• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Solar Panels to show up at retail stores

Status
Not open for further replies.

Javaman

Member
This is definitely a step in the right direction and may greatly speed up the adoption rate and help drive down prices to more reasonable levels. I speced out my house a couple of years ago and with a payoff estimate of 20 years, it just wasn't worth it then. With any luck it'll also jump start more states into offering rebates.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Solar-power-coming-to-a-store-apf-1857776798.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=

Solar power coming to a store near you
New territory for solar power and DIYers, panels now for sale at retail stores

NEW YORK (AP) -- Solar technology is going where it has never gone before: onto the shelves at retail stores where do-it-yourselfers can now plunk a panel into a shopping cart and bring it home to install.

Lowe's has begun stocking solar panels at its California stores and plans to roll them out across the country next year.

This shows how far the highest of the high-tech alternative energy technologies has come. Solar power is now accessible to anyone with a ladder, a power drill, and the gumption to climb up on a roof and install the panels themselves.

For Lowe's, it's an opening into a new and potentially lucrative DIY business.

"There's definitely a growing market for this with the number of people moving toward energy efficient homes," spokesman Steven Salazar said.

Buyer be warned, however. The DIY part of solar goes beyond installation.
<snip>

The rectangular panels retail at $893 a piece. They produce the same AC power that runs in homes and plug directly into a circuit breaker.
<snip>
A typical solar system installed by a professional usually has 20 panels. Each Akeena panel will generate about 175 watts of electricity, about enough to power a flat screen television.
I'm not sure how the watt/price compares to online offerings, but it's nice to see these becoming more visible.
 

skybaby

Member
Wow panels are that efficient now? When I looked into it years ago it would take decades to recoup the investment
 

R2D4

Banned
I'd buy a few for the side of my house that is always in the sun unless it's cloudy. But at $900 a piece? No way.
 

Javaman

Member
skybaby said:
Wow panels are that efficient now? When I looked into it years ago it would take decades to recoup the investment

This site has some interesting pricing trends...
http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm

moduleprices09-12.jpg


I found this quote quite interesting,
Note:

As a guide, the industry is looking to drive module prices down to $1.50 - 2.00 per watt over the next decade, if it is to make large inroads in to the grid tied electricity market, without subsidy.

The All Module Index is volume weighted to take account of the fact that the majority of market demand (in Megawatt terms) occurs in the high power module segment.
It sounds more like an interpretation, but if there's any truth to it sign me up for a couple of kilowatts in 2020 please.
 

Javaman

Member
R2D4 said:
I buy a few for the side of my house that is always in the sun unless it's cloudy. But at $900 a piece? No way.

How many Watts do your panels produce? There's also the matter that these probably also include built in inverters to simplify the hook up.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
States should get on the ball and offer subsidies. If you can get the cost for 8 panels to about 4000 dollars it could really take off.

You couple solar technology with micro-CHP (for people that use natural gas) and then the home turns into a power PRODUCER instead of a power consumer.
 
What's the breakdown on dollars per watt? Is 175 watts per panel good? At 20 panels, that's still 18000 dollars. Even if I didn't have to pay for electricity after installation, that's still only 3000 or so a year. After 6 years you would see returns but, I have friends that have them and they still end out paying money. Maybe 8-10 years to see returns.

Edit: and there's the nifty graf I was wondering about. :lol

Everyone would use them if they could get their prices down. Right now it doesn't make sense unless you live in your house for 15 years, with a large payment up front. Maybe they should start a 10 year payment plan or something. The money you save can go to paying the loan.
 

Dead Man

Member
ToxicAdam said:
States should get on the ball and offer subsidies. If you can get the cost for 8 panels to about 4000 dollars it could really take off.

You couple solar technology with micro-CHP (for people that use natural gas) and then the home turns into a power PRODUCER instead of a power consumer.
Yeah, pretty much. There are some subsidies here which I plan to take advantage of when I buy my next house, but panels here are nowhere near the price this article is talking about. Sounds like good progress.
 

Woodsy

Banned
skybaby said:
Wow panels are that efficient now? When I looked into it years ago it would take decades to recoup the investment

20 years is reasonable? :lol

I think the magic number is right around $20K where you would see MASSIVE adoption if you could put that money in and take your house off the grid.
 
Reading the entire article, it doesn't really sound like a viable solution for me. It's not all that sunny here in Northern Ohio for 7-8 months out of the year, and 175 watts for one panel doesn't sound like a whole lot. But then again I've only looked at these things a little bit.
 

Javaman

Member
Fenderputty said:
What's the breakdown on dollars per watt? Is 175 watts per panel good? At 20 panels, that's still 18000 dollars. Even if I didn't have to pay for electricity after installation, that's still only 3000 or so a year. After 6 years you would see returns but, I have friends that have them and they still end out paying money. Maybe 8-10 years to see returns.

Edit: and there's the nifty graf I was wondering about. :lol

Everyone would use them if they could get their prices down. Right now it doesn't make sense unless you live in your house for 15 years, with a large payment up front. Maybe they should start a 10 year payment plan or something. The money you save can go to paying the loan.

Keep in mind that the wattage rating if for peak production and you would only see a fraction of that. There's online calculators that help figure out how much you can generate based on your location.

Here's the average utility rates by state.
Rank State
(Cents per Kilowatthour)
1 Idaho 4.88
2 West Virginia 4.91
3 Wyoming 5.32
4 Washington 5.70
5 Kentucky 6.09
6 North Dakota 6.18
7 Oregon 6.23
8 Nebraska 6.50
9 Utah 6.56
10 Indiana 6.59
11 Montana 6.60
12 Arkansas 6.96
13 South Dakota 6.96
14 Virginia 7.01
15 South Carolina 7.10
16 Iowa 7.15
17 Tennessee 7.28
18 New Mexico 7.47
19 Missouri 7.48
20 Illinois 7.49
21 North Carolina 7.49
22 Minnesota 7.55
23 Kansas 7.58
24 Colorado 7.69
25 Wisconsin 7.69
26 Oklahoma 7.74
27 Alabama 7.77
28 Georgia 8.03
29 Ohio 8.05
30 Louisiana 8.16
31 Michigan 8.57
32 Arizona 8.88
33 Mississippi 8.94
34 Pennsylvania 8.95
National Average 9.21
35 Nevada 9.63
36 Maryland 10.35
37 Florida 10.41
38 District of Columbia 10.72
39 Texas 10.81
40 Delaware 10.87
41 Vermont 11.59
42 Maine 11.70
43 Alaska 13.07
44 New Jersey 13.20
45 California 13.80
46 New York 14.00
47 New Hampshire 14.37
48 Rhode Island 14.50
49 Connecticut 14.67
50 Massachusetts 15.32
51 Hawaii 21.45
 

ToxicAdam

Member
HylianTom said:
Try this: 30% of cost - no limit - through December 31, 2016.

http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US37F&re=1&ee=1

Pretty damn sweet.


Here's a cool caveat:

Unused residential credits can be carried forward at least until tax year 2016 (the year the residential credit expires). It is unclear whether residential credits can be carried forward past 2016.



So even if you build this year and don't have enough tax exceptions to use the entirety of the credit, you can carry it forward for 6 more years.

Also:

The cost of labor to install solar equipment goes into the “basis” for calculating the credit. However, only labor tied to eligible solar equipment goes into the basis. Thus, for example, if part of the labor is for replacing a roof under the solar panels, that part would not count.
 

Javaman

Member
Woodsy said:
20 years is reasonable? :lol

I think the magic number is right around $20K where you would see MASSIVE adoption if you could put that money in and take your house off the grid.

You would definitely want to make at least 5% of a return otherwise it's better just to skip solar cells and invest the money instead.
 
Woodsy said:
20 years is reasonable? :lol

I think the magic number is right around $20K where you would see MASSIVE adoption if you could put that money in and take your house off the grid.

These solar panels definitely wouldn't let you take your house off the grid, even if you put 200 of them on your roof. You'd still need to be on the grid for the nightime and cloudy days, it doesn't store the juice.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
I read so much about amazing solar cell technology that is right around the corner it really makes me apprehensive to jump in early. It seems (just like with consumer electronics) in 5 years time the products on the market will be markedly better and cheaper than the ones I will have on the house. For a computer or a household appliance, this is no big deal. But for these panels you would hope to get more life out of them.
 

Javaman

Member
One development I would love to see is a hybrid solar cell/water heating system. There is a lot of energy absorbed and turned into heat that could be used to heat water. If I remember right, there is roughly 1kw per M2 of solar energy in my area. Imagine if there was a water jacket underneath that could harness some of this wasted energy. It would not only slightly increase the electrical efficiency of the solar cells, but would cut down on gas or electrical energy used by the water heater. If there's a gap between the solar cells and the roof, they act as shades during the summer keeping the attic from heating up slightly while at the same time could provide some of the heating to the central air during the winter.
 

HylianTom

Banned
ALeperMessiah said:
These solar panels definitely wouldn't let you take your house off the grid, even if you put 200 of them on your roof. You'd still need to be on the grid for the nightime and cloudy days, it doesn't store the juice.

Hmm.. 200 would be overkill for going off-grid, provided that the system is designed properly.

200 panels x 175 watts/panel x 3.0 sun-hours/day (a conservative estimate) = 105kWh(DC) per day

Convert that 140kWh from DC to AC current through an inverter, and use a typical system derate factor of .7 >>> 73.5kWh(AC)

For off-grid applications, a battery system is included so that excess electricity generated during the daytime may be stored for nighttime use. "Time of autonomy" usually ranges from 1.5 days to two weeks, depending on how much the homeowner is willing to spend.

(I took a class this fall on PV system installation. Fun.)
 

R2D4

Banned
Javaman said:
How many Watts do your panels produce? There's also the matter that these probably also include built in inverters to simplify the hook up.


Sorry I meant to say "I'd buy". I don't have any. I just can't type.
 

Javaman

Member
HylianTom said:
Hmm.. 200 would be overkill for going off-grid, provided that the system is designed properly.

200 panels x 175 watts/panel x 3.0 sun-hours/day (a conservative estimate) = 105kWh(DC) per day

Convert that 140kWh from DC to AC current through an inverter, and use a typical system derate factor of .7 >>> 73.5kWh(AC)

For off-grid applications, a battery system is included so that excess electricity generated during the daytime may be stored for nighttime use. "Time of autonomy" usually ranges from 1.5 days to two weeks, depending on how much the homeowner is willing to spend.

(I took a class this fall on PV system installation. Fun.)

It may be more cost effective just to resell the power to the utility unless there is an important reason to store it over night. Sure, it would be awesome to be completely off the grid, especially if living out in the middle of nowhere or to have the only house in the neighborhood rocking power during an outtage, but with some areas charging more for power during the day then night, a tie-in might be worth consideration.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
ToxicAdam said:
States should get on the ball and offer subsidies. If you can get the cost for 8 panels to about 4000 dollars it could really take off.

You couple solar technology with micro-CHP (for people that use natural gas) and then the home turns into a power PRODUCER instead of a power consumer.


Forcing it as a construction incentive, or sprawl deincentivizer for new housing would be a great start.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Javaman said:
It may be more cost effective just to resell the power to the utility unless there is an important reason to store it over night. Sure, it would be awesome to be completely off the grid, especially if living out in the middle of nowhere or to have the only house in the neighborhood rocking power during an outtage, but with some areas charging more for power during the day then night, a tie-in might be worth consideration.

Yup. In most cases, a tie-in does make sense. Some homeowners choose to have hybrid systems where there's a grid-tie and a battery back-up system, just in case the grid goes down.

Off-grid set-ups are more for end-of-the-world nuts, environmentalists, or for those folks wanting to build in locations where the power company is going to charge a ridiculous $40,000 to run a power line half a mile.
 
Great thread. I was just about to start a thread on Solar Panels.

It's relatively easy to buy either broken panels or small cells and build your own panel for under $100. What I want to know is how exactly do you install them or use them without blowing up something? I'd love to put together a panel or two and use it to power stuff but just not sure how to go about hooking things up. Like what kind of battery do you buy and do you just wire the panel directly to it or what?

Some type of portable battery powered solution would be neat. Sort of like a DIY solar generator.

And yes efficiency is getting high, 40%+ has been achieved with multiple junction solar cells. I'd say the simple thin-film ones are the best for the money at about 20%.
 
Javaman said:
It may be more cost effective just to resell the power to the utility unless there is an important reason to store it over night. Sure, it would be awesome to be completely off the grid, especially if living out in the middle of nowhere or to have the only house in the neighborhood rocking power during an outtage, but with some areas charging more for power during the day then night, a tie-in might be worth consideration.

That's exactly what we do with our customers. You get an additional meter running back into the grid and we cut you a check once a month/year for the amount of kWh's produced.

In Florida there are crazy amount of local/state/federal incentives if you purchase any type of solar panel (general or specific like for HVAC or hot water). That's pretty neat that they're selling panels that come with inverters to convert directly to AC. That's one of the biggest drawbacks to solar power generation unfortunately.
 

methane47

Member
ALeperMessiah said:
These solar panels definitely wouldn't let you take your house off the grid, even if you put 200 of them on your roof. You'd still need to be on the grid for the nightime and cloudy days, it doesn't store the juice.

Keep your house on the grid...

That way the power from the panels will turn your Electicity meter backwards...

In order for you to stay out of trouble with the law you should try to keep the net change to 0 that way you dont have to pay the electic company.. and they dont have to pay you (which MIGHT cause problems for you trust me).
 

Walshicus

Member
OuterWorldVoice said:
Forcing it as a construction incentive, or sprawl deincentivizer for new housing would be a great start.
I honestly can't think of a single reason to not include a minimum solar to roof ratio for new buildings.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
LOTS of reasons why it shouldn't be mandatory.

For starters, there are plenty of places in the US where solar is totally pointless, the return will never even cover the panels, much less the installation. Panels are not infinite, they wear out, get damaged, and must be maintained and cleaned. If EVERY homeowner had to deal with this the system would collapse. Plus the more panels produced, the lower the quality control, and the cost per panel could even INCREASE to offset the new megaplants that would have to be constructed to make all these panels.

We are DECADES away from commercial retail solar energy use. It is more for remote installations and specialty applications, otherwise it is a pat on the back "smug" program that will probably never generate its costs back.

That said, the small portable panels for camping, marine, distaster use are AWESOME!
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Sir Fragula said:
I honestly can't think of a single reason to not include a minimum solar to roof ratio for new buildings.


Should have been in the stimulus bill (and I said so at the time). These are structures that are going to be around for the next 100 years.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Sir Fragula said:
I honestly can't think of a single reason to not include a minimum solar to roof ratio for new buildings.


There are no good reasons, but lots of graft and corruption ones. In building code and local tax, construction lobbies can be fairly powerful, not to mention other interested parties - like any other energy producer. I imagine you'd have a hard time instituting that in Texas, for example.
 

Walshicus

Member
ToxicAdam said:
Should have been in the stimulus bill (and I said so at the time). These are structures that are going to be around for the next 100 years.
Have to imagine that domestic renewable power generation is one of the few policy areas that would unite both sides of the spectrum. For one group it's a vital tool in the fight against climate change, for the other an exercise in personal responsibility.

There are no good reasons, but lots of graft and corruption ones. In building code and local tax, construction lobbies can be fairly powerful, not to mention other interested parties - like any other energy producer. I imagine you'd have a hard time instituting that in Texas, for example.
True.
 

Javaman

Member
MidgarBlowedUp said:
Great thread. I was just about to start a thread on Solar Panels.

It's relatively easy to buy either broken panels or small cells and build your own panel for under $100. What I want to know is how exactly do you install them or use them without blowing up something? I'd love to put together a panel or two and use it to power stuff but just not sure how to go about hooking things up. Like what kind of battery do you buy and do you just wire the panel directly to it or what?

Some type of portable battery powered solution would be neat. Sort of like a DIY solar generator.

And yes efficiency is getting high, 40%+ has been achieved with multiple junction solar cells. I'd say the simple thin-film ones are the best for the money at about 20%.

Homepower.com is a semi-monthly magazine where they show a couple of setups including schematics every issue. I used to read it quite a bit while they offered free .pdfs of the magazine but stopped since they've started charging. They might still have some free articles but the trend has been to require membership. :eek:P

Valkyr Junkie said:
That's exactly what we do with our customers. You get an additional meter running back into the grid and we cut you a check once a month/year for the amount of kWh's produced.

In Florida there are crazy amount of local/state/federal incentives if you purchase any type of solar panel (general or specific like for HVAC or hot water). That's pretty neat that they're selling panels that come with inverters to convert directly to AC. That's one of the biggest drawbacks to solar power generation unfortunately.

It also cuts down on the total price of installation not needing to deal with massive battery banks and inverters.

If anyone decides to install your own, make sure to follow code and get it inspected. Better yet have an electrician install the wiring and connections. This stuff can kill you and others! Never wire it straight to a breaker box. You'll be back-feeding the system and linemen could get electrocuted.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
President Obama proposed a new program Tuesday that would reimburse homeowners for energy-efficient appliances and insulation, part of a broader plan to stimulate the economy.

The administration didn't provide immediate details, but said it would work with Congress on crafting legislation. Steve Nadel, director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, who's helping write the bill, said a homeowner could receive up to $12,000 in rebates.

The proposal is part of the President's larger spending plan, which also includes money for small businesses, renewable energy manufacturing, and infrastructure.

We know energy efficiency "creates jobs, saves money for families, and reduces the pollution that threatens our environment," Obama said. "With additional resources, in areas like advanced manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels, for instance, we can help turn good ideas into good private-sector jobs."

The program contains two parts: money for homeowners for efficiency projects, and money for companies in the renewable energy and efficiency space.

The plan will likely create a new program where private contractors conduct home energy audits, buy the necessary gear and install it, according to a staffer on the Senate Energy Committee and Nadel at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Big-ticket items like air conditioners, heating systems, washing machines, refrigerators, windows and insulation would likely be covered, Nadel said.

Consumers might be eligible for a 50% rebate on both the price of the equipment and the installation, up to $12,000, said Nadel. So far, there is no income restriction on who is eligible. That would mean a household could spend as much as $24,000 on upgrades and get half back.

Homes that take full advantage of the program could see their energy bills drop as much as 20%, he said. The program is expected to cost in the $10 billion range.

It's not clear how the home efficiency plan would be administered - the government may issue rebates to consumers directly, homeowners might get a tax credit, or the program could be run via state agencies.

If consumers have to spend a lot of money up front to get the credit, it could throw a wrench in the works, David Kreutzer, an energy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, told CNN.

"This will not be something that's attractive to people who are having trouble already making their budget payments month to month or week to week," he said.

To keep consumers from having to spend thousands of dollars before getting reimbursed, Nadel said, one idea is to have contractors or big box retailers pay part of the cost up front.

Fraud issues could also come up, Kreutzer said.

"Any program that is going to run through a third party and is going to distribute billions of dollars needs to have lots of checks and balances to make sure there's not abuse," he said.

Nadel noted that as a way to guard against fraud, contractors would have to be certified to participate.

Energy company boost

Obama's new spending plan also calls for renewable energy companies to get additional support. That could come in the form of loan guarantees - basically, money the government uses to secure loans for startups.

In the original stimulus bill passed earlier this year, $6 billion was earmarked for such loan guarantees. But then lawmakers took away $2 billion to fund Cash for Clunkers - the popular program that paid people to turn in their old cars.

The $4 billion from the original bill has funded about $40 billion in loans, said the staffer on the Senate Energy Committee. Meanwhile, firms are hoping for another $4 billion in loan guarantees, since they have another $40 billion worth of projects that need funding.

A bill on energy efficiency reimbursements already has supporters in the Senate.

"Not only will [such legislation] increase our energy security and transform our energy infrastructure to a modern, clean and efficient one," Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., wrote in a recent op-ed column in the Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper. "But it also will position the United States to lead in the development of clean energy technologies

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cash-for-Caulkers-could-mean-cnnm-1594823266.html?x=0&.v=1

If this bill passes like it's being proposed here, doesn't that mean Solar panels and their installation should be WAY cheaper? If a $20,000 solar panel job can only cost us $10,000 this would be a great place to get solar panels for homes.

It wouldn't surprise me to see Lowe's really benefit from this if the bill passes. I'm even thinking Lowe's decided to do this due to the fact that alternative energy seems to be the new big "thing" in America.
 
Are there any solar shingles in the works? Or Metal roofing with some electricity generating properties? Using solar as the roofing material, instead of an add-on would get me to shell out the cash.
 

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
ToxicAdam said:
States should get on the ball and offer subsidies.

This.

I could see this taking off is the States/government offered incentives to doing this. As it stands $800 just to use the sun to power my TV (unless it's been raining all week) for the day isn't a good investment (except maybe in a couple of years).
 
There was a guy on TV who had solar panels on his farm and because most of what it generated (for his needs) was superfluous he actually sold the electricity to the grid. So there could be an option
 
My house has solar panels that heat water (no electricity).

I have no idea how much they help, as they were already part of the house when we bought it,
 

Javaman

Member
jamesinclair said:
My house has solar panels that heat water (no electricity).

I have no idea how much they help, as they were already part of the house when we bought it,

Certainly it's much cheaper to do that then to install a solar electrical panel to generate electricity to generate heat in an electrical water heater.
 

Javaman

Member
TheSeks said:
This.

I could see this taking off is the States/government offered incentives to doing this. As it stands $800 just to use the sun to power my TV (unless it's been raining all week) for the day isn't a good investment (except maybe in a couple of years).

There's much cheaper options then this if you're willing to do the research and legwork. It's a lot of work though just to find out that solar isn't worth it to most people yet. Until prices get down further it's better to just invest the money unless you're doing it for green reasons. One of the reasons these cost more then other panels is that each one comes with an inverter. Keep in mind too that the panel price is only about 1/2 the total cost of the install. If someone does it mostly themselves the panel price might be 3/4th of the cost. You'll need more parts too then just solar cells like disconnects and some type of switch to isolate the house in case of a power failure.

With rebates of 50% or more though things become much more reasonable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom