Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Selling Solar Energy Without Incentives

By James A. "Hoss" Boyd
December 10, 2007   |   39 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on.

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

39 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 39
December 10, 2007
<i>I'm sure there are some smart people out there who can match kilowatts of solar production on any given day of the year to what the rates will be (based on the projected costs of electricity).</i>

There sure are, at Clean Power Research. Check out
http://kyocerasolar.cleanpowerestimator.com/
Give them your location, and they figure out what utility company serves your area. Tell them which billing service you're on, and they can figure out how much you save based on PV system size, orientation, etc. Then you can change the assumptions and see if things like changing to time-of-use billing will save you money.
Comment
2 of 39
December 10, 2007
In addition to the factors you mention, there is also the value of increased security from safeguarding against catastrophic fuel cost rises - it is not hard to imagine a crisis in the Middle East causing prices to rise hugely, at least for a time, and the PV panel costs will remain stable.
Solar thermal and ground or air based heat pumps would also cut quite a bit from energy use at other times than peak.
Comment
3 of 39
December 12, 2007
John Briggs - RE the $0.0025/kWh collected to support power conservation in Massachusetts - what conservation measures (by consumers) are receiving most of the funding?
Comment
4 of 39
December 12, 2007
Douglas,
Yes, solar arrays degrade over time. Most have 25 year warranties that they will generate at least 80% of the rated watts under standard test conditions.
So yes, they are something like roofs, a part of the house that needs to be replaced periodically every 25 to 40 years.
Comment
5 of 39
December 12, 2007
Although I agree that coal and oil currently pay only a fraction of their real cost, your statement that nuclear costs 50c/KwH is just crazy.
Where in the world do you get that figure from?
I am not so familiar with the US, but in Europe some of the cheapest electricity is in France from their nuclear.
Sure, there are some subsidies there, but even if you allow generous estimates for the cost of environmental damage in mining the uranium and so on you sitll only come out to maybe 10c/KwH or so on, and carbon emissions are minimal
Comment
6 of 39
December 12, 2007
You all seem to be missing the HUGE incentives given to Nuclear and fossil fules. Solar and Wind are very low cost if you look at the real cost. Add in the pollution and water use and solar is very low cost.

It's the incentives on dirty centralized power that are the problem. The same for oil. It gets big incentive, tax breaks and don't pay to clean it's spills or pollution. If you can see the real cost and full cost it's very clear.

Oil costs over $7 a gallon to make gasoline. If you look at Europe and the rest of the wold they all pay $7 to 10 a galln.

Electricity in the USA made from Nuclear cost over 50 cents a KwH. Just read the G8 summit talks on the rela cost. How much is the life of a coal miner ? Subsidies are bad. Stop all of them and we will clearly see the answers.
Comment
7 of 39
December 12, 2007
My suggestion for valuating solar homes is to use carbon credits. Since the political and environmental entities all are using carbon credits as a form of currency, the real estate associations can translate the "carbon footprint" of a home or business into a value added dollar figure.

Lee Fellows
Fellows Research Group, Inc.
Comment
8 of 39
December 12, 2007
Jim Duncan ~ In a BIPV solar system, you need to look at the "whole system" to get the total cost. In addition to the solar array and inverter, there is the enclosure package AND the roof structure. What we have created is a total roof system with a PV option. In addition to PV, it has the option of passive solar, hybrid passive solar, transparency and solar lighting as options. When the PV is included, its projected cost is virtually the same as a current conventionally built roof without solar. We have been successfully building its predecessors around the world for over 30 years including one of the largest hybrid solar structures in America.
Comment
9 of 39
December 12, 2007
Note that there is a similar fee on electricity used to fund conservation efforts. This fee is $0.0025/KWH which is about ten times more that the renewable energy fee. This seems appropriate. In NE energy usage is growing way faster than renewable energy is being put online. So conservation is key.
Comment
10 of 39
December 12, 2007
Incentives can be affordable. In MA electricity is $0.19/KWH. Included in that is a fee of 0.0002/KWH (that is 0.02 cents)for solar energy projects. I doubt this small fee is even noticed by the average customer.
This fee allowed the state to give me a $7000 incentive on my $26,000 solar panel system. Without that incentive, it would not be practical for me to get the solar panels. I would say this incentive is at about the right level for this time and current pricing of solar panels.
To me, it seems right to have a fee built into the cost of electricity that funds renewable energy projects. If this was increased to $0.01/kwh, many more projects could be supported and the country would be moving in the right direction.
Comment
11 of 39
December 12, 2007
Incentives can be a double edged sword. In MA for many years there have been incentives for CFL (curly bulbs). These incentives have been around $1 or $2 for many years. This was a help when the price of the bulbs was $6 to $10. However, as the price started to drop, the incentives actually kept the price high. The retail chains could have sold the bulbs for $1 or $2 each, but then the bulbs would be free. This was too cheap. So the price was increased to $3 to $4 and the incentives when into the pockets of HomeDepot. Incentives can be difficult.
Comment
12 of 39
December 12, 2007
Why not build solar elsewhere and just derive the benefit for the homeowner. It would have to cost more to put in on the roof vs. on optimal wasteland. Then the homeowner can use the internet and google-earth to keep track of their investment. Would economies of scale enhance the performance and pay the lease and maintenance. I am looking for help to do exactly such a thing.
Comment
13 of 39
December 12, 2007
Aren't "incentives" what the status quo used to stop solar's 70's progress in order to protect the misguided capital of the hydrocarbon/nuclear complex? And today, don't subsidy advocates understand that the status quo knows that what is happening now with WaMu could also happen to them for roughly the same reasons: misinvestment; excessive risk involvement; and failure to adapt to real world conditions, climate change, peak oil, petro-"blackmail" politics and the collapse of the petro-dollar?

As then, tax incentives and "solar" public education are tools to manipulate natural energy's next demise. The capital and propaganda capacity behind "PR" that promotes (nuclear) hydrogen, a "nuclear renaissance, new "greening" oil companies and the truly insane geo-engineering projects to stop global warming will continue to fake blindness despite Gaia's war on us all and until the new Gaian aesthetics gain appeal. At $90+ oil, why can't solar just say "no" to government help?
Comment
14 of 39
December 12, 2007
You are absolutely right about "not selling it as an expense." It should be viewed in two ways. 1) An amortized _investment_, just like any add on/remodeling project. 2) We know that energy costs _are_ going to go up. By "freezing" a cost at todays prices, we can get a "return on investment," that can be estimated and used.
It's just like proper insulation, it avoids future costs, at an easily estimated current price. Done right, it could even be "sold" as making "payments of $X/year" to the homeowner. Everyone likes to hear that they are getting the equivalent of $N back, each year.
Comment
15 of 39
December 12, 2007
"The cell/array plus inverter constitute less than 1/3rd of the cost of a BIPV solar system."
HUH?
This I gotta see...
Jim Duncan
North Texas Renewable Energ
Comment
16 of 39
December 12, 2007
An excellent article James.
But to address why we don't promote the "peak-load offset" benefit of PV in Texas is simply due to the fact that without time-of-use metering, every kilowatt hour purchased from a utility, during a billing period, is worth the same "average" cost.
Texas residents don't benefit from offsetting those expensive mid-day kW hrs since the utility selling the power refuses to distinguish one from a cheap 2:00 AM kW hr. The cost benefit of that strategy falls exclusively to the utility who must pay the peak-load premium, and not the customer who pays an "average" cost.
But, with "Nodal Pricing" in our (ERCOT region) near future, that should change.
Jim Duncan
North Texas Renewable Energy
Comment
17 of 39
December 12, 2007
Doug Smyth ~ as a member of the National Durability Council, I can assure you that virtually every part of a home degrades over time. Fortunately, the solar array will outlast most current roofing systems. With our BIPV solar roof, we are using a "roofing" cover over the array to protect it as well as to concentrate the light. Our history of using it has shown it to outlast the projected life of the array. In addition, we have designed the ROS~e so that the top cover as well as the array can easily be snapped off and a new array and/or cover snapped into place in just a few minutes time. Try that will a conventional roof and/or solar panel.
Comment
18 of 39
December 12, 2007
The fact that PV output generally correlates with electric power demand and cost (especially in the sunbelt) is an economic factor that has indeed been underrated in the renewable energy marketplace. In practice, this means that solar is more often displacing costly peak power rather than artificially cheap baseload coal and nuclear. The technology and data are available for utilities to build the "effective price at time of delivery" into the electric rates paid to producers as well as billed to consumers, in systems that could be deployed alongside demand response management. Could a market-based system such as this be a constructive alternative to politically determined feed-in tarrifs? As grid-connected renewable (and intermittent) sources such as solar and wind become more prevalent, the ability to deliver power matched to demand will be an increasingly important consideration for utilities.
Comment
19 of 39
December 12, 2007
It is unclear how soon technology will come into play and drop the installation costs down to levels where per watt installation costs will be capitalistically competitive.
I would like to see the $20/1$ appraisal tool adopted by all state appraisal groups. Unsure how this would transpire. Many folks do not want to sell their homes, so this is not the key selling point for getting solar on their roof.
Working within your local SEIA or other solar organizations or at least supporting them is essential to this process. Every system we install empowers this process. In the end, every one of us must be actively out pushing new sales to justify the R and D new manufacturing facilities various folks are dumping huge capital into. So while the incentives are a two sided sword, I will keep propounding upon them until as such time as is necessary for our industry's rapid growth to mature into compeditiveness.
Comment
20 of 39
December 12, 2007
As a member of the CoSeia Policy Group (Colorado) we have been actively working on this for some time. Colorado has some of the best Incentives in the US however they have proven to be fragile, as indicated by the current Resource Plan being proposed by XCEL Energy. We are diligently working to get a Inverted Tier tariff through the CoPUC, state wide net metering and other mechanisms that will stabilize the industry. As a means of capitalizing our industry in a rapid manor, these incentives, including the Federal Investment Tax credits, are essential. As a stabilizing factor, they are a problem in the fluctuating political environment.
Comment
21 of 39
December 12, 2007
A vast market is virtually untapped in the US - residential solar thermal.
http://www.sparksdata.co.uk/refocus/fp_showdoc.asp?docid=18543643&accnum=1&topics=
The pdf here is well worth downloading.
Here is a European perspective:
http://www.estif.org/index.php?id=46&backPID=2&pS=1&tt_news=130
Around 15% of homes in Austria now have this installed, and a lot in the hotter climate of Israel, so you could get around 50% of hot water requirements in most climatic regions in the US, and contributions to heating in the colder regions.
All with proven technology.
Comment
22 of 39
December 12, 2007
This is a great argument. I have only one small question: don't solar arrays degrade over time? Therefore, can they be counted as part of the house, or are they something, like roofs, that need to be replaced periodically? If so, counting them as a capital asset may not work so well in reality.
Comment
23 of 39
December 12, 2007
Incentives/subsidies will soon only be necessary for low income families. The cell/array plus inverter constitute less than 1/3rd of the cost of a BIPV solar system. At the request of a director at DOE, we have redesigned the Rest-Of-the-System with built-in concentrators so that the net cost on new construction is projected to be the same cost as a current non-solar roof system. For the do-it-yourselfer, the retrofit version will be at 40% of current installed cost. We are currently in the process of raising funds to bring this universal (all manufacturers' product can be adapted to fit within it) solar system to market.
Comment
24 of 39
December 12, 2007
cont.

Personally, I would put a windmill on my roof if it would help end foreign oil dependency, never mind the ugliest solar aray, it just doesn't matter anymore as we face far more serious issues than ever before when it comes to our oil dependency. People are fed up, just look at the hybrid vehicle industry to see that factor come to light. These cars for the most part are more expensive, and few if any will actually see a return on their additional investment, yet people still purchase them, so this is how I see industry changing, it is the people's mindsets on energy which is driving them, not just the money as it always revolved around in the past. This is what we need more than gov. incentives, we need people to get educated.
Comment
25 of 39
December 12, 2007
cont.

Solar is one of the best answers for energy, I agree, but only if gov. incentives are not the only reason it is considered as has been the pattern for years. Certainly, some areas are more likely to make economic sense than others, but we really do need to look forward, not back when making an investment in solar. Fortunately, the GREEN movement is finally getting momentum, and people are making choices on energy conservation that would never have considered it a few years ago, so we are making progress, through education, not just gov. incentives.

cont.
Comment
26 of 39
December 12, 2007
cont.

In regards to solar adding value, this is an issue, but with all issues such as this, there is no clear cut method on how to appraise a home with solar vs. without as you point out. I can say this though, times are changing, and so are attitudes on solar.

In the past, a home with solar was a dual edge sword when it came to appraisals or actual selling price. I our NE area, for the most part solar were considered an eys sore, hence, it carried with it, a penalty in value, not what one would expect, but reality is, most people don't like the look of solar panels on roof of homes. Fortunately, we are moving away from the aray of panels, so the acceptance of solar should improve as will the values of homes, but it takes time to change the mind of the average consumer.

cont.
Comment
27 of 39
December 12, 2007
Interesting,

I agree with what you are saying, I was put out of business in the alternative energy industry when energy rebates were eliminated, so I know first hand that you cannot go into business counting on the gov. to supplement your business.

cont.
Comment
28 of 39
December 12, 2007
It is definitely a good idea to sell Solar Energy Installations explaining it as an Investment that pays back and earns some more.It is also a good idea to persuade the Larger builders to sell Housing with Alternative Energy Supply coupled with the Public Grid as one of the Features of every Project.The RE companies can offer Quantity Discounts in rates and quickly become financially sustainable propositions and eventually will be able to withstand the inevitable withdrawal of the incentives.
Comment
29 of 39
December 12, 2007
Solar power is the real biggest source for humanity. we will get power and we will be in a position to solve Energy related limitaions. Solar Energy still needs a lot of support ...we are for this Energy...
But now we areplanting Jatropha to get oil which is non-edible to transesterify into biodiesel.
Solar is eternal...
S.A.Alagarsamy
www.mgrbiodiesel.com
India
Comment
30 of 39
December 13, 2007
When the author speaks of tax incentives (and the desire to forgo them), is he including the avoidance of increased property taxes due to the capital improvement that the PV installation represents? In other words, would he have a problem if the value of a PV installation was added to the assessed value of a house, thereby increasing the property tax on it? This is one of the incentives currently available for homeowners who install PV on Long Island. Without it, I don't think anyone but the wealthiest would go for it.
Comment
31 of 39
December 13, 2007
First I've heard of attic fans! Great idea, and economic, which most retrofit ideas aren't.
On a similar note, I recently came across the idea of drainpipe heat recovery:
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Drain_Heat_Exchanger
If you want to install them for all your how water, you would need to have a separate storage tank, but not to recover hot water heat in the shower, as you are running and draining at the same time.
As a retrofit, it actually has a payback in less than the life of the universe!
Comment
32 of 39
December 13, 2007
PV power is still expensive for many, and most are still not familiar with all existent incentives of, or simply know too litle about solar PV realistic advantages if installed on the roof of their homes. Solution: you do not have to cover all of your energy needs with Solar. You can start with a smaller installed PV power, i.e., just enough to make an atic fan work:

http://www.solarnet.org/AtticFan.htm

Then, as your finances improve, and you gain confidence in the solar PV, you can progressively add more PV modules, for other smaller applications (e.g., make your swimming pool pump work) before deciding to go for more power, and eventually connect to the grid thereafter.
Comment
33 of 39
December 14, 2007
If you are a business enterprise you can hown your small power plant with 100% financing using solar energy.
You do not need help grom utility or Goverment.

g.negrini@gnpimb.com
Comment
34 of 39
December 15, 2007
Like it or not, a government plays a big part in creating or destroying a favorable climate for the uptake of any new energy source. See

http://mtkass.blogspot.com/ "Solar Energy - The government role"
Comment
35 of 39
December 15, 2007
Jim Duncan~

I agree with your argument that one would need TOU metering to see those benefits. However, I believe James was alluding to the production cost as opposed to the consumer price. During peak times it costs the utility more money to produce electricity than in off-peak...which, without TOU, makes no difference on an individual's pocketbook. If enough people 'go solar' in Texas this might help the utilities lower their overall avg. cost of electricity since the majority of solar production occurs on-peak. Either way, standard TOU is definitely needed in Texas.
Comment
36 of 39
December 17, 2007
James the added value approach is a great idea and works
for your investment savvy clients, but the most difficult
area I come across is the Real Estate professional that frequently states "How come no appraisers are using a conforming formula in the appraisal of Solar Systems
on the home or Commercial property?"

Having spent ten years in Real Estate in Southern California, I understand the Hesitance of the R.E.Professional when it comes to proven value add's.

Any suggestions on proof, documented by California Appraiser groups? It seems to a very gray topic when I approach appraiser with the question. When it comes to appraisers knowledge of solar it is comparable to rolling the dice.
Comment
37 of 39
December 21, 2007
(Part 2)
Ref: Curtis Karmazin's comment on "How come no appraisers are using a conforming formula in the appraisal of Solar Systems on the home or Commercial property?" Great question--I can only guess that there isn't enough sales data to support how solar and other renewable systems installed on properties affect their value. I do have some suggestions for those of you in the real estate business. First of all, does the MLS entries in your market include renewable energy features? If not, I suggest Realtors ask their Boards to add the data as a standard optional feature entry. Appraisers use the MLS (Multiple Listing Service) data for their opinions of value. With California and New York leading the country in PV installations, we should see sales to support (or reject) our theory that PV adds to a property's value.
Comment
38 of 39
December 21, 2007
Added Author Comments. Just a few thoughts on some of the great comments.
Ref: Bryan Brown's comment on solar installations increasing the assessed value of real property and property taxes. I see in dsireusa.org that many states allow a property tax exemption for the improvement value added by a renewable energy package.
Comment
39 of 39
January 17, 2008
<p>to David Martin, As I stated, The cost of Nuclear was determined by the G8 summit when they last met.&nbsp; IE: Electricity in the USA made from Nuclear cost over 50 cents a KwH. Just read the G8 summit talks on the real cost.</p><p>Can you tell us how much it will cost to store nuclear waste for the next 2,000&nbsp; years ?&nbsp; Can you tell us how much it cost to decommission a nuclear plants ? Our 3 nuclear plants at Palo Verde don't add the cost to build the plant, insure it becuase they can't, decommision the planty or store the waste. Even then it's 5 cents a Kwh just to operate. All 3 reactors were down 1 month this summer at Million of $ cost. They use 25 million gallons of warter&nbsp;a day for each reactor. &nbsp;</p><p>Read articles of actual costs , 20 times estimates <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

The Stella Group, Ltd. Sol Systems LLC RevoluSun Kipp & Zonen FRONIUS USA LLC  Solar Electronics Division SkyFuel SolSolution
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters