How to reduce my installation price for home solar and pick the right panel?

kevinn411

I see a lot of people on this forum are DIY. Not the case here, my wife and I are looking to hire someone to supply and install the system to our home. I am hoping to find a way to have an objective conversation with these companies to help separate them ($$) from the other quotes that I have received. All three companies want to install somewhere between 38 and 45 panels for a 11.7kwh system. It seems a large part of the cost are for mounting brackets, power optimizer, wiring and labor. I also have flat areas of roofing that will need extra mounting materials. Should I go with larger wattage panels which would equal less materials to reduce my cost? right now companies are suggestion 260 or 270w panels? Are the larger panels less efficient? the brands being pitched right now to me are Canadian Solar, Solar World and Axitec. Canadian solar shows up a lot on the web as being a good panel but all three companies have great 25 year warranties. Any suggestions from people in the know would be much appreciated.
thanks!

BB.

Regarding which panels to pick based on size... Let your installer make a quote. The exact number and configuration of solar panels has to match the brand:model of GT inverters they are planning on using for the job. In the end, basing your choice on lowest overall cost is perfectly acceptable.

Regarding which brand... As far as I know (I am not in the solar business), Canadian Solar and Solar World are just fine. I don't know Axitec--But Germany is known for making good products too.

In terms of the 25 year warranty for solar panels... Panels are close to $1 per Watt today--Vs the $10 per watt 10-15 years ago. And I am not sure that anyone can guarantee that any particular solar company will be around in 25 years. So, to a degree, you may be "self insuring" against future panel failures. As you are trying to do--Picking a good/solid product today--And hopefully you will not need to find out how good their warranty service will be in a decade or two.

One thing to watch out for--Power companies and regulatory agencies are starting to change the whole balance regarding how GT Solar power is billed.

10-15 years ago, the various state and federal governments where willing to directly (state/fed gov paid) and indirectly (utility customers) subsidize the the GT Solar industry and early adopters. Today, things are changing quickly and can make GT Solar less "interesting" for the average homeowner. In California, they have changed the minimum charge from $5 per month to $10. And change my power plan to have high time of use charges well past sunset. My "10 year grandfathered" rate plan is no longer available to me. While I am still saving some money--These changes will probably continue and change the whole solar power market dramatically.

Nevada's Solar Bait-and-Switch

In late December, the state’s Public Utilities Commission, which regulates Nevada’s energy market, announced a rate change drastic enough to kill Nevada’s booming rooftop solar market and drive providers out of the state. Effective Jan. 1, the new tariffs will gradually increase until they triple monthly fees that solar users pay to use the electric grid and cut by three-quarters users’ reimbursements for feeding electricity into it.

More startlingly, the commission made its decision retroactive. That means that the 17,000 Nevada residents who were lured into solar purchases by state-mandated one-time rebates of up to $23,000 suddenly discovered that they were victims of a bait-and-switch. They made the deals assuming that, allowing for inflation, their rates would stay constant over their contracts’ 20- to 30-year lifetimes; instead, they face the prospect of paying much more for electricity than if they had never made the change, even though they’re generating almost all their electricity themselves.

Solar electric power is not an "investment". Conservation and saving/investing your money is. If you still have money "left over" to install GT Solar on your home--You probably will be reasonably happy as long as Texas (?) gives you a good net metered billing plan.

Just be careful.

-Bill

kevinn411

THanks for the comment BIll.. What is this tariff charged for being tied into the electrical grid? I live in Florida, here they have an interesting law that makes it illegal to not be tied into the grid. But that is interesting I am not aware if there is a monthly fee for having solar hooked up. Something I will have to look into. All the companies pitching solar calculate how over 20 years your saving 10 of thousands of dollars by hedging against inflation by owning solar. There is a big incentive here to by solar 30% refund come the following tax year. 

BB.

There is a 30% federal tax credit (you have to pay federal taxes to use the credit--Say you get $20,000 credit and pay $10,000 a year in federal income taxes, then it takes 2 years to get the credit back--As long as the program remains in place & you "pay enough" in fed tax--less sure in the future).

What is happening is this... In the olden days I paid ~$4.20 minimum charge for electric billing a ~1 kWatt*Hour per day. I "bought" energy at ~$0.09 per kWH evenings/mornings/weekends/off peak and "sold" energy back at $0.27 per kWH summer peak days. At the end of 1 year, I either owed the utility money or the account was Zeroed.

Where many Utilities are heading is $10-$50 per month minimum charge, and paying the customer ~$0.027 per kWH for anything that is "fed back" to the utility.

From the utility's point of view--Roughly 1/2 of an electric bill is paying for power distribution (poles, transformers, wiring to my home). From the "generator's" point of view, again, roughly 1/2 of their costs are for generation equipment and the other 1/2 is for fuel. So--In the end, about 3/4 of my non-solar power bill was to ensure that there was wiring and generation capacity for me to have enough power to feed my electric loads (nights, stormy weather, etc.). And me selling power back at "retail rates" was me, not paying, for infrastructure costs. And it was other non-solar customers were tagged with paying for those costs.

In the end, we are on the tail end of the "green energy kick"--And now the costs are coming that need to be paid. You have to look at your power company's present solar rate structure and what may be coming down the road with the state PUC.

For me, they said they would give me preferential rates (for solar) for 10 years--After that, I would be changed to other plans which probably were not so great for me (but, I understand the business costs that do justify the changes). And they are are doing that to me now.

If you have not done as much conservation as possible (insulation, windows, energy star appliances, looked at your HVAC costs, etc.) yet--Now is a good time to do that. Do not install GT Solar by itself to save you money. While GT Solar can save money in many cases--Reducing your power usage is usually a better "investment".

-Bill

JustinA

This seems like just another example of how things are set up to benefit the wealthy.

Wealthy? Get big savings by paying a large amount of up-front cost when solar equipment pricing is high.

As soon as it becomes affordable for ordinary homeowners suddenly utilities and governments make sure people will no longer benefit. Of course, this is also due to the fact that more people having solar means more impact on the bottom line for energy companies (greater incentive for them to make solar unaffordable).

It also seems like another example of how governments like to confuse people by pretending to be in favor of green energy (with the tax rebate extension) while doing all sorts of things to hamper it (like bad bills that block solar profitability and attacks on the FDR-era trade bank that lends for solar projects).

We're in favor of the monarch butterfly not going extinct. Here is 3.2 million to the wildlife service to get people to put some milkweed in. Meanwhile, we'll approve stronger pesticides that wipe out all the milkweed on farmland, leaving monarchs with not enough milkweed to survive on.

Another typical day in a world where profit talks and environmental degradation walks.

JustinA

kevinn411 said:

the brands being pitched right now to me are Canadian Solar, Solar World and Axitec. Canadian solar shows up a lot on the web as being a good panel but all three companies have great 25 year warranties. Any suggestions from people in the know would be much appreciated.
thanks!

"Canadian" Solar is a Chinese panel, if that matters to you.

You may want to look into First Solar's CdTe panels because they're supposed to do better with higher temperatures. The per-module efficiency is lower (which can cause overall cost to increase due to the need for more modules to get to the desired wattage) but thin film panels do have some attractive qualities from what I've been seeing in my reading (except amorphous silicon which seems to be poor in terms of durability). CdTe seems to have good durability. A ground installation of CdTe (if you have enough land free) can be nice if you can swing it.

Apple has chosen this tech for powering its stores and it wouldn't have done so if it had not been a quality solution. Apple is pretty conservative lately about tech. For instance, it has rejected TLC NAND for SSDs and phones because of reliability problems, unlike a lot of other companies.

vtmaps

JustinA said:

You may want to look into First Solar's CdTe panels

There's nothing environmentally friendly about cadmium.  Also, CdTe panels need to be loaded... they degrade if left in the sun without a load.

--vtMaps

JustinA

There's nothing environmentally friendly about cadmium. Also, CdTe panels need to be loaded... they degrade if left in the sun without a load.

I've not heard that about the degradation. Where have you read this? The research I've done shows CdTe as having good stability.

As far as the environment my understanding is that CdTe is safe inside a panel and only has to be a concern when it comes time to recycle them. Since Tellurium is expensive there is an incentive to recycle rather than dispose of the old panels.

Dave Angelini

What is wrong with being wealthy? When I went to school in California and Arizona in college they taught me that was one of the American dreams.  I guess they don't do that much these days. What if the wealthy were in charge of the recycling?

vtmaps

JustinA said:

I've not heard that about the degradation. Where have you read this? The research I've done shows CdTe as having good stability.

This is from the First Solar manual for their FS2 and FS3 panels:

Open circuit exposure may accelerate module efficiency loss and should therefore be minimized. First Solar requires that modules not be operated in open circuit conditions for more than ninety (90) cumulative days to avoid a potential reduction in energy output over the life of the modules. Modules must not be operated under short circuit conditions for extended durations. Short circuit operation is not an approved mitigation technique for open circuit exposure.

The manual I have is a few years old... they may have improved.

One other thing... a loaded panel runs cooler than an unloaded panel (unloaded in this context means either short circuit or open circuit).  This is true for all panels, silicon, cdte, or whatever.

--vtMaps