Going Solar

There is 1.1MegaKiloWatt (1.1GigaW) peak power per reactor at Diablo Canyon per Wikipedia, so you probably meant 1.3MegaKKW peak production for California home solar (1.3GigaWattHours)? And then each of the 125,000 homes produces an average output of 10KWh of power per day? Of course, a Diablo reactor puts out 24hrs x 1.1GW per day if running well.

Our 10 solar panels on the house peak about 2KW and we produced about 4MegaWattHours or 4000KiloWhr in a year. Since we were taking off Edison Tier 3 & 4 costs, at say an average of $0.25/KWhr, we saved about $1000 in a year to pay towards our system cost of about $8000 (after rebates). So we will have about an eight year payback time, and the panels are warranted for 87% power output for 25 years (the inverter for 10 years) if SunPower is still able to back the warranty. The environmental "feel good" part is a nice bonus on top of the savings. Anyway, thanks CEC for doing some investigation on the installer, making our choice easier.

However, the pay back probably would be better if one could buy shares of a solar plant located in the desert, as the fog along the coast cuts into the power production, and one has to worry about roof leaks and eventual roof replacement complication on top of a home.

I wish nuclear fission plants had an iron clad guarantee against meltdown, infinitely good radioactive waste storage, and did not involve plutonium radioactive substances that last 100,000years. So using the nuclear fusion power from the Sun (solar, wind, tides) seems the best route for now. Carbon sources need to be dumped, unless their pollution can be fully recaptured somehow, to prevent radically fast changes to our climate.

The energy that is used to manufacture each panel is roughly 7 times per each 10kwhr than for putting together a Diablo-size power plant. On top of that the additional energy installing solar in each home is very wasteful, at this time- no efficiency. Maybe in a few years there will be mass-production and mass-marketing and mass-installation of solar panels. Start with keeping the greedy crooks like Al Gore out and aim for the regular type of neighborhood dealer and worker.

bobbydias: What a complete load of baloney! The embodied energy of a solar panel, including the dudes and their trucks that show up to install it is recovered in less than two years. Now you have about 25 more years of clean energy production with no moving parts, no noise, and no emmissions. Please don't feed the public nonsense like that.

Methinks he's been visiting his neighborhood dealer.

I was the neighborhood dealer! And am well educated and experienced. I have sold over 4 million dollars in PV systems in Santa Barbara. Not one of my customers to this day thinks they made a poor invesment. Even as gas prices rise, a PV system on your roof is a better long term investment than a Prius. Again, bobbydias is a complete bozo!

I have heard it takes about 8 years to pay off the cost of installation. Having said that, I'm for people getting off the electrical grid whenever possible so if one can afford the initial costs, I say "go for it".

Whether the "return" on my investment to solarize a tiny Westside house means I pay off the installation cost in two or four or TEN years, this is the direction we must go as a nation. Riceman has it right. In Germany, solar is going great; this in a land much further north than California and which literally gets less solar energy per year.
Here we should be grateful to see our taxes supporting the rebates via Edison and the Calif. Solar Initiative. As Pres Obama stated last night in the final debate, there are some places where targeted government investment of our tax monies can stimulate the economy (as well as making clean energy). Solar is now competitive with nuclear.

And sanity returns to this thread! Thank you!
Keep in mind there is a difference between energy payback of a solar panel. That is, how much energy does it take to produce it and deploy it, and how long does it take for the device to make this energy budget back. Versus, what is my payback time for total installed system cost, versus my current electrical bill. Thanks everyone, and go solar! I have been living pure solar for 15 years now!

How did we get conditioned to so critically analyze the cost of this solar product while being so idiotically impulsive about buying all the other crap that depreciates the moment we sign the contract and drive it off the showroom floor.

My house and boat have been ‘solar’ for about four years. Although the costs were almost prohibitive, I’m really glad I did it. The state and federal rebates (for the home system) helped a lot. When Edison smart-metered my house, the simple sunny-day pleasure of watching the electric meter disc spin backwards was damped. However, my only serious ‘complaint’ is that, while I can afford the $1.67 monthly electric bill (some sort of service fee or tax), Edison should be paying me for the electricity I pump back into the grid – which has been net positive since the installation.

A major advantage of solar and wind over nuclear and oil power is waste. The former produce much less waste products (and only when manufactured and installed), none is produced during operation, and none of it is dangerous for decades (as nuclear waste is).

BTW, a to-code solar system (on the house, not in the sky) is not ‘off-the-grid.’ The code requires an interlock that shuts off the system if the grid goes down. So when there’s a power outage, a solar house loses power too. This rule purportedly is to protect the linesman who repairs the grid but makes no sense as a disconnect interlock needn’t shut down the home system – it simply needs to isolate the home from the wires to the street. But even if that were allowed, an off-the-grid system would need storage batteries, and these are too expensive and large to be practical for a typical home. (The boat is truly off-the-grid though… except when I need fuel or certain repairs, etc.)

How about a state requirement that all new construction include solar panels?

Given that this is such a great investment, can we stop using tax payer's money to subsidize this now?

“Global subsidies for oil, gas, and coal amounted to $409 billion in 2010—compared with $60 billion for renewable energy that year. Cutting those subsidies would be economically efficient, reduce overall energy consumption, and level the playing field with renewable power.”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/...

Lowering or ending subsidies for renewable energy, such as solar, might only make sense if the vast breaks for fossil-based fuels end first.