more articles like this

Tell them you found them on Edhat!
www.edhat.com/referrals

Solar Power
updated: Feb 25, 2011, 3:45 PM

Quite a few Santa Barbarans are apparently interested in solar power, and I am among them.

Maybe some edHat readers will have answers to a few solar questions:

What experiences have you had with local solar installations and contractors?

Is there anyplace closer than Ventura that has a good selection of deep-cycle batteries?

And what kinds of batteries are best, while we're at it?

Are there any local groups, clubs, demonstration projects, classes, or anything else that can help people get started with solar energy?

Places People Are Talking About:

California Solar Electric

What People Are Saying:

COMMENT 149062	2011-02-25 04:26 PM
Solar is not economically viable without large government subsidies/rebates. Installing solar at this point is equivalent to being a welfare queen, though with an added air of smug.
COMMENT 149080	2011-02-25 04:51 PM
My energy bill is also $1 a month but I have a big fricken water tower dwarfing my house. My neighbor Bruce has also filed several complaints with the city.
COMMENT 149089	2011-02-25 05:06 PM
they have deep cycle marine batterys at costco that are the same price as a car battery, not sure if they will work but watched a utube vid were a guy used them for his own homemade setup.
COMMENT 149106P	2011-02-25 05:49 PM
Here is a very interesting article about how solar was implemented with such success in Germany, by a very humble, open-minded man. link
COMMENT 149112P	2011-02-25 06:01 PM
I already endorsed California Solar Electric on the prior post. They are excellent. As for the "welfare queen" comment, government incentives for solar have the added benefit of lowering the need to build new utility plants down the line, and of course, being such a brilliant economist (from your Reagan citation) you must understand that initial incentives help to create "economies of scale" from lower panel costs to more competition among installers. It's a useful form of stimulus. Certainly pales in comparison to the corn farm subsidies and military manufacturer subsidies and of course bank bailouts. Funny how Reagan didn't call the Savings and Loan bailout recipients "welfare queens"!
COMMENT 149147	2011-02-25 07:40 PM
As the poster of these questions, thank you for the answers so far. As it happens, the power went out here in San Roque shortly after the post, and it's still out. The energy running the computer I'm typing on now has power only because it's hooked up to a cheap inverter and a good battery that I've kept alive with a solar kit from the auto parts store. It's primitive, but extremely useful tonight. Now I'd like enough solar and battery power to run a room heater.
COMMENT 149202	2011-02-26 07:52 AM
Please excuse my ignorance because my knowledge of electric power is limited and as for "Google" I am not sure where to begin. I always understood that the power supplied to my house by the electric company was "alternating" current and that the transmission lines were high voltage low amperage which was stepped down by transformers to provide 220 volts but lots of Amperage for the household useage (30 amps ?) My questions are: How do solar panels, which seem to provide direct current rather than alternating current 1. match up with my household use, appliances and circuitry and 2. How does that solar generated current feed back into the alternating current system through a "reverse meter" if it is direct curent?
COMMENT 149213	2011-02-26 08:25 AM
Power inverters (one large or one per panel) convert the direct current from the panels to alternating current to match the amplitude and phase of the power grid. Your home probably has a 125 Amp or larger service, though you may use far less. Check your electric bill over several months. You mean 'reverse metering' - any excess power generated will cause your power meter to run backwards, lowering your electric bill. You could possibly reduce your bill to zero, but in CA the utility will not pay you beyond that.
COMMENT 149226	2011-02-26 08:46 AM
@149213-didn't the law change with the net metering and now the utilities will pay you for extra generation?
COMMENT 149232	2011-02-26 08:53 AM
The solar powered marine battery that I used to run my computer during the blackout last night was connected to an inexpensive ($30) box called an inverter. It has red and black cables with battery clips on one end, and two AC outlets on the other end. It converts DC to AC nicely. It, too, came from an auto parts store. How the pros hook up solar to the grid and a reverse meter is far, far beyond my knowledge. I hope more Ed answers turn up here. It's sunny again. I'm hauling the battery, which weighs almost 50 pounds, back out to the yard to connect it to the solar panel on my back fence. There has to be a better way. Maybe Costco has what I'm looking for to expand and improve this thing.
COMMENT 149233	2011-02-26 08:53 AM
Yes, the power company now is required to pay for 'overage' produced IF you request it. Regarding battery storage units. There is one already produced and used: An electric car. You don't have to purchase batteries just to 'keep' your energy for yourself.
COMMENT 149242P	2011-02-26 09:25 AM
People who say solar's payback isn't viable for 10-15 years are using old data. #1: The prices have been and continue to decline. With gas at near $4 a gallon and rising, and the ability to charge your car at night at a very low rate and then sell power to the electric company during the day at 7 times the rate, the pay back could be as low as five years.
COMMENT 149251	2011-02-26 09:41 AM
A cost/benefit analysis needs to consider ALL factors, such as the stimulus effect mentioned by others and environmental effects of panel manufacture and use, life-span, etc. compared to that for other forms of power generation. Coal-fired plants need coal and there are currently major battles that highlight the environmental damage of mountain-top removal in coal mining such as at the Spruce #1 mine in West Virginia (and too many others not in the news). Transporting coal has environmental costs as well. I don't have the analysis, yet that may be available via the internet. Most 'cost analyses' ignore environmental and human costs (deaths from coal mining, air pollution). The true cost of nuclear waste must be accounted for - it is currently an environmental nightmare.
COMMENT 149252P	2011-02-26 09:45 AM
These numbers should say it all: 1. 5100-Watt inverter with 28 solar panels. 2. 2100-sq-ft home with 4 person household. 3. We are "light happyt" and have 2 frigs. 4. PG&E rate E-6 5. Engergy charges (+)/credits (-) Jul 2010: -$71 Aug 2010: -$109 Sep 2010: -$109 Oct 2010: -$84 Nov 2010: -$39 Dec 2010: -$10 Jan 2011: +$12 Feb 2011: -$12 Total PG&E owes us going into Mar 2011: $420.
COMMENT 149260P	2011-02-26 09:58 AM
Considering all factors we should also consider the cost of maintaining oil imports from the middle-east. We have had to send land armies into Kuwat, Iraq, Afganistan, etc. If we did not need to have this kind of foreign policy for ensuring our energy future, I doubt we would have found these wars in our nation interests. When you think of it that way, the cost of solar is far-and-away cheaper. Getting off oil is in our national interest and in the best interest of every family with children who will have to fight the future wars, not to mention the nation budget problems these wars are causing.
COMMENT 149343	2011-02-26 02:39 PM
The generation analysis by 149252P is impressive, if true, but what was the cost of the solar system (and installation) they had to spend that enables them to sell $420.00 of surplus electricity back to P.G.&E.? My second concern is that if large nmbers of people start generating surplus electricity that P.G.&E. must buy up, then the amount they are paying for it is bound to plummet. That is because they are now paying you $420.00 for that surplus electricity because that is the market price for all the vast amounts of electricity that they are now selling to all non-solar (non-alternative) energy producers to whom they furnish service. If large numbers of independent surplus producers were to pentetrate the market the price of enegy to the non-producers would have to sky-rocket to cover the overhead and profit of P.G.&E. while the prices to independent surplus generators would likely fall.
COMMENT 149345P	2011-02-26 02:58 PM
Repy to 149343: I don't know how much my solar system cost because it was built into the home new in 2007 and I bought the home new in 2009 as an REO. However, prices have changed and are changing steadily on the cost of these systems as the price goes down. I wouldn't be surprized if my system today would be somewhere between $20,000 and $25,000 pre-tax break but you could get an estimate easily enough. Solarponics out of SLO put in the system.
COMMENT 149359	2011-02-26 04:32 PM
Q3. Does SCE pay me money for excess energy I produce? Answer: In accordance with Assembly Bill 920, signed into law on October 11, 2009, NEM customers are eligible to receive compensation for net surplus electricity in 2011. For more information, visit the AB920 page.
COMMENT 149414P	2011-02-27 07:14 AM
No one is more open minded about solar power and wants "the equation" to work more than I. I have been "doing the math" since the 70's and have worked on these projects. I am not a harsh or partisan on the matter. The reason coal/oil/Ng are the standard for energy production and use throughout the world is because it requires less than a gallon of gas to produce a gallon of gas. The ratio has been dropping for decades now but still holds. Solar arrays currently require more than a gallon of "gas" to produce a gallon of gas worth of energy. Its that simple. If the numbers you are laying out here were true, dont you think every rooftop on the planet would be making money on it? Its just not true. We want it to be true so desperately because we know deep down inside that soon it will require more than a gallon of gas to produce a gallon of gas; and I think we all know what that will mean. But wanting something to be true does not change the equation. Neither do government subsidies, empassioned speeches and articles. 2+2=4 not 5. Sorry.
COMMENT 149482	2011-02-27 12:52 PM
Wishing things to be true is one thing. It is the mantra of the glassy eyed liberal "do-gooder" to whom being politically correct is the most important thing there is and they are unequivocally better and know more than the rest of us! The ends, no matter how strongly one believes it is righteous, does no justify the means. and Calling people names, distorting facts, hiding opposing material or even manufacturing statistics and studies to make a point has become acceptable to those who think THEY ARE RIGHT, THEIR CAUSE IS THE MOST JUST and they are not interested in what anyone else has to say. In their myopic view, everthing has to be "green" to be "sustainable" and they know the only way to save the world!
COMMENT 149495P	2011-02-27 02:28 PM
Reply to 149414P and 149482: Speaking of backing up your view with research, your view seems to be quite short on research. On the other hand, take a look at this research: http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Cheap_solar_energy_set_to_displace_n-power_999.html
COMMENT 149573P	2011-02-28 07:23 AM
495P, please do not try to lump me in with people here trying to make political points. I am not political and do not make judgements on anyone here as to their motivations for wanting solar power. I merely am telling you that I and many many others have done the research and crunched the numbers for over 30 years now and the equation, simple as it is, does not work for solar. You want me to do the research for you and I will not. I come from a generation that says: "Never tell someone "something can not be done" while they are in the middle of doing it" So maybe you will be the one to break all the rules of physics or find a loophole in the equation to make it all work. I could dump serious technical journals on you from MIT, Cambridge, Stanford,...etc. but that would be cheating and do you no good. I read your url article and it is an ad from companies trying to sell you something, no serious research. All you have to do is show me a single example of solar being used on a widespread basis by a poorer nation without any government subsidy. Thats all I need to see and I will know that someone has figured out how to make the equation work for solar. Until then, its just a plaything for rich people to spend money on thinking they are doing something revolutionary, when they are merely taking advantage of subsidies, tax breaks, and such to make the equation work.
COMMENT 330123	2012-10-10 05:37 PM
I've easily put in over 200 solar systems in Santa Barbara. Not one customer has ever told me they are unhappy with their investment. I would say only half of them consider themselves as being "green". The other half, strictly financial motive. Subsidies are tapering off as electric rates rise and solar installations continue to decline in price. Just what the subsidy was designed to do.