patrick.net

WookieMan says

Solar really doesn't work in many places. IL for example maybe gets 6-8 hours maybe of quality sun assuming it's not raining/snowing this time of year. Not nearly enough energy to justify the expense. I'd be better off getting air tight foam insulation than solar in my climate. Plus we get at least 1-3 hail storms every year. Solar panels don't stand a chance here. I don't know why people get them.

Since you don’t know why some of your IL folks installed solar panels, have you asked anyone of them to find out?

For some of us Californians, the numbers are quite close to pencil out. The electricity cost has gone up from 12 to 25 cents in the last 5 years, installing solar panels will insure the cost is fixed going forward.

Eman says

WookieMan says

Solar really doesn't work in many places. IL for example maybe gets 6-8 hours maybe of quality sun assuming it's not raining/snowing this time of year. Not nearly enough energy to justify the expense. I'd be better off getting air tight foam insulation than solar in my climate. Plus we get at least 1-3 hail storms every year. Solar panels don't stand a chance here. I don't know why people get them.

Since you don’t know why some of your IL folks installed solar panels, have you asked anyone of them to find out?

For some of us Californians, the numbers are quite close to pencil out. The electricity cost has gone up from 12 to 25 cents in the last 5 years, installing solar panels will insure the cost is fixed going forward.

I'll have to side with the wookie when it comes to north of Mason-Dixon. Fuel pumps are probably the better play, especially, when winters can last 6 months, and hot (>80F) summer days can almost be counted on two hands. If you live around the Great Lakes, the solar panels are partially or completely covered in ice and snow in the winter, and don't get full sun from mid/late November through March/April.

Eman says

WookieMan says

Solar really doesn't work in many places. IL for example maybe gets 6-8 hours maybe of quality sun assuming it's not raining/snowing this time of year. Not nearly enough energy to justify the expense. I'd be better off getting air tight foam insulation than solar in my climate. Plus we get at least 1-3 hail storms every year. Solar panels don't stand a chance here. I don't know why people get them.

Since you don’t know why some of your IL folks installed solar panels, have you asked anyone of them to find out?

For some of us Californians, the numbers are quite close to pencil out. The electricity cost has gone up from 12 to 25 cents in the last 5 years, installing solar panels will insure the cost is fixed going forward.

It's sales here. We don't have enough sunlight half the year. Even then we have solid cloud cover 40-50% of the time. The square footage you have on a roof here will NEVER get you to no electric bills. Bigger roof, bigger bills. You'd have to do the roof and an array in your yard.

Basically you reduce your bill by maybe 40-50% at the cost of $15k plus. Probably closer to $20-25k. ROI is shit, there's no point. They look like shit too. Increase in insurance. It's simply not worth it where I'm at. 1,000%. You're a common idiot if you put them on your roof here in IL.

I'd think about wind where I'm located. But that would just be to run the pool pump for free. Solar is not practical for the vast majority of the country. Between night and cloud cover most places it makes no sense. It would take 10+ years to pay off. CA, NV, AZ sure, not most other places when you account for weather. Insulating your home better will pay for itself in 3-5 years. And your house doesn't look like shit.

Also, I've assisted with 5 Silver LEED certified single family home builds in Chicago. Solar checked the least boxes for our region. So many other factors that can reduce energy usage.

.

I would want a payback period or break even point of no more than 6.5 years for solar installation given the many risks associated with solar panels and the systems.

The Florida panhandle is about average for solar and in the middle of the scale for the NREL map link below. The southwest like Phoenix is the Saudi Arabia for solar:



.

And then you have this as far as home insurers dropping coverage for homes with solar panels on roofs:

https://www.floridarealtors.org/news-media/news-articles/2022/08/some-insurers-dropping-owners-who-install-solar-panels

.

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2022/05/gov-newsom-says-rooftop-solar-essential-californias-future
An analysis by the Solar Rights Alliance, a coalition of more than 600 organizations fighting to protect the rooftop solar program, found this latest scheme by regulators would impose a yearly solar tax on residents of between $300 and $600.
Not a good news to have solar panels.

ad says

I would want a payback period or break even point of no more than 6.5 years for solar installation given the many risks associated with solar panels and the systems.

This is one of the big reasons I've avoided solar for so long - future uncertainty. In the 2000s, many in CA started getting solar systems, but unless they were very high energy users, the numbers just didn't work out well for most ppl. The solar salesman and their MANY affiliate websites hosting calculators all use overly simplistic math devoid of compound interest, opportunity cost, and miscellaneous risk factors, producing rosy but unrealistic numbers, making many people waste their money. But solar prices have come down a lot, and around 5yrs ago, solar prices actually finally do make financial sense for tons of people. But net metering is a huge part of the solar investment math working out well.

Over the past decade I've watched the net metering agreements in CA slowly but surely get less and less generous every few years, which made me worry that a solar system may make financial sense today, but would it still make sense in 5-10 years after things keep changing? I've also heard many people point out the obvious destination - if a region has most customers on solar, where most people use the utility only for the occasional backup power source on cloudy days, how will the utilities stay in business? Prices will have to rise, and the burden will be on the rich privileged people with solar.

I didn't think they would ever charge a straight up annual fee for solar users. But I did expect a general erosion of the appeal of solar via making you pay more for grid power and being connected to it. So I felt the same as you - the benefits of solar needs to have a margin of safety, so I get paid back quickly before too much changes.

This CA fee would really affect me too. I don't use much power, and so the small solar system I was planning on installing soon only saves me ~$75 a mo. This proposed CA fee is basically $25-50/mo, which destroys the economics for me. Maybe I'll just use an unpermitted bootleg system, with panels on the ground, and backfeeding a few hundred watts of power into one of my outlets. But they would probably catch me eventually - solar panels are so easy to see from satellite or drone image.

Another of many reasons to leave CA.

Solar is not designed to succeed. They, like green policies, are designed to fail while empowering the czars. They want us all to be energy beggars.

Solar panels are physical appliances, and an 'exposed to the elements' physical appliance to boot. Such appliances have inherent life expectancies of 10 to 15 years before deteriorating and requiring replacement. They are made of plastic and wires. Plastic and wires exposed to sunlight and the elements do not last that long. Batteries, if you haven't noticed, tend to deteriorate and fail even faster. All those so called 'green' devices wind up in toxic land fills pretty quickly.

Solar panels are fine in limited use applications, where the expectation is that they need to be replaced as needed.

Wiring harnesses in cars fail pretty frequently within 15 years, and they are under a lot less stress than solar panels.

Ceffer says

Solar is not designed to succeed. They, like green policies, are designed to fail while empowering the czars. They want us all to be energy beggars.

Solar panels are physical appliances, and an 'exposed to the elements' physical appliance to boot. Such appliances have inherent life expectancies of 10 to 15 years before deteriorating and requiring replacement. They are made of plastic and wires. Plastic and wires exposed to sunlight and the elements do not last that long. Batteries, if you haven't noticed, tend to deteriorate and fail even faster. All those so called 'green' devices wind up in toxic land fills pretty quickly.

Solar panels are fine in limited use applications, where the expectation is that they need to be replaced as needed.

Wiring harnesses in cars fail pretty frequently within 15 years, and they are under a lot less stress than solar panels.

Hey Ceffer, stop spreading misinformation...Solar is the future otherwise we all die in 8 more years..

ad says

I would want a payback period or break even point of no more than 6.5 years for solar installation given the many risks associated with solar panels and the systems.

how did you come up with the number 6.5?

Hircus says

But solar prices have come down a lot,

Probably the quality of the panels too, LOL

clambo says

I'm going to get a mini split air conditioner which can run on solar (AC/DC).

I have never seen a mini split AC that runs on DC. What voltage DC do they use?

komputodo says

ad says

I would want a payback period or break even point of no more than 6.5 years for solar installation given the many risks associated with solar panels and the systems.

how did you come up with the number 6.5?

Guessing, but that's roughly the amount of time someone owns a home. So to get the investment to break even you'd have to live there that long. If you live there longer then it finally starts paying you back. Up until that time, it's essentially more debt.

The scale of solar just doesn't work for 80% of US homes. You'd need panels all over the yard AND the roof. Besides the Southwest, it's mathematically impossible (generally) to zero out your electric bill based on the square footage, pitch and direction most homes face for the roof. You have to have land and open sections with minimal trees.

In areas with hot and cold seasons, you're substantially better off investing in insulation and HVAC. You could go geothermal for the cost of solar and that reduces electric and gas consumption and pays for itself much quicker. Factor in the insulation and LED lighting, you could easily keep your electric and gas bills below $50/mo. If more people did this, it technically would lower prices. We'd have a surplus of gas. So LNG power plants would produce cheaper electric. We'd use less coal. Nukes would be less taxed demand wise and cheaper to run.

Solar is just a liability. Too reliant on weather/sunshine. Easily damaged. Only is truly effective in certain regions. The structure itself is where the most energy is gained or lost.

Interesting read and thanks for sharing.

When I lived on the coast and was paying 2figures per month electrical to PG&E, Solar absolutely made no sense to me since the break even was well over a decade.

I now have a much bigger house in the tri valley and looking at it again but undecided. AC costs can be killer but Solar doesn’t do anything for my gas bill in the winter.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/online-resource-center/solar
Now it’s mandatory to have them for all new homes in CA. Not good.

Blue says

https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/online-resource-center/solar
Now it’s mandatory to have them for all new homes in CA. Not good.

If your neighbor's house is shading your solar panels, will they be required to chop them down?

komputodo says

ad says

I would want a payback period or break even point of no more than 6.5 years for solar installation given the many risks associated with solar panels and the systems.

how did you come up with the number 6.5?

I am thinking just about the reliability of the wiring, DC to AC inverter, battery charger, as well as thinking about battery life. Then I was thinking about unfavorable utility policies toward solar owners and unfavorable government policies.

I just figure maybe the useful or service life of the majority of the (if not all) system could be 13 years so I want to make a profit for at least 6.5 years, which is 50% of the service life.

.

WookieMan says

The scale of solar just doesn't work for 80% of US homes. You'd need panels all over the yard AND the roof. Besides the Southwest, it's mathematically impossible (generally) to zero out your electric bill based on the square footage, pitch and direction most homes face for the roof. You have to have land and open sections with minimal trees.

You don't need to zero your bill out though. I think the goal for most is to save money (aka invest aka maximize net worth), in which case its all about "how to invest this X dollars of capital most effectively?". I'll focus on the financial aspects, and ignore the added utility that some solar systems offer by providing electricity even if the grid is down.

Like you implied, to maximize your investments, you should pick the highest CAGR investment option available, and put the money there first. Maybe the first thousand dollars of capital can be spent on insulation, yielding very high returns for certain people. But there's diminishing returns, and so you will need to invest in something other than insulation eventually. Eventually, you'll probably come to the point where the next best investment choice is stocks or RE. Maybe you choose to model stocks as 7% CAGR. If there's a solar system which provides a CAGR higher than stocks, from a financial perspective you should probably do it. Otherwise, just invest in stocks (or, whatever the next best investment for you personally happens to be). My point is most people would eventually end up investing in all 3: insulation, then solar, and then stocks/RE/whatever.

In areas where electricity is billed with tiered pricing, smaller solar systems actually usually yield a much higher CAGR / bang for the buck. This is because the first ~100kwh of solar you add will reduce your elec bill by 100kwh priced at the highest tier. The next 100kwh of solar may come from a mid price tier, and eventually further kwh will come from the lowest, least expensive tier. I'm not saying that people should intentionally undersize their system, because the CAGR of even the lowest electric tier is probably still worth worth adding a few extra panels for. I'm just saying even if you cant fit a solar system that zeros the bill, it can still be plenty worth it.

I don't know much about the weather in IL and its effects on solar, but I am under the impression that we've reached the point where solar offers worthwhile returns (i.e. more than 7% cagr) in all states for the vast majority of people who use relatively high amounts of power (and of course have a location w/out trees blocking the sun etc...). I think I read the NE usa has extra solar incentives to balance the lower sun irradiance there. Anyway, with prices sometimes at $1.50-2.00 a watt installed, solar economics really have changed.

I decided to go solar. I went through energysage.com and got 6 bids. A couple standout companies are Solar Optimum and Better Earth. Pricing is competitive across the board. All companies are vertically integrated and offered the same warranty. 25 years on workmanship, performance, roof penetration, parts and labor, etc… with maximum solar degradation of 14% aka 86% efficiency by the end of year 25.

