Message from @RoadtoDawn
Discord ID: 578284411271905280
Considering the average home uses 908 kwh's each month, and the average cost of electricity is 12 cents. The only way you would break even with solar panels in 20 years without tax credit is if you could get the whole system for under 20k. That includes the battery, and the panels, which you would likely need at least a third larger system than your actual kwh usage so that you can still power your house entirely on extended cloudy days.
Also you can go fuck yourself during the winter if you live in places where it snows. Even if you have a system rated for double the kwh you need, you'll still face outages.
It snows here, he still more than makes it up.
¿Any guesses where this one leads to?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NNLWvWoE-U
@DJ_Anuz that’s why most rooftop solar systems are grid tied and utilize net energy metering
And thats why you still need a power plant that backs up the grid, as long as a power plant is required there will be an argument for nuclear as a carbon free option
Solar doesn't replace it
And I've seen it done.
Yeah but your parents are only saving money on their panels likely due to tax credits, since most power companies won't buy your energy any higher than a fraction of a cent per kwh if they pay you back at all.
As it stands, without government intervention, Solar is not economically sound. You get a whole lot less energy, with a whole lot less reliability, for a price that exceeds conventional means at the moment.
I honestly don't know how much they save, but I do know that if Dad even doubles the pannels PG&E would be paying him...
That's **why** he couldn't double the pannels, sort of; His house would become a power station and he can't/won't change the usage permit.
DJ, it's not convenient, but the fact is solar does work, and without "intervention."
@Mandatory Carry what’s the rated size of his system? Do you know?
@DJ_Anuz California still has NEM I believe, they’ll pay back the same rate you pay because of that policy
@Salacious Swanky Cat
I do not and I should because I'd considered adding such a system for my park.
@Mandatory Carry ask him. I’m curious too. The capacity should be rated in kWs.
As soon as I can.
@Salacious Swanky Cat but who wants to live in California? :P
That's the whole thing about solar though. It works, but it's riddled with inconveniences for a premium energy cost. While you can bring the cost down, the inconveniences are pretty much unavaoidable.
I’m just saying that’s the policy there. Many other states have it too
@DJ_Anuz
*But who wants to live in California?*
Please don't conflate all of CA with Sodom, uh, I mean Gonnoreha, uh, I mean San Fran. Not even all of SF is leftist... Just the loudly obnoxious jackasses on Mission Street.
@Mandatory Carry mission street sounds like it was Christian once.
Litterally.
It's where the Spanish Mission is still located (I think they still hold services, but don't hold me to that).
... ¿Why is Matt still in Call-in?
Not lurking very well, I can see him there... Seriously, his mike is open even...
@Mandatory Carry even if you aren't living in the shitty areas of California, you still have to deal with their shitty voting. I really like northern and central Cali, but I would never live there when there are places like northern Idaho or montana that are equal in beauty, and you're less burdained by the state.
California is beautiful state run by ugly people.
@Salacious Swanky Cat
He said he wasn't sure what the kwh was, but that tripling the array would produce enough to be a payee... That'd cost around $6Ø,ØØØ, assuming PG&E would agree (they won't).
Sorry I can't do better.
Ok.
The solar debate is easy, if it was profitable you would see every chainstore with their roofs covered in them. The power companies would contract with you for roof space, the power companys and chain stores would do them at scale cheaper than you can do as an individual.
@Putz two things: that’s starting to happen because commercial rooftop solar has decreased in price and regulated utilities are mostly prevented by law to directly finance rooftop solar. Solar leasing is no longer cost effective because owning the system is cheaper now.
It's not *CONVENIENT* not ineffective.
If it were so cost prohibitive, my mom would have had them ripped out.
A large amount of rooftop costs come from soft costs.
Basically costs that are not directly associated with the hardware
Dont forget the right offs and the good publicity with the tree huggers
If it was profitable it would start to be done, it would have been done ar scale with pocketbooks larger than mine
@Putz yes, that has marketing value, but I don’t think it’s really that much
It’s starting to pick up in some states.
Obviously not all states.
It’s an interesting market to follow.
And the fed is giving 20% off in deductions, then letting business count it toward depreciation
So that the citizenry is helping pay for it