Should you get solar now, or wait?

[Danno 1,228]

I already have solar most days. It's called "The Sun".

How much do you spend during the winter months to heat your home?

From what all my friends tell me that live down south, a lot cheaper to heat your home up here in the winter then to cool your homes down there in the summer. Five-Six hundred bucks a month are typical down there, before natural gas prices went up with OPEC prices a couple of years ago, my highest heating bill ever was 160 bucks for a subzero month in January.

Rates are all over the place, three months ago, $1.46 a therm, two months, dropped to 82 therm, this month 99 cents a therm, they must be using a random access generator to determine the rates. For a long time before Bush took office, was always under 50 cents.

Living next to a wood burner isn't fun either, my kids and I were smoking the equivalent of 20 packs of cigarettes per day according to an excellent article in Consumer Reports. Some towns were so bad, couldn't see two feet in front of your face due to black smoke. Most people do not know how to burn with wood.

If a wood stove is putting smoke in your home, you have something seriously wrong.

The goal is to LIMIT how much air they suck out of your house and send up the chimney if you limit it too much the draft can start too back up.

This is the reason traditional fire places are not much good for heating, they suck too much air out of your house sending it up the flue.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Danno

[alienlovechild 75]

Solar may not be cost-effective if you don't say in the house long enough to recoup the expense. Also some people hate the look of solar panels so it could hurt the resale value of the home.

"A robust solar electric system will cost about $20,000."

http://www.thesolarguide.com/solar-power-uses/cost-faq.aspx

Solar-powered home water heaters cost $1,000-$3,500.

http://www.costhelper.com/cost/home-garden/solar-panels.html

[HAL 9000 96]

I can spend between 80- 180 .... depending.

If I were back in a cold climate, I would be looking into a whole house wood burn system.

Since your questions was when to buy Solar...... WAIT FOR THE GOV TO PAY YOU TO DO IT.

They will no doubt offer serious incentives sooner or later.

What would a system on say an average 1500 sqft ranch in AZ go for?

1500 sq ft one floor on NC? Darn that's expensive heating or its being overused. I've yet to go over $100 and I'm in Chicago in an 1100 sq ft apt (you did ask before and I gave you a detailed strategy. Hope you read that.) with a wife from the tropics.

Did you hear about the proposal for up to $12K in home efficiency upgrades? That's Obama. Sure you heard it.

A teacher in HS had a solar system (I've also mentioned this in the recent posting past). Winter was a great time to heat the home with all that snow reflecting photons at the PV cells.

When I think about it my numbers were off because I am on gas and my hot water would be part of that.

As for the 1500 sft ranch house in AZ, I just threw that out as an easy example (or so I thought) to speculate on price.

My house is in NC and 2 story and a little bigger.

I would assume fitting one on a one story to be a simpler affair considering plumbing?

It wouldn't be off in any way. Use is use. I am also using gas for heating and hot water and can still manage to take comfortable hot showers without overpaying.

A 2 story system may be more cost effective to the price of the real estate, and yield similar output to a one bedroom since most efficiency issues would be evident in the difference between a 1000-2000 footer vs a McMansion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Solar may not be cost-effective if you don't say in the house long enough to recoup the expense. Also some people hate the look of solar panels so it could hurt the resale value of the home.

"A robust solar electric system will cost about $20,000."

http://www.thesolarguide.com/solar-power-uses/cost-faq.aspx

Solar-powered home water heaters cost $1,000-$3,500.

http://www.costhelper.com/cost/home-garden/solar-panels.html

Swimming pools cost more than the value they add to a home and have substantial operational costs...all for the convenience of being able to swim in your own back yard, yet millions of homeowners spend the money for one.

[mawilson 2,133]

Wait for Obama to give you a tax break.

Who can afford solar without the government's help?

Come on, it's a no-brainer.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wait for Obama to give you a tax break.

Who can afford solar without the government's help?

Come on, it's a no-brainer.

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."

link

[HAL 9000 96]

Solar may not be cost-effective if you don't say in the house long enough to recoup the expense. Also some people hate the look of solar panels so it could hurt the resale value of the home.

"A robust solar electric system will cost about $20,000."

http://www.thesolarguide.com/solar-power-uses/cost-faq.aspx

Solar-powered home water heaters cost $1,000-$3,500.

http://www.costhelper.com/cost/home-garden/solar-panels.html

Swimming pools cost more than the value they add to a home and have substantial operational costs...all for the convenience of being able to swim in your own back yard, yet millions of homeowners spend the money for one.

And some solar electric systems actually add power to the electric grid- meaning that at many times, supply is greater than usage... meaning the utility company may end up owing these homeowners money if the power added to the grid is usable.

That likely increases a property's value, no doubt.

Its the case in several properties I've seen with both active and passive solar energy systems (PV cells and designed windows that increase light spread inside).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Solar may not be cost-effective if you don't say in the house long enough to recoup the expense. Also some people hate the look of solar panels so it could hurt the resale value of the home.

"A robust solar electric system will cost about $20,000."

http://www.thesolarguide.com/solar-power-uses/cost-faq.aspx

Solar-powered home water heaters cost $1,000-$3,500.

http://www.costhelper.com/cost/home-garden/solar-panels.html

Swimming pools cost more than the value they add to a home and have substantial operational costs...all for the convenience of being able to swim in your own back yard, yet millions of homeowners spend the money for one.

And some solar electric systems actually add power to the electric grid- meaning that at many times, supply is greater than usage... meaning the utility company may end up owing these homeowners money if the power added to the grid is usable.

That likely increases a property's value, no doubt.

Its the case in several properties I've seen with both active and passive solar energy systems (PV cells and designed windows that increase light spread inside).

Back in college (around '94), I had read an article written by a guy who had converted his home to PV power, and he lived in Maryland. Being a native Arizonan, it got me thinking that in the future, our homes could not only be totally self sufficient when it comes to energy needs, but it will be possible to generate enough surplus power to charge an electric car. The possibilities are bountiful in finding better ways to live...ways in which all of us could feel a little more independent...which is a good thing, IMO.

[mawilson 2,133]

Wait for Obama to give you a tax break.

Who can afford solar without the government's help?

Come on, it's a no-brainer.

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."

link

Why am I not surprised?

What I'd like to know is how energy efficiency supposedly "creates jobs". I guess you'd need

10 solar workers to replace 1 coal plant worker to produce the same amount of energy?

If so, isn't it a waste of *their* energy?

Edited December 9, 2009 by mawilson

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wait for Obama to give you a tax break.

Who can afford solar without the government's help?

Come on, it's a no-brainer.

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."

link

Why am I not surprised?

What I'd like to know is how energy efficiency supposedly "creates jobs". I guess you'd need

10 solar workers to replace 1 coal plant worker to produce the same amount of energy?

If so, isn't it a waste of *their* energy?

Environmental cost benefits are difficult to quantify, but should be part of the equation.

[HAL 9000 96]

Solar may not be cost-effective if you don't say in the house long enough to recoup the expense. Also some people hate the look of solar panels so it could hurt the resale value of the home.

"A robust solar electric system will cost about $20,000."

http://www.thesolarguide.com/solar-power-uses/cost-faq.aspx

Solar-powered home water heaters cost $1,000-$3,500.

http://www.costhelper.com/cost/home-garden/solar-panels.html

Swimming pools cost more than the value they add to a home and have substantial operational costs...all for the convenience of being able to swim in your own back yard, yet millions of homeowners spend the money for one.

And some solar electric systems actually add power to the electric grid- meaning that at many times, supply is greater than usage... meaning the utility company may end up owing these homeowners money if the power added to the grid is usable.

That likely increases a property's value, no doubt.

Its the case in several properties I've seen with both active and passive solar energy systems (PV cells and designed windows that increase light spread inside).

Back in college (around '94), I had read an article written by a guy who had converted his home to PV power, and he lived in Maryland. Being a native Arizonan, it got me thinking that in the future, our homes could not only be totally self sufficient when it comes to energy needs, but it will be possible to generate enough surplus power to charge an electric car. The possibilities are bountiful in finding better ways to live...ways in which all of us could feel a little more independent...which is a good thing, IMO.

The technological improvement curve will do to help us become slightly more self-reliant, IMO. But I doubt the energy lobby would appreciate that much. I foresee energy cartels morphing in the next century to adjust their methodology to greener, more efficient production technology while continuing to have the ability to provide (at obvious cost) energy to consumers. Although they will have to work with independent energy production at the user-level.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The technological improvement curve will do to help us become slightly more self-reliant, IMO. But I doubt the energy lobby would appreciate that much. I foresee energy cartels morphing in the next century to adjust their methodology to greener, more efficient production technology while continuing to have the ability to provide (at obvious cost) energy to consumers. Although they will have to work with independent energy production at the user-level.

Yep. Even back then, there was a lot of talk of 'getting off the grid.' APS, one of the primary providers of electricity in Arizona was already planning to build huge solar receptors. The executives of energy companies know what the score is. They know that their market share depends heavily on maintaining a dependency from the consumers. I believe some early solar converts were trying to disconnect from the grid and were met with all kinds of legal resistance perpetuated by the utility companies.

[HAL 9000 96]

The technological improvement curve will do to help us become slightly more self-reliant, IMO. But I doubt the energy lobby would appreciate that much. I foresee energy cartels morphing in the next century to adjust their methodology to greener, more efficient production technology while continuing to have the ability to provide (at obvious cost) energy to consumers. Although they will have to work with independent energy production at the user-level.

Yep. Even back then, there was a lot of talk of 'getting off the grid.' APS, one of the primary providers of electricity in Arizona was already planning to build huge solar receptors. The executives of energy companies know what the score is. They know that their market share depends heavily on maintaining a dependency from the consumers. I believe some early solar converts were trying to disconnect from the grid and were met with all kinds of legal resistance perpetuated by the utility companies.

From a capitalist point of view, it is imperative they get with the times. Many companies are trying, IMO. From an environmental point of view, sometimes I think it would be much smarter to have a centralized delivery system like we have 'now'... but one that is efficient and obviously, non-polluting.

[NickD 203]

I already have solar most days. It's called "The Sun".

How much do you spend during the winter months to heat your home?

From what all my friends tell me that live down south, a lot cheaper to heat your home up here in the winter then to cool your homes down there in the summer. Five-Six hundred bucks a month are typical down there, before natural gas prices went up with OPEC prices a couple of years ago, my highest heating bill ever was 160 bucks for a subzero month in January.

Rates are all over the place, three months ago, $1.46 a therm, two months, dropped to 82 therm, this month 99 cents a therm, they must be using a random access generator to determine the rates. For a long time before Bush took office, was always under 50 cents.

Living next to a wood burner isn't fun either, my kids and I were smoking the equivalent of 20 packs of cigarettes per day according to an excellent article in Consumer Reports. Some towns were so bad, couldn't see two feet in front of your face due to black smoke. Most people do not know how to burn with wood.

If a wood stove is putting smoke in your home, you have something seriously wrong.

The goal is to LIMIT how much air they suck out of your house and send up the chimney if you limit it too much the draft can start too back up.

This is the reason traditional fire places are not much good for heating, they suck too much air out of your house sending it up the flue.

Wasn't talking about my home, but the neighborhood with wood burners, on a clam windless night, all that smoke settles so thick, you can't see two feet in front of you. Most of Chicago was that way until the mid 60's when practically everyone was burning coal, augmented by winds from the SE from Gary, IN with their huge smoke stacks. Where was Al Gore at this time when he said we have to return back to the 60's? Chicago is a much cleaner town today then back then, was black soot everywhere. And we used to wear white shirts.

I do have a very nice old fashion all brick and stone fireplace with closed combustion and a circulating fan, but we rarely use it, really dries out the house, and completely smoke free, inside. Wife likes to burn her candles in there. Oh, Santa never came down it either.

[mawilson 2,133]

Wait for Obama to give you a tax break.

Who can afford solar without the government's help?

Come on, it's a no-brainer.

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."

link

Why am I not surprised?

What I'd like to know is how energy efficiency supposedly "creates jobs". I guess you'd need

10 solar workers to replace 1 coal plant worker to produce the same amount of energy?

If so, isn't it a waste of *their* energy?

Environmental cost benefits are difficult to quantify, but should be part of the equation.

Benefits - yes. Jobs - probably not.