I decided to go with Tesla Solar as I believe they have the highest chance of being around the longest given the warranty. Also, it has no upfront costs/fees if anyone decides to get financing. Total cost is $50k for a 14 kW system and 1 powerwall. Net cost is $35k after tax credits/rebates. I believe PW is a luxury item. Most don’t need it unless they experience power outage regularly for a significant amount of time.

From talking to people in the knows and the solar sales reps, the proposed solar tax (NEM 3.0) has a high chance of passing and goes into effect in April 2023. If one has your solar installed and operated before then, one gets to keep the existing NEM 2.0 and don’t have to pay solar tax. Also, we can keep rolling over excess electricity generated vs. selling it back to PG&E for pennies on the dollar at each year end. That’s my understanding. I’ll find out in a few months if these are true or false. Experience is the best teacher.

Eman says

All companies are vertically integrated and offered the same warranty. 25 years on workmanship, performance, roof penetration, parts and labor, etc… with maximum solar degradation of 14% aka 86% efficiency by the end of year 25.

Probably no chance one of them is standing at the end of 25 years. They WILL make your roof leak, though CA doesn't see a ton of rain.

10 years for my current electric bill your system would cost me $291.66/mo. That assumes all my electric needs will be met. They won't. I'm $125-50/mo on average. I'm losing $150/mo if I go solar. That's in a sunny year too. Haven't had solar sunlight that would produce for an entire week here in IL. Solar only works in specific locations. Midwest is not one of them.

The math doesn't work unless you're south/north of Capricorn or Cancer lines. Basically the equator. Sure it looks good in Alaska doing the summer, goes to shit in the winter. Solar really only works well between C & C lines and outside of hurricane zones. Basically solar doesn't work. It's a status symbol. Not energy savings.

WookieMan says

Probably no chance one of them is standing at the end of 25 years. They WILL make your roof leak,

Just use the panels to build a carport.

Eman says

I believe PW is a luxury item.

IMO there's a large benefit most don't immediately think about. Its not the fact that you get a day or so of battery backup power, its the fact that most solar systems which include a battery are built w/ different components and wired differently, making them able to harvest solar when the grid is down, while most systems w/o a battery cannot operate at all w/o grid power being up. So, if your battery has given your system this off grid operation ability, then the grid can go down for weeks, and you'll have power the entire time if the sun shines.

Personally I would double check with your installer if this will be the case. It's unusual, but some systems use batteries but cannot harvest solar w/o the grid, so once the battery depletes, you have no power just like all your neighbors. Which really sucks. Especially since it sounds like you went w/ a much larger system than needed to generally cover your current usage, which could perform really well in a long term grid outage.

solar is definitely a CA item. im snow covered, solar here has major limitations. sunshine from 17 to 17:09… yes 9 minutes total.

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

solar is definitely a CA item. im snow covered, solar here has major limitations. sunshine from 17 to 17:09… yes 9 minutes total.

My sister and brother-in-law have a solar system in New Hampshire. They have been running a surplus for electricity for years. They just installed a mini-split system into their home so that may change.

They mostly heat their home with a wood stove in the basement, and just let the heat creep up. They have a water heater system using radiators, but the wood stove in the basement does 80% of the work.

If the power goes out though, their solar system stops operating. There's no battery backup of any sort, and it cannot run independently of the grid at all.

The mini-split is mostly for air conditioning in the summer, not for heating.

Hircus says

So, if your battery has given your system this off grid operation ability, then the grid can go down for weeks, and you'll have power the entire time if the sun shines.

Weeks is a stretch. 2 cloudy days and you're generally fucked if you want to run your house as normal on solar even with a battery backup.

Natural gas is the way to go. Pressurized. Generally would need to be shut down by a pipe failure underground. Generally not happening. No sun for 4-6 days and your food is trash by the end of it. I think wind, at least for my area and a massive battery would be better. Solar seems to be the least "intelligent" of renewable energies.

The surface area it takes is obnoxious as well. You could put up two wind turbines and produce the same electricity whether it's light or dark out charging a battery. Solar is dumb in my book of life. Hydro and wind are substantially better. Obviously nukes. Solar is a god awful way to produce power and "feel" good about it. I'm into architecture too, and it makes houses look like pure shit.

WookieMan says

Solar only works in specific locations. Midwest is not one of them.

I know some people w/ solar in the Denver area, and another in SW Nebraska, and solar works pretty good for them. Its ok if snow covers the panels for some fraction of the days of the year. Obviously you lose some production, but that's ok. You don't need to produce enough energy to exceed your daily usage, and its ok if there's some or even many days where you produce practically nothing. The idea is the more annual kwh you produce, the less you buy from the utility. It's about math in the end. The difference in annual production is not enormous in the various places in the usa, so it can work well in most locations. Obviously it works better and for more people in the SW. Like I mentioned earlier, undersized systems often give even better bang for the buck.



WookieMan says

Hircus says

So, if your battery has given your system this off grid operation ability, then the grid can go down for weeks, and you'll have power the entire time if the sun shines.

No sun for 4-6 days and your food is trash by the end of it.

You can use power from the grid and/or any other source. Installing a solar system does not suddenly mean you cannot use any other power source. In fact this is rare - most solar installs are done to supplement grid power, to save money.

WookieMan says

You could put up two wind turbines and produce the same electricity whether it's light or dark out charging a battery.

I don't think you've done any math on this. The economics of wind turbines + battery storage just doesnt work well for many people. They work terrific if you have lots of consistent strong wind. If its inconsistent, the cost of energy storage (really high) destroys the economics. Most turbines produce very poorly if the wind is only light/moderate.

WookieMan says

Solar is dumb in my book of life. Hydro and wind are substantially better. Obviously nukes. Solar is a god awful way to produce power and "feel" good about it. I'm into architecture too, and it makes houses look like pure shit.

It sounds like you have some personal issue w/ solar. Use the right tool for the job. Solar works terrific for many use cases, and the math agrees. Opinions are a different thing.

Eman says

I’m a YOLO guy. I blast the A/C when it’s hot and crank up the heater when it’s cold. I don’t care if it’s peak or off-peak. At the end of the day, spend an extra $100-$200/month to be comfortable is a small price to pay.

Yeah I don't get that whole peak time either. If it's comfortable outside, then I don't run the AC. The whole point of climate control is to set the desired comfort, hence is why an AC comes with a thermostat. It's absurd to be charged more, because you used a service when you needed it most.

richwicks says

If the power goes out though, their solar system stops operating. There's no battery backup of any sort, and it cannot run independently of the grid at all.

I have toured many solar systems over the years. The systems I saw that went down when the grid went down were the ones that lacked a transfer switch. A Virginia law requires a solar system to shut down when the commercial power goes out, as to prevent backfeed from harming the lineman. Installing a transfer switch allows one to keep the solar system running during power failures (same rules as for a generator). As long as the sun is shining, one can get power whether a battery is charged or not.

HeadSet says

Installing a transfer switch allows one to keep the solar system running during power failures

I'm no expert, but from what I've seen the equipment is a bit different for grid tie vs off grid solar. Some components can do both, but it usually costs a bit more for this feature, so often you see the system just setup to do grid tie only to save costs. So the inverter probably also needs to be changed after installing the xfer switch:

1) A "grid tied" inverter specifically looks for utility power and will shut down if they dont see any. Although, you could trick it by feeding it AC power via a generator or other source the entire time.
2) Only some inverters can run off grid without a battery. From what I've seen, most (but not all) need a battery, although it can be small.

WookieMan says

Eman says

All companies are vertically integrated and offered the same warranty. 25 years on workmanship, performance, roof penetration, parts and labor, etc… with maximum solar degradation of 14% aka 86% efficiency by the end of year 25.

Probably no chance one of them is standing at the end of 25 years. They WILL make your roof leak, though CA doesn't see a ton of rain.

10 years for my current electric bill your system would cost me $291.66/mo. That assumes all my electric needs will be met. They won't. I'm $125-50/mo on average. I'm losing $150/mo if I go solar. That's in a sunny year too. Haven't had solar sunlight that would produce for an entire week here in IL. Solar only works in specific locations. Midwest is not one of them.

The math doesn't work unless you're south/north of Capricorn or Cancer lines. Basically the equator. Sure it looks good in Alaska ...

Solar is also a status symbol now? 😂

Hircus says

Eman says

I believe PW is a luxury item.

IMO there's a large benefit most don't immediately think about. Its not the fact that you get a day or so of battery backup power, its the fact that most solar systems which include a battery are built w/ different components and wired differently, making them able to harvest solar when the grid is down, while most systems w/o a battery cannot operate at all w/o grid power being up. So, if your battery has given your system this off grid operation ability, then the grid can go down for weeks, and you'll have power the entire time if the sun shines.

Personally I would double check with your installer if this will be the case. It's unusual, but some systems use batteries but cannot harvest solar w/o the grid, so once the battery depletes, you have no power just like all your neighbors. Which really sucks. Especially since it soun...

You’re right. PW does have its advantage. Our house can be powered on indefinitely during sunny season, even if there’s a power outage, as solar will charge the battery first. Only surplus electricity gets put back in the grid. It’s prudent to roll the surplus forward rather than selling it back to PG&E for pennies on the dollar. We also have the option to add more PW at a later date. The price is quite steep at $11.5k per PW at the moment.

HeadSet says

richwicks says

If the power goes out though, their solar system stops operating. There's no battery backup of any sort, and it cannot run independently of the grid at all.

I have toured many solar systems over the years. The systems I saw that went down when the grid went down were the ones that lacked a transfer switch. A Virginia law requires a solar system to shut down when the commercial power goes out, as to prevent backfeed from harming the lineman. Installing a transfer switch allows one to keep the solar system running during power failures (same rules as for a generator). As long as the sun is shining, one can get power whether a battery is charged or not.

The line voltage at my sister's place is reliable. Basically, both my sister and her husband work for the state as civil engineers. If they understood my line of thinking, it would be... foreign to them.

Ultimately it's a question of cost. Is it worthwhile for them to have a system that can run independently of the grid? In the current environment, the answer would be no. There is no reason in their viewpoint to have a transfer switch to them. They have a great deal of independence from the system, they "grow" their own cows for example, but they cannot see a breakdown, and at their age (60s) perhaps they are right for their lifetime. Time will tell.

Hircus says

1) A "grid tied" inverter specifically looks for utility power and will shut down if they dont see any.

As you know, an inverter is nothing more than a device that converts DC to AC power, which is needed since solar panels generate DC and most household appliances run on AC. I presume you are talking about added electronics to the inverter circuitry that shuts down the system if it senses no current from the power grid. This shutdown seems to me to be more for legal reasons to stop backfeed, and not for technical or inverter cost reasons. However, that circuitry could just as well throw a transfer switch that disconnects the circuit panel from the grid and connects it strictly to the solar system. Transfer switches are not new, they have been used for years with standby natural gas generators that only kick in when the power goes out. All the systems I have seen are grid connected, and most were "net zero," but I would like to build an off-grid cabin sometime in the future.

A serious solar house would use DC appliances like those used in motor homes with no inverter needed, and a transfer switch. Transfer switches do have a delay (to prevent switching during momentary blips or very short outages) so maybe a large UPS could be used if one wants uninterrupted power. Pricy though.

Hircus says

1) A "grid tied" inverter specifically looks for utility power and will shut down if they dont see any. Although, you could trick it by feeding it AC power via a generator or other source the entire time.

Feeding AC power from a generator into your circuit panel during a power outage is against the law, as is feeding solar power during an outage because it endangers the lineman who come out to fix the outage. Unless, of course, you have a transfer switch.

I penciled solar out when we lived in California and cost per kWh was 16 cents. Payback is when the panels lifespan ends. A grid tie system does nothing when the grid shuts off. Batteries add $10k to the cost and environmentally is a disaster. Now we live in Idaho and cost per kWh is 8-9 cents. No panels needed.

HeadSet says

Feeding AC power from a generator into your circuit panel during a power outage is against the law, as is feeding solar power during an outage because it endangers the lineman who come out to fix the outage. Unless, of course, you have a transfer s

I was saying you need to upgrade the inverter in addition to the the xfer switch, not in place of. I've always heard people say the grid tied inverter shut down functionality was specifically to prevent zapping the lineman.

