wages of the execs has so little impact on the overall cost of hydro, any changes here is just classic populist BS "Look how much they make, that is the problem...." He will solve a multi billion dollar problem by saving a few million...
    Mathematically you are correct. From a business point of view, not so much. Hydro is a mess by all accounts. Current execs in conjunction with Ontario vote their own pay, it is not an industry package, it's 10 times higher. ) Those guys are paid 10x the industry average, where is their incentive to perform? Clearly it's not there. Outrageous capital cost over runs, decaying infrastructure, un-competitive. Falling share values sure don't make them an investor's dream.

    Note: I will give Wynne credit where credit is due. She did recently step into the Hydro compensation muck and red-lighted Hydro execs move to juice their own salaries. Under gov't pressure, Hydro will now seek inputs and industry guidance on executive compensation. Normally a politician could make hay with a solid move like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by backmarkerducati View Post
    We over generate today but as more and more cars become electric (as an example, there are others like more people using the grid...) we will eventually need more capacity. Mothballing plants will come back to bite us hard! The way I see it is the Liberals mismanaged generation capacity by having way too much too soon. It will be needed in the next 10 years, trick right now is to not (or limit) what gets added in the next four or five...
    10 years is a lot. Hydro dumped 22Twh last year, thats enough to power almost every home in the province for 1 year -- I'm sure mothballing a few gas and bio plants would more than save that. This year cost $1b to dump electricity, that cost about $220 for every hydro payer in Ontario.
    Quote Originally Posted by backmarkerducati View Post
    What will likely really happen, cuts to the system, underfunding, grid problems, plants shutdown in the next few years, like in the Harris era, then we pay more later to fix all that... One underspent, next one overspent, next one underspends, next one over... rinse and repeat.
    I think you have to pull the politicians off Hydro and get the decision making into the hands of professional engineering and business management bodies. The gov't should be a regulator, not an operator. Sure hydro has had it's ups and downs, but the real crisis and current mess really started in 2003 when McGinty started using Hydro as a political tool. We didn't have any of these problems before (nor do any other large utilities) -- they are all Liberal legacy:
    - $1B annual power dump
    - Microfit
    - $1.5B lost on Siemens/Samsung fiasco
    - $billions in overruns at Bruce/Pickering/Darlington refurbs
    - $1B Oakville & Mississauga Gas Plant vote buying scandal
    - Privatization - who knows how much? We do know based on the TSX indes and ONE stock price that it's lost 7.5% of it's IPO value, and 30% of it's value against the TSX index.
    - $20b to fund Debt obfuscation done with voodoo accounting

    Without the Liberal meddling, we would still be competitive with Manitoba and Quebec - our costs under the Liberals has made out electricity cost double those provinces.
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    Present: FJR 1300, GSXR1300, XV920R, GL1000, TR25W
    Past: M50, EX250R, GL1500, XV250, TS200R, TW200, XV1100, CB750SS, H2 MIV, Rupp Roadster, MX125, MX250, DT400

  6. #26
    RockerGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dreamland
    Posts
    15,902

    Re: California - New homes required to have solar panels

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Mike View Post
    I think you have to look at the picture over the course of a year. In the summer we get up to 15 hours of sunlight/day, in the winter as little at 8hrs, It all averages out to about 4400 hours of sunlight a year -- basically the same everywhere. The power generated on long summer days goes into the grid where it's banked. In the winter when solar becomes less efficient, we draw the banked energy back -- it all works out to an average.
    The problem with this logic is during winter you're only getting about 40% efficiency for 8 hrs. Summer is close to max efficiency at 15 hrs.

    Tropical climates have almost max efficiency throughout the year. It doesn't add up. If your logic was true, we would be just as tanned as people in the tropics.

    Those 8 hrs in winter are mostly cloudy days.

    Plus during winter months, the location of that area on earth is further from the sun.
    “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” ―Margaret Thatcher

  7. #27

    Re: California - New homes required to have solar panels

    My insurance company considers solar panels a fire hazard and will raise rates accordingly. So, no solar panels for me.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Markham
    Posts
    803

    Re: California - New homes required to have solar panels

    Quote Originally Posted by RockerGuy View Post
    The problem with this logic is during winter you're only getting about 40% efficiency for 8 hrs. Summer is close to max efficiency at 15 hrs.

    Tropical climates have almost max efficiency throughout the year. It doesn't add up. If your logic was true, we would be just as tanned as people in the tropics.

    Those 8 hrs in winter are mostly cloudy days.

    Plus during winter months, the location of that area on earth is further from the sun.
    That would matter if your choosing between Toronto and Miami for a power plant investment. For small potatoes stuff, the option is limited to your roof -- so comparing efficiency doesn't really matter.

    What does matter is ROI. We know that in the GTA we can expect to generate about $300/year per kw of generating capacity at current $0.28/kwh Microfit rates. That needs to be enough to offset the cost of financing, insuring and maintaining the install.

    By the way, the power generating capability of a rooftop solar array in Miami is only marginally better than Toronto (12k kwh vs 13k kwh) . Our longer summer days offset their more intense winter sunshine AND our power is generated at peak demand hours so it more valuable.
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    Present: FJR 1300, GSXR1300, XV920R, GL1000, TR25W
    Past: M50, EX250R, GL1500, XV250, TS200R, TW200, XV1100, CB750SS, H2 MIV, Rupp Roadster, MX125, MX250, DT400

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •