Personal Energy Independence

[Ajax]

I've been shopping solar systems for a year or two.

I've been gathering quotes from local installers. One had terrible customer response and uncompetitive prices. One had excellent customer response, great services and better prices. Then, I was approached by a ridiculously good looking, buxom blond Tesla employee at Home Depot while shopping for a ceiling fan. I was very skeptical, but allowed her to book me for a consult with their Solar City guy.

The bottom line is, Tesla/SolarCity came in .41/watt cheaper than all the others, same good warranty, provides 24/7/365 monitoring service, instant replacement of any faulty modules. 20 year warranty *on the inverter* not just the panels. If the array fails to produce the warrantied amount, Tesla will send me a check every month for the life of the array to make up the shortfall. Tesla also offers a better cosmetic installation of the panels. They also offer a roof leak warranty.

That's all very nice but what took me over the edge, was the Tesla Wall. Maryland has a brand-new Energy Storage tax credit. My county also offers a renewable energy tax credit. As a result, this reduces the cost of a 14KWh battery from $7500 to $2000 (including installation). Nowhere can I buy a whole-house propane generator including installation, for $2,000. Looking at our utility bill, we calculated that the Wall would power my house for 36-48 hours in the event of a loss of commercial power and zero sun if we lived conservatively.

The price with the Wall was less than my other quotes, and included comparable warranties and services. Not only can we sell back power with "net metering," apparently I will earn and sell renewable energy certificates for every MWh I produce.

It seems like now is the time to pounce before tax credits evaporate and tariffs start messing with prices.

[TheOffice]

Cool! How much of your power will you be able to get from solar?

We have a cedar roof so they won't touch us. Still need the Maronites version of the power wall.

[LarryHoward]

Research the value if SERCs and don’t include them in your calls. MD SERCs are pretty worthless ATM according to my heavily solar’d neighbor.

Which HD? I want to talk to them about the tiles. Published estimates are $52k for an “average house” including the battery, etc. given my last new roof was 11,500 and my entire 38x38 high ceiling garage isn’t much more than that 52, I’m having trouble with the match.

I’m also pretty confident that sell backs will level or reduce as grid level renewals increase (as will SRECs) and the distribution charge for grid maintenance will go up dramatically as point level renewables allow folks to use less grid sourced power.

For me, the average installation return of $64K in power in future dollars over 30 years gets compared to my average 250-275 monthly electric bill and a 52k today’s dollar cost. Break even occurs long after I’m gone as family LE suggests early 80’s.

I still want to talk with them but I suspect the tree shading I have would make any installation a low performance one and my numbers could be even worse.

As to Powerwall vs genset? We tend to have long outages when real ice or tropical storms occur. Irene had us out for 8 days. I used about 220 gallons of propane to keep completely comfortable, down to AC and hot tub. Cost of the propane was a lot cheaper than hotel rooms for 4 (no power means no water so no toilets) and losing a freezer full of food. I’m fueled (550 gallons) for 14 days and believe I can get 21 with “rationing”. Since We get propane from Lynne’s company, I suspect I can get a truck here in less than 2 weeks if I really need it.

[Ajax]

Joel- 103% from solar. If I completely remove the Japanese maple, I can increase that to 109%... which will probably eventually get gobbled up by a hot tub.

Larry- I didn't even ask about space-age shingles. This is a standard 305w panel array.
It is true that the SRECs aren't worth much, but the utilities' RPS are being increased, requiring them to generate even more of their power from renewables, so the SRECs are rising in value again...but nothing like the heady days of $300/SREC. We're talking $5.00, rising to maybe $9.50.

[BeauV]

I've been shopping solar systems for a year or two.

...snip...

DUDE! If you have a way to go to another solar system, let me know!!

[Ajax]

Nope, you have to stay here with all the other knuckleheads. I'm outtie like a belly button.

[BeauV]

Larry, we did the math on our house when we re-roofed and decided we'd be dead when the pay-off occurred, and we probably pass as Tesla Fanatics. I do wish I could plug the cars in and run the house, between the two of them, we've got a lot of storage.

For all the reasons you've mentioned, we'll probably just move to a motel . Power is usually only out for a day or two tops.

[Ajax]

Are you saying your ROI was so far away because you were trying to get the solar shingles? My ROI is 9 years.

[LarryHoward]

Are you saying your ROI was so far away because you were trying to get the solar shingles? My ROI is 9 years.

Since 165o sq ft of roof gets replaced as part of the remodel (and the garage roof is about 1500 sq ft but has its own meter so the wiring and location of a powerwall would be “interesting”, I am thinking shingles as I’d save the shingle portion of the new roofing. Given, the N/orientation of the both roofs, i can realistically only “solar” the south side which is visible to all driving up. When I start factoring in living in a forest (can’t get Direct TV as you can’t see the sat from the roof due to trees), my potential solar gain starts looking pretty limited.

Still want to talk to Tesla but rough go at the numbers says it’s not a good investment over my life. Standard arrays would lower the house value unless the buyer was a greenie. Tiles might increase the value some but my real estate friends say installed solar isn’t what sells houses.

Beau. You are a Tesla fanatic but we like you anyway. I hear model S and X production is lagging demand with 4-5 month wait for new orders. Saves on inventory cost and keeps resale high, but really?

[Ajax]

Well, we pulled the trigger. Tesla is taking us to another solar system. The ship arrives next Friday.

[BeauV]

Larry, my understanding is that Tesla forecast a flat to small growth rate for the Model X and S. They were pleasantly surprised by an uptick in demand. Stories abound, but I think what has happened is their initial buying binge was classic "early adopter" folks like us; we're willing to try stuff pretty close to the bleeding edge. Then, there is supposed to be a chasm (you know, as in "Crossing the Chasm"). What appears to have really happened is sales were moderate last year on the older/larger models and they've now crossed Chasm and the classic early majority buyers are picking them up. This logic matches most new tech adoption, but has accelerated the chasm crossing part by about 18 months.

The other serious issue Tesla faces is finding enough labor. They are hiring anyone with a pulse and running the factory three shifts. They've also sold way more cars than originally planned, so they're running two shifts at most service centers and have added a heap of SuperChargers in addition to their base 2016 plan for this year.

Finally, we're now seeing Model 3 Teslas showing up like toad stools after a rain. Six months ago we saw one a month. Now we see three a week. Of course, they sold a lot of the early production units to their employees and earliest customers, so they could get friendly feedback. As a result, we probably see a lot more of them that most folks. But, as an example, during a drive back from Lake Tahoe a few weeks ago I spotted 14 Model 3s in a 4 hour drive. That would have been 2 or 3 six months ago.

I don't know if I mentioned it, but my daughter finally let me drive her Model 3. It's a GREAT car in every way. I've driven this years BMW 335i and the Tesla kills it on almost every point. Ride, noise level, interior design, etc.... They are very similar cars in size and capacity with the Tesla being about $5k cheaper.

[Orestes Munn]

With DC SRECs at $360-390 a pop after fees, we are pretty sure our panels will increase the value of our place and, of course, everyone here is a greenie. I like the battery idea, but I don’t think it would have made economic sense for us.

[BeauV]

As to why solar cells won't work for us:
1) Too many trees, over 3/4 of the house is in the shade most of the time.
2) Roof which is visible to folks on the ground is facing north, not good for solar.
3) The Admiral is fine with solar so long as she doesn't have to look at it.
4) By the time I fulfilled 1 through 3 above, I was down to a tiny solar array and the overhead of instal, management, etc... was swamp any savings in power. I'm far better off putting devices on the consumption side to limit electricity usage. LEDs have lowered the power bill by about 45% over our first year here. Nest thermostats have reduced electricity by about 15% (pumps for hot water) and gas by about 25%. It appears that reducing consumption is a LOT cheaper than increasing production.

[Ajax]

With DC SRECs at $360-390 a pop after fees, we are pretty sure our panels will increase the value of our place and, of course, everyone here is a greenie. I like the battery idea, but I don’t think it would have made economic sense for us.

You're on the DC/MD border. Are you not able to take advantage of Maryland's new, energy storage tax credit? It cut the price of the battery from $7500 to something like $2200 for us.
In the absence of sunlight, the battery doesn't have the longevity of a propane generator but as the song says "the sun'll come out tomorrow..." and I'll enjoy zero maintenance and zero volatile storage or deliveries to the house. Just like sailboats, everything's a compromise. I made a few trade-offs.

We have many large trees, but they're all on the north side of the house except for one. We have .56 acres and the house and garage are pushed up against the SE corner of the property.
Tesla made a big deal about these skirts they install on the panels that supposedly improve the aesthetic. To me, that's a shrug and a "whatever." Solar panels don't violate my aesthetic vs. pragmatism threshold. I want clean, stable power for 30 years with some kind of backup and this ticked my boxes.

For a pure electric household, we're pretty efficient. The local utility sends us a report each month comparing us to all of our neighbors within a 1 mile radius and we routinely rank among the most efficient households. One small thorn in my side is the ancient, stand-up freezer we run in the laundry room. I know it's a power hog but our regular fridge/freezer is a side-by-side and the freezer is tiny. We're looking at new designs that might let us store all of our frozen foods so that we can eliminate the big stand-up monster. A new fridge would hopefully be more energy efficient as well. It's also time to replace the water heater which is 25 years old. A slightly smaller, better insulated unit would also be more efficient.

[Orestes Munn]

The credit is a great deal, but it wasn't available when we did the installation and haven't lost power for more than a few minutes for at least five years (might happen today).

[Ajax]

My power has been flickering on and off since about 1am. Our utility does a good job of trimming the trees away from the power lines but we're near the end of the distribution line, sort of like Larry so it's a matter of "when" not "if." Being out on the fringe, we'll be the last to be reconnected.

[BeauV]

My Admiral is asking for BIGGER FREEZER because the new fridge above & freezer below we just put in is too small. I've been looking around and the top loaders are MUCH better if you open/close them very often. Also, wrapping the thing in an insulating blanket helps, but fails the "looks good to me" test with the Admiral. I'm probably going to relocate the condenser to a cool spot in the basement so it's more efficient.

[LarryHoward]

My power has been flickering on and off since about 1am. Our utility does a good job of trimming the trees away from the power lines but we're near the end of the distribution line, sort of like Larry so it's a matter of "when" not "if." Being out on the fringe, we'll be the last to be reconnected.

Speaking of when. I’m told the house is on generator power at present.

[Ajax]

My power has been flickering on and off since about 1am. Our utility does a good job of trimming the trees away from the power lines but we're near the end of the distribution line, sort of like Larry so it's a matter of "when" not "if." Being out on the fringe, we'll be the last to be reconnected.

Speaking of when. I’m told the house is on generator power at present.

We lost power at 8pm last night. Should pulled the trigger on this a few months ago.

[Olaf Hart]

My Admiral is asking for BIGGER FREEZER because the new fridge above & freezer below we just put in is too small. I've been looking around and the top loaders are MUCH better if you open/close them very often. Also, wrapping the thing in an insulating blanket helps, but fails the "looks good to me" test with the Admiral. I'm probably going to relocate the condenser to a cool spot in the basement so it's more efficient.

Sweet Hart’s chill blains were much worse with a chest freezer, she spent a lot more time in there finding and sorting things compared to an upright drawer unit.

We donated it to the local sailing club, it stores the bbq meat for after Wednesday night races...

OTOH, some friends who live off the grid use a chest freezer as their refrigerator, you can get thermostats that plug into the 240v supply and run them at 3 degrees C, it’s apparently much more efficient that a fridge.

Quite the thing for survivalists round here. Others have replaced the AC compressor motors with DC ones.

[kimbottles]

............Quite the thing for survivalists round here............

You have those guys too?

Some of my ham radio pals are survivalist. Interesting mind-set. (One of them who is a pretty good friend bought a house because it has a “clear field of fire”.

I am still trying to understand what they are trying to survive.

[VALIS]

............Quite the thing for survivalists round here............

You have those guys too?

Some of my ham radio pals are survivalist. Interesting mind-set. (One of them who is a pretty good friend bought a house because it has a “clear field of fire”.

I am still trying to understand what they are trying to survive.

The terrors of the universe are unknown and possibly infinite. Personally, when I'm planning for this type of thing I just call it "Armageddon" or "Asteroid strike", or the "Zombie Apocalypse". These terms have the advantage of being relatively politically correct, and serve well enough to cover all contingencies, known or unknown. And you can't prove that it isn't going to happen!

[BeauV]

My grandfather had a habit of writing things he had heard on 3X5 cards and posting them on the studs in the garage. One of my favorites was:

"Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive."

Also,

"The United States is the place were you buy things you don't need, with money you don't have, to impress people you can't stand."

[Olaf Hart]

............Quite the thing for survivalists round here............

You have those guys too?

Some of my ham radio pals are survivalist. Interesting mind-set. (One of them who is a pretty good friend bought a house because it has a “clear field of fire”.

I am still trying to understand what they are trying to survive.

Ours are a bit more passive than that, mostly committed greenies.

We did have a few high profile US folks living in the highlands, but they seem to have moved back to Idaho now Trump is pres.

I am personally preparing for the Waterworld scenario, that’s my preferred apocalypse, thinking of building a wharf near my front drive to take advantage of rising water levels.

[BeauV]

... snip....

I am personally preparing for the Waterworld scenario, that’s my preferred apocalypse, thinking of building a wharf near my front drive to take advantage of rising water levels.

I actually calculated where the water level will be in Santa Cruz, if Greenland melts etc.... We'll still be about 70 feet above sea level where we live. Not that it'll mater much as all of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Monterey, Carmel, San Jose, Cupertino, Moss Landing, Davenport, etc.... will be underwater.

Maybe we'll have to resurrect the original plan to build a dam across the Golden Gate. Their original reason was to trap all the freshwater, returning the San Francisco Bay to a big freshwater lake. We could use the water as we enter into another drought and the dam would keep the seawater out as it rose. At least we've got our boat!

[Orestes Munn]

So, Rich, what brand of panels is your installer using and how many? I assume you have a SolarEdge inverter system, since you have a Powerwall.

[Chris Chesley]

... snip....

I am personally preparing for the Waterworld scenario, that’s my preferred apocalypse, thinking of building a wharf near my front drive to take advantage of rising water levels.

I actually calculated where the water level will be in Santa Cruz, if Greenland melts etc.... We'll still be about 70 feet above sea level where we live. Not that it'll mater much as all of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Monterey, Carmel, San Jose, Cupertino, Moss Landing, Davenport, etc.... will be underwater.

Maybe we'll have to resurrect the original plan to build a dam across the Golden Gate. Their original reason was to trap all the freshwater, returning the San Francisco Bay to a big freshwater lake. We could use the water as we enter into another drought and the dam would keep the seawater out as it rose. At least we've got our boat!

Beau, not being argumentative here but you raise an issue that really bothers me and I haven't been able to 'do the math' myself. Here's my dilemma. Most of the Arctic is water and any ice there is already floating in water so if it melts, it won't raise the sea level at all. Both Greenland and Antarctica, while seemingly large on a Mercator projection, are actually not all that big. Some ice in both places is known to be quite thick but it isn't super thick uniformly across the respective landmass. The oceans make up what? 70% of the earths surface? I have a very tough time believing that the ice in Greenland and Antarctica is sufficient to raise the sea level worldwide dozens or hundreds of feet. It just doesn't compute for me. I'd like to know the assumptions. Since I don't know them, I have no way to dispute the 'experts' but it doesn't seem right to me.... Yes, there's also ice on other parts of other continents, but then, that requires the assumption that global warming will melt ALL ice and I don't hear that. I'd need to know 1) Total surface area of the ocean (at least at this point in time, as it will be larger as it rises) 2) Total surface area of the ice ON LAND (remember, much of the ice in Antarctica is a 'shelf' that is already floating and has already displaced the ocean height) and 3) The true average ice thickness on Greenland and Antarctic landmasses to calculate actual ice volume. Then that volume needs to be calculated as cubic feet spread over the entire planetary oceans.

Again, in my 'gut', it doesn't quite compute, but I can't verify the assumptions.

[floating dutchman]

... snip....

I am personally preparing for the Waterworld scenario, that’s my preferred apocalypse, thinking of building a wharf near my front drive to take advantage of rising water levels.

I actually calculated where the water level will be in Santa Cruz, if Greenland melts etc.... We'll still be about 70 feet above sea level where we live. Not that it'll mater much as all of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Monterey, Carmel, San Jose, Cupertino, Moss Landing, Davenport, etc.... will be underwater.

Maybe we'll have to resurrect the original plan to build a dam across the Golden Gate. Their original reason was to trap all the freshwater, returning the San Francisco Bay to a big freshwater lake. We could use the water as we enter into another drought and the dam would keep the seawater out as it rose. At least we've got our boat!

Beau, not being argumentative here but you raise an issue that really bothers me and I haven't been able to 'do the math' myself. Here's my dilemma. Most of the Arctic is water and any ice there is already floating in water so if it melts, it won't raise the sea level at all. Both Greenland and Antarctica, while seemingly large on a Mercator projection, are actually not all that big. Some ice in both places is known to be quite thick but it isn't super thick uniformly across the respective landmass. The oceans make up what? 70% of the earths surface? I have a very tough time believing that the ice in Greenland and Antarctica is sufficient to raise the sea level worldwide dozens or hundreds of feet. It just doesn't compute for me. I'd like to know the assumptions. Since I don't know them, I have no way to dispute the 'experts' but it doesn't seem right to me.... Yes, there's also ice on other parts of other continents, but then, that requires the assumption that global warming will melt ALL ice and I don't hear that. I'd need to know 1) Total surface area of the ocean (at least at this point in time, as it will be larger as it rises) 2) Total surface area of the ice ON LAND (remember, much of the ice in Antarctica is a 'shelf' that is already floating and has already displaced the ocean height) and 3) The true average ice thickness on Greenland and Antarctic landmasses to calculate actual ice volume. Then that volume needs to be calculated as cubic feet spread over the entire planetary oceans.

Again, in my 'gut', it doesn't quite compute, but I can't verify the assumptions.

When people start talking about this sea level rising stuff I explain to them that the water is going to evaporate and that the sea level will drop.
The science around the seal level dropping is actually rather sound, increase air temp by a few degrees and it's ability to hold water does significantly increase, when you consider just how much air there is.
Makes for some interesting conversations with people who have no understanding of the science think I'm serious.

Jeroen.

[Panope]

Looks like national geographic calculates a sea level rise of over 200 feet if all ice melts and it would take 5,000 years at the current rate.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga ... line-maps/

[Chris Chesley]

FD, I was just coming back to add that aspect to the equation. That's a whole 'nuther calculation that seems to be pretty hard to make. I just can't get too worried about overall sea rise. Some folks will gain new waterfront property, weather systems will change. Whatever the case, it isn't going to be all of a sudden and it's kind of silly to just try to calculate a 'worst case' scenario in a simplistic fashion, i.e. all melted ice goes into increased ocean height/depth and nothing else changes. Even the assumption that things will be 'worse' is really only an assumption that 'different from now' = 'worse'.

Anyway, I just spent 20 minutes of my time researching and find that I can still sleep pretty good tonight... about as productive as doing a crossword puzzle.