And they do have units that can operate an xfer switch electronically for you, but I believe these are the more expensive units I mentioned. They seem to call these "hybrids", since they can do operation configs typical of both grid-tie and off-grid, and are also able to backfeed into the grid if desired. I skimmed the manual for some of these recently and some look pretty cool technically - they can be setup to operate with various prioritizations, like prefer grid, prefer PV, prefer battery, and so on.

You can actually get ups functionality pretty cheap. They seem to claim 10-20ms switching time for many models I've seen recently, although sometimes they claim "instant" switching (chinese style marketing I assume). They can switch from running on PV power to either battery backup, or even switch over to grid power, even on "off grid" units. Like this one https://watts247.com/product/pip-3048lv-mk/ and some units have generator start relays, but that obviously cant be an instant switch w/o another power source to bridge it.

Batteries are expensive though. Seems right now the diy budget community is using either used EV battery cells, or they buy new lifepo4 cells + a BMS direct from china and build their own. I'm about to do this myself. I figure I can build a 15kwh battery for ~$2400. A similar capacity powerwall is $8k, although it has an internal inverter and charger, and is most certainly higher quality. But its an interesting diy project to me.

A friendly reminder that the grid is not necessary if you can salvage from a wrecked Tesla...
https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1510771677541580805?ref_src=patrick.net

EBGuy says

A friendly reminder that the grid is not necessary if you can salvage from wrecked a Tesla...
https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1510771677541580805?ref_src=patrick.net

Oh yeah, if you can take a Tesla battery and convert it into a powerwall. That’s huge. They’re between 75-100 kWh battery pack each. That’s equivalent to 5-7 powerwalls. I’m not a tech guy unfortunately so I don’t know how to make this work, but it’s a great for anyone who can DIY.

Our solar system costs $2.70/watt before tax credits. $2 after tax credits. Quotes came in between $2.55 to $3.08/watt before credits. Just some numbers for anyone who is interested.

At new base rates of 33 cents/kWhr, my solar system (finally) broke even (over 35,000 kWHr of electricity produced). It's a tiny system (less than 2kW) and I've had it for maybe ten years (at a cost of $10k after rebates and credits). Yes, I realize, lots of hand waving on my end, but bear in mind it was shaving off Tier 2 and Tier 3 marginal rates (which are $.39 and $.49 per kWHr in the latest schedules). It'll be putting over $800 a year in my pocket... at least until the inverter breaks.
@eman, congrats on your new system. Let us know how it goes once the install is complete. You're paying less than half of what I did (and getting a PowerWall to boot).

Hircus says

solar in the Denver area

Rockies, not the midwest. Hircus says

I don't think you've done any math on this. The economics of wind turbines + battery storage just doesnt work well for many people.

Just like your map doesn't work out for many people either with solar. I live next to one of the largest wind farms on the planet. What do I know? They just build them for fun?

For renewables solar is by far the worst. It's not even a contest when you factor in wind, hydro and nukes. Solar is not the future.

EBGuy says

At new base rates of 33 cents/kWhr, my solar system (finally) broke even (over 35,000 kWHr of electricity produced). It's a tiny system (less than 2kW) and I've had it for maybe ten years (at a cost of $10k after rebates and credits). Yes, I realize, lots of hand waving on my end, but bear in mind it was shaving off Tier 2 and Tier 3 marginal rates (which are $.39 and $.49 per kWHr in the latest schedules). It'll be putting over $800 a year in my pocket... at least until the inverter breaks.
eman, congrats on your new system. Let us know how it goes once the install is complete. You're paying less than half of what I did (and getting a PowerWall to boot).

@EBGuy, $2.70/watt pre-tax credits. $2/watt after tax credits. The cost of PW is not included as it’s an “optional” item. I should have been more clear.

First PW costs $5.5k after discount and tax credits. Each additional PW costs $4.9k. Based on the calculations, 1 PW should last us 1.5 days. If it’s sunny, then it’s indefinitely. Been thinking under what scenario we would need more than 1 PW.

Looks like you’re an early solar adopter. I was an early Tesla adopter so I get free supercharging for life. It works out.