SunPower or LG?

[J.P.M.]

This might change your mind on the recycling aspect.

Since I have little to no faith in any news media, left, right or center - especially of the type you cite - and, for the sake of whatever remains of my sanity and critical thinking skills stopped wasting my time interacting with such tripe, I don't think so.

Do you believe everything you watch on the idiot box, hear from slimeballs on the radio or read what written by assholes who are clueless about what they're writing about and only do so to create copy, and collect a paycheck ?

[utsug]

that's right

Any updates on your solar project with Solar Optimum?

[robbyg]

Off topic, and the last word on the subject is yours:

TV and washing machine makers don't claim to be attempting to save the planet.

As for little impact, since I'd think panel production is relatively small compared to TV and washing machine production, and also since panels don't break down much and so haven't had much history with recycling, it's no surprise to me that the energy it takes to produce panels worldwide is much less than that required to produce TV's and washing machines. I'd suggest that the net carbon footprint for PV panels is smaller due to smaller volume of production, not cleanliness.

With historical situations like asbestos and lead in mind, I'll hold off on declaring PV panels environmentally safe - gross or net of help to the planet - until more information is available on long(er) term effects of materials like gallium, cadmium, hexavalent fluoride and selenium, while wondering what attempts at recycling known toxic stuff like lead, polyvinyl fluoride, lead, mercury and other stuff have in terms of actual efficacy. Also, laws (at least in the U.S.) limiting a lot of toxic chemicals in electronics specifically exclude PV panels make me a bit skeptical about what winds up in them.

Besides reading (and believing ?) any news piece on battery recycling - which usually amount to free advertising or whitewash from financially interested parties written by other, mostly uninformed folks who have a need to produce copy with secondary emphasis on correctness and accuracy - I've been in battery recycling plants in places like Taiwan and felt lucky to get out intact, but that was years ago.

Still, I've no reason to believe the profit motive has had a positive impact on any recycling concerns for new(er) methods.

There's a reason most battery recycling - including lithium - is done in places like Korea and China, two places I've spent time in and don't want to go back.

This might change your mind on the recycling aspect.

[InmarketforPV]

Did u go with Solar Optimum?

that's right

[J.P.M.]

IMHO that is a idea that has been fostered by people who are opposed to Solar Power.
The amount of energy it takes to make panels, inverters etc is impactful during production but it is not much higher than most other items we make like the myriad of TV's and Washing machines etc. The big difference with Solar is that once the product is installed it's net Carbon foot print over the life of the system is very tiny. It is one of the few things that Humans make that actually does not add carbon during it's lifetime but actually reduces our output.

At one point I would have agreed that Batteries might become a problem but after seeing a news article on recycling batteries I am optimistic that this is not going to be a problem. Companies are now willing to pay good money for large Lithium Packs and they recycle the Lithium with very little environmental impact into Fresh Lithium that is sold back to the battery companies.

Off topic, and the last word on the subject is yours:

TV and washing machine makers don't claim to be attempting to save the planet.

As for little impact, since I'd think panel production is relatively small compared to TV and washing machine production, and also since panels don't break down much and so haven't had much history with recycling, it's no surprise to me that the energy it takes to produce panels worldwide is much less than that required to produce TV's and washing machines. I'd suggest that the net carbon footprint for PV panels is smaller due to smaller volume of production, not cleanliness.

With historical situations like asbestos and lead in mind, I'll hold off on declaring PV panels environmentally safe - gross or net of help to the planet - until more information is available on long(er) term effects of materials like gallium, cadmium, hexavalent fluoride and selenium, while wondering what attempts at recycling known toxic stuff like lead, polyvinyl fluoride, lead, mercury and other stuff have in terms of actual efficacy. Also, laws (at least in the U.S.) limiting a lot of toxic chemicals in electronics specifically exclude PV panels make me a bit skeptical about what winds up in them.

Besides reading (and believing ?) any news piece on battery recycling - which usually amount to free advertising or whitewash from financially interested parties written by other, mostly uninformed folks who have a need to produce copy with secondary emphasis on correctness and accuracy - I've been in battery recycling plants in places like Taiwan and felt lucky to get out intact, but that was years ago.

Still, I've no reason to believe the profit motive has had a positive impact on any recycling concerns for new(er) methods.

There's a reason most battery recycling - including lithium - is done in places like Korea and China, two places I've spent time in and don't want to go back.

[utsug]

Yes I did, will update how it goes.

Did u go with Solar Optimum?

[InmarketforPV]

InmarketforPV did you already sign up for your solar project?

Yes I did, will update how it goes.

[robbyg]

For many reasons, my money says the solar industry will lose. Solar and equality are two words that don't correlate. Clean energy is also kind of a stretch, and I say that as one of the biggest solar advocates I know of, but maybe also one of the more objective and realistic.
.

IMHO that is a idea that has been fostered by people who are opposed to Solar Power.
The amount of energy it takes to make panels, inverters etc is impactful during production but it is not much higher than most other items we make like the myriad of TV's and Washing machines etc. The big difference with Solar is that once the product is installed it's net Carbon foot print over the life of the system is very tiny. It is one of the few things that Humans make that actually does not add carbon during it's lifetime but actually reduces our output.

At one point I would have agreed that Batteries might become a problem but after seeing a news article on recycling batteries I am optimistic that this is not going to be a problem. Companies are now willing to pay good money for large Lithium Packs and they recycle the Lithium with very little environmental impact into Fresh Lithium that is sold back to the battery companies.

[robbyg]

That, sir, is simply not correct. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/02/...manufacturing/

I agree with the rest of what you said though - no way Panasonic is going anywhere, and as large as they are, they will continue to honor their warranties.

You did read the article? They are still making panels but will stop in March 2022.

[utsug]

InmarketforPV did you already sign up for your solar project?

[InmarketforPV]

So $29562 (before tax credit) for 12.58kW system.?
That's $2.30/W
That's better than the previous options you've posted about.
Glad you found someone at a better price range.

Do you have any plans to increase your electricity usage?
ex. buying an electric vehicle or plug-in-hybrid-electric vehicle? Adding a pool? etc?
If those are not on the horizon, I'd probably go a little smaller system and be OK with paying the PGE some money if I used more than I produced.

Yes, $2.35/W to be exact, from Solar Optimum
Only thing is there is literally 5 months left before Nov NEM3.0 might take effect, not sure if I should be concerned about the timeline... trying to push a completion date committed in the contract but seems hard to get... what's the chance of taking over 5 months from into contract to PTO? Roof is ~11 years old in fairly good condition and main panel 200A no need to upgrade.

I do have a pool that will use a lot of energy running pump 6 hrs/day in summer, no EV at house yet but might consider getting one in next few yrs. I could probably go a little lower to 11KW, which is optional after site survey before finalize the plan, but likely will go for it just to take advantage of a good price.

[foo1bar]

Thanks! This is getting really interesting and I am inspired to dig a little deeper into cost analysis of three scenarios.

Scenario 1: I pay a net cost of $21,876 after tax credit now for a 12.58KW system and enters a 10 year grandfathered tariff, assuming my system produce 100% of my usage in year1 and has worst-case of 1% yearly degradation therefore from year2 I start pay PGE the 1% energy that my system not able to produce out of my current monthly usage ($350 monthly bill) on top of $12 monthly grid fee. At end of year 10 when my grandfathered tariff ends. My total cost is $25206.

So $29562 (before tax credit) for 12.58kW system.?
That's $2.30/W
That's better than the previous options you've posted about.
Glad you found someone at a better price range.

Do you have any plans to increase your electricity usage?
ex. buying an electric vehicle or plug-in-hybrid-electric vehicle? Adding a pool? etc?
If those are not on the horizon, I'd probably go a little smaller system and be OK with paying the PGE some money if I used more than I produced.

[J.P.M.]

Thanks! This is getting really interesting and I am inspired to dig a little deeper into cost analysis of three scenarios.

Scenario 1: I pay a net cost of $21,876 after tax credit now for a 12.58KW system and enters a 10 year grandfathered tariff, assuming my system produce 100% of my usage in year1 and has worst-case of 1% yearly degradation therefore from year2 I start pay PGE the 1% energy that my system not able to produce out of my current monthly usage ($350 monthly bill) on top of $12 monthly grid fee. At end of year 10 when my grandfathered tariff ends. My total cost is $25206.

Scenario 2: I don't do anything, and enters NEM3.0 tariff, to be able to have scenario 2 costing LESS than scenario 1, PG&E needs to lower down my monthly bill to $210 under NEM3.0 tariff, 40% cut of my current rate (and of course everyone else's who doesn't have rooftop solar), for the next 10 years, which I don't think it can happen.

Scenario 3: I wait for a year until NEM3.0 takes effect, by then, assuming PV system cost drop by a hefty 50% (possible?) but without tax credit anymore, then I pay $14781 for a same sized system. But my monthly bill under NEM3.0 tariff could be around $160 for my system size, assuming a conservative 3% yearly increase, at year 10, my total cost would be $14781+$22010=$36792.

I think cost of scenario1 still makes the most sense to me.

If your goal is like that of most folks, that is, a lower electric bill rather than PV for its own sake, I'd spend time and effort studying a fourth scenario and do it before any PV acquisition while at the same time continuing to learn about POCO policies, tariffs and rates as they relate to current and future NEM scenarios.

That scenario begins with education and goes something like this: Study and learn how you use energy and then consider tolerable lifestyle changes that reduce usage.

hen, learn about cost effective conservation measures to further reduce that usage.
You don't pay for what you don't use.
Conservation measures are almost always (at least initially and for the easy stuff) more cost effective than PV, and any resulting reductions reductions are pretty permanent compared to the whims and efforts of POCOs and their rate/policy/tariff shenanigans.
Such efforts will also allow any subsequent PV to be smaller (read less expensive than larger systems).
A balance of conservation and cost effective PV is about the least costly way to lower residential electricity use costs.

[InmarketforPV]

For many reasons, my money says the solar industry will lose. Solar and equality are two words that don't correlate. Clean energy is also kind of a stretch, and I say that as one of the biggest solar advocates I know of, but maybe also one of the more objective and realistic.

Also, while PV may be attractive to you if grandfathering lasts 10 years (and only then if your system was installed 10 years ago), from the standpoint of solar process economics, what you write is only true so long a the Levelized Cost Of Electricity ("LCOE") under whatever NEM 3.0 turns out to be is < 10/6 times the LCOE of the same amount of electricity under whatever tariff you're on now.

If you don't do anything else, I'd suggest waiting until 1 yr. has elapsed after NEM 3.0 takes effect and see what it does to system prices. I bet price reductions will be somewhat proportional to how badly NEM 3.0 guts residential PV cost effectiveness.

Thanks! This is getting really interesting and I am inspired to dig a little deeper into cost analysis of three scenarios.

Scenario 1: I pay a net cost of $21,876 after tax credit now for a 12.58KW system and enters a 10 year grandfathered tariff, assuming my system produce 100% of my usage in year1 and has worst-case of 1% yearly degradation therefore from year2 I start pay PGE the 1% energy that my system not able to produce out of my current monthly usage ($350 monthly bill) on top of $12 monthly grid fee. At end of year 10 when my grandfathered tariff ends. My total cost is $25206.

Scenario 2: I don't do anything, and enters NEM3.0 tariff, to be able to have scenario 2 costing LESS than scenario 1, PG&E needs to lower down my monthly bill to $210 under NEM3.0 tariff, 40% cut of my current rate (and of course everyone else's who doesn't have rooftop solar), for the next 10 years, which I don't think it can happen.

Scenario 3: I wait for a year until NEM3.0 takes effect, by then, assuming PV system cost drop by a hefty 50% (possible?) but without tax credit anymore, then I pay $14781 for a same sized system. But my monthly bill under NEM3.0 tariff could be around $160 for my system size, assuming a conservative 3% yearly increase, at year 10, my total cost would be $14781+$22010=$36792.

I think cost of scenario1 still makes the most sense to me.

[J.P.M.]

It'll be a battle between utility monopolies and solar industry, under the names of "solar equality" and "clean energy for CA" ...
Anyways, a system with cost recovered in ~6 yrs under current NEM still attractive to me if it can be grandfathered for 10 years.

For many reasons, my money says the solar industry will lose. Solar and equality are two words that don't correlate. Clean energy is also kind of a stretch, and I say that as one of the biggest solar advocates I know of, but maybe also one of the more objective and realistic.

Also, while PV may be attractive to you if grandfathering lasts 10 years (and only then if your system was installed 10 years ago), from the standpoint of solar process economics, what you write is only true so long a the Levelized Cost Of Electricity ("LCOE") under whatever NEM 3.0 turns out to be is < 10/6 times the LCOE of the same amount of electricity under whatever tariff you're on now.

If you don't do anything else, I'd suggest waiting until 1 yr. has elapsed after NEM 3.0 takes effect and see what it does to system prices. I bet price reductions will be somewhat proportional to how badly NEM 3.0 guts residential PV cost effectiveness.