Trying to figure out amperage

[FlatSix911]

If all of you interested parties would "invest" in a solar panel every now and then, like maybe one or two a year, even, as they pay for themselves in five or six years, in a few years you would not be paying for electricity at all, any more, and your solar power generating station would have been paid off. This happening would make you all so very not interested in the prices of gasoline or diesel, and 'way more inclined to think of the world as suckers and yourself as genius.
I don't care what gas or diesel sells for. I don't worry about the per cent losses that happen during charging. My panels far and away supply fuel for my house, my well, my septic, my A/C, and my car. I haven't paid an electric bill for twelve years and I get money back from PG&E. This is a far better investment than buying a larger TV or a case of Old Hickory or a new watch.
Food for thought.

I agree and also have a PV solar system. What was your ROI for your installation?

 

[Boatguy]

I get money back from PG&E.

When I investigated this when rebuilding my house, PG&E told me that they would spin the meter backwards, but they'd never send me a check. In other words if over the course of the year I was putting energy into the grid, rather than taking it from the grid, PG&E would accept my gift, but they would not pay me for it.

Can you please explain how PG&E sends you money?

 

[JPP]

When I investigated this when rebuilding my house, PG&E told me that they would spin the meter backwards, but they'd never send me a check. In other words if over the course of the year I was putting energy into the grid, rather than taking it from the grid, PG&E would accept my gift, but they would not pay me for it.

Can you please explain how PG&E sends you money?

PG&E uses a net metering system. Measures what you draw and what you feed back into the system (special meter). I am on an EV-A TOU rate. My most expensive rate is about $0.40/kWh mid day, cheapest is $0.10 overnight. Every month I get a statement from PG&E outlining my usage and backfeed. Every year there is a 'true up' where either I pay a little or they pay me a little. I don't give them 'free electricity'. That being said, you usually do not want to install more solar equipment/capacity that you use when calculated annually, since they don't pay you back at a spectacular rate. This mantra is actually more relevant if you have solar but do not have a TOU plan. PG&E has tiered rates on their 'normal' plans, so the more you use on any one day, the more expensive it gets. You usually want to get your usage to stay in Tier 1 (cheapest). Going negative is not really beneficial as you are buying 'expensive' generating capacity (solar panels etc) and getting paid back at 'cheap' rates. Plus PG&E has fixed costs for hookup and the meter. When SolarCity did my system, their line was 'we want to generate 70% of your power needs, and cover 90% of your bill'. FWIW, I have a 64 panel 16kW system (yes, big system, but I have a big house in a hot summer climate with lots of AC, and plug in 1 Model S nightly - the other gets mostly free power at work etc).

 

[gavine]

...says the guy who lives in Napa Valley, home of exorbitant electricity rates. It's faster to get it to pay off with that. I keep looking at it, but it's still 10-15 years payback time. Our 7-8 cents rate and less than $100 a month bill just make it take a long time. But then again, a small system would cover most of that, so not too much upfront cost.

You could use SolarCity and not have to worry about any payback. There's no investment so you start saving money from day one. It's called a PPA. They install the system for free and sell you the electricity that your system generates at a lower rate than the utility.

 

[FlatSix911]

PG&E uses a net metering system. Measures what you draw and what you feed back into the system (special meter). I am on an EV-A TOU rate. My most expensive rate is about $0.40/kWh mid day, cheapest is $0.10 overnight. Every month I get a statement from PG&E outlining my usage and backfeed. Every year there is a 'true up' where either I pay a little or they pay me a little. I don't give them 'free electricity'. That being said, you usually do not want to install more solar equipment/capacity that you use when calculated annually, since they don't pay you back at a spectacular rate. This mantra is actually more relevant if you have solar but do not have a TOU plan. PG&E has tiered rates on their 'normal' plans, so the more you use on any one day, the more expensive it gets. You usually want to get your usage to stay in Tier 1 (cheapest). Going negative is not really beneficial as you are buying 'expensive' generating capacity (solar panels etc) and getting paid back at 'cheap' rates. Plus PG&E has fixed costs for hookup and the meter. When SolarCity did my system, their line was 'we want to generate 70% of your power needs, and cover 90% of your bill'. FWIW, I have a 64 panel 16kW system (yes, big system, but I have a big house in a hot summer climate with lots of AC, and plug in 1 Model S nightly - the other gets mostly free power at work etc).

I also have solar and use the E-6 rate plan with TOU. I found it was better than the EV rate because it pays more for daytime solar production. YMMV.

You could use SolarCity and not have to worry about any payback. There's no investment so you start saving money from day one. It's called a PPA. They install the system for free and sell you the electricity that your system generates at a lower rate than the utility.

Yes, it is basically a solar lease (purchase power agreement).
I decided to purchase my system ... larger up front cost, but free energy after the ROI in 7 years.

 

[Boatguy]

PG&E uses a net metering system. Measures what you draw and what you feed back into the system (special meter). I am on an EV-A TOU rate. My most expensive rate is about $0.40/kWh mid day, cheapest is $0.10 overnight. Every month I get a statement from PG&E outlining my usage and backfeed. Every year there is a 'true up' where either I pay a little or they pay me a little. I don't give them 'free electricity'. That being said, you usually do not want to install more solar equipment/capacity that you use when calculated annually, since they don't pay you back at a spectacular rate. This mantra is actually more relevant if you have solar but do not have a TOU plan. PG&E has tiered rates on their 'normal' plans, so the more you use on any one day, the more expensive it gets. You usually want to get your usage to stay in Tier 1 (cheapest). Going negative is not really beneficial as you are buying 'expensive' generating capacity (solar panels etc) and getting paid back at 'cheap' rates. Plus PG&E has fixed costs for hookup and the meter. When SolarCity did my system, their line was 'we want to generate 70% of your power needs, and cover 90% of your bill'. FWIW, I have a 64 panel 16kW system (yes, big system, but I have a big house in a hot summer climate with lots of AC, and plug in 1 Model S nightly - the other gets mostly free power at work etc).

When I rebuilt my house I installed two meters, so one is for the cars on EV-A and the TOU plan gives me the same $.10 at night. However, fully loaded with all of PG&E's other costs, it comes out to more like $.14. What's really outrageous is that my wife's brother-in-law in Pittsburgh consumes about 7x what we do, and pays $.08 on average with no TOU. How is it that his daytime rate is less than PG&E's best TOU rate?

With regard to solar, I couldn't size it when rebuilding the house because there was no way to know what my consumption would be in the "new" house (LED lighting, etc.). So it sounds like PG&E does actually return some cash, but well under market rates so as you point out, no reason to install more than I consume. This needs to change because a significant amount of electricity is lost in transmission so a distributed generation grid (i.e., each of our roofs), feeding the local neighborhood is much more efficient than a huge hydro plant 200 miles away.

 

[Rocky_H]

You could use SolarCity and not have to worry about any payback. There's no investment so you start saving money from day one. It's called a PPA. They install the system for free and sell you the electricity that your system generates at a lower rate than the utility.

Yes, I am familiar with PPAs, but they are a horrible idea and NOT an option. Attaching that long term contract puts an encumbrance on a house, and I have read in several places of people having a hard time selling because the potential buyers of the house do not want to get into that contract.

 

[gavine]

Yes, I am familiar with PPAs, but they are a horrible idea and NOT an option. Attaching that long term contract puts an encumbrance on a house, and I have read in several places of people having a hard time selling because the potential buyers of the house do not want to get into that contract.

That makes no sense. The fossil utility has you locked-in forever and the prices from the utility go-up. Why would the new owner not want cheaper electricity and rates that are locked-in. Plus, SolarCity handles any issues that might arise with the system for free. I have a PPA and if I ever sell my house, if a buyer doesn't want solar, he's going to have to find a different house to buy. I'm sure there are very few people who would turn-away cheaper electricity. You may have read in several places about problems, but it is likely a very small percentage of the real situation out there.

Also, SolarCity told me that they would remove the system and re-install it on the new house for $500 in the event that the new owner refuses.

Lastly, SolarCity will sell you your system if you would rather buy it and it would be pro-rated based on the age so you can always buy the system and roll it into the new owner's mortgage. Now the new owner has no contract, gets free electricity and the monthly payment on the mortgage would only increase ever so slightly, especially if the system had already depreciated a good amount.

I think "horrible" is an unfair word to describe PPA's and they ARE and option for most. Most of what SolarCity does is PPA and they are the largest solar installer in the country.

 

[JPP]

I fully concur with gavine's post above. FWIW, I went with SolarCity and a PPA as well (see #23 above--64 panels, 16kw). I was willing to pay a bit more over time, not own the equipment, and let them be responsible for repairs, maintenance, monitoring, replacing inverters, etc. They are essentially using my rooftop and selling me power at what I think is a great rate. Could I tie up $$ and purchase equipment that will need maintenance? Would I be aware if a panel or inverter failed? They have an incentive to keep the system in good order, or they have to buy power from PG&E to make up any shortfall. Yes, by year 7-10 I would be 'making money' if I bought outright. I was willing to trade $$ for hassle. My across the street neighbor has a PV system from a local outfit that went out of business a few years ago. She has had some panel/hardware failure--and now has to find a 3rd party willing to work on her system. I am betting that SolarCity will be around a while.

If I sell, I am totally not worried that the new buyer would possibly not want the system or deal with the PPA. I can buy the system if necessary and then bundle it back into the sale price.

YMMV.

 

[FlatSix911]

Yes, I am familiar with PPAs, but they are a horrible idea and NOT an option. Attaching that long term contract puts an encumbrance on a house, and I have read in several places of people having a hard time selling because the potential buyers of the house do not want to get into that contract.

PPA's are not for everyone, but they are a low cost way to get solar on your house just like a car lease.
The downside is that you pay more over time and get less savings over a twenty year period for example.

That makes no sense. The fossil utility has you locked-in forever and the prices from the utility go-up. Why would the new owner not want cheaper electricity and rates that are locked-in. Plus, SolarCity handles any issues that might arise with the system for free. I have a PPA and if I ever sell my house, if a buyer doesn't want solar, he's going to have to find a different house to buy. I'm sure there are very few people who would turn-away cheaper electricity. You may have read in several places about problems, but it is likely a very small percentage of the real situation out there. Also, SolarCity told me that they would remove the system and re-install it on the new house for $500 in the event that the new owner refuses.

Lastly, SolarCity will sell you your system if you would rather buy it and it would be pro-rated based on the age so you can always buy the system and roll it into the new owner's mortgage. Now the new owner has no contract, gets free electricity and the monthly payment on the mortgage would only increase ever so slightly, especially if the system had already depreciated a good amount. I think "horrible" is an unfair word to describe PPA's and they ARE and option for most. Most of what SolarCity does is PPA and they are the largest solar installer in the country.

I am in favor of any program that gets more solar panels on rooftops.
Just keep in mind that financial return is lower than an outright purchase.

I fully concur with gavine's post above. FWIW, I went with SolarCity and a PPA as well (see #23 above--64 panels, 16kw). I was willing to pay a bit more over time, not own the equipment, and let them be responsible for repairs, maintenance, monitoring, replacing inverters, etc. They are essentially using my rooftop and selling me power at what I think is a great rate. Could I tie up $$ and purchase equipment that will need maintenance? Would I be aware if a panel or inverter failed? They have an incentive to keep the system in good order, or they have to buy power from PG&E to make up any shortfall. Yes, by year 7-10 I would be 'making money' if I bought outright. I was willing to trade $$ for hassle. My across the street neighbor has a PV system from a local outfit that went out of business a few years ago. She has had some panel/hardware failure--and now has to find a 3rd party willing to work on her system. I am betting that SolarCity will be around a while. If I sell, I am totally not worried that the new buyer would possibly not want the system or deal with the PPA. I can buy the system if necessary and then bundle it back into the sale price.
YMMV.

Keep in mind that I will save over 3 times the energy cost with a purchase vs. PPA lease agreement.
Regarding maintenance, I have a service agreement included at no charge for 25 years from Sunrun.
Best of both worlds in my opinion. YMMV