Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#61

Post by umsm »

steven2012 wrote: post #34
michielvoo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you factor in an increase of the price of your home when you sell it?

I would guess there is likely no increase in house price, especially for current solar panels. If I live in the house for the next 10+ years, it's questionable what value a 10-15 year old solar panel array will have, especially if the next owner will need to either change them out or remove them in 5-10 years

I'll argue that even in 15 years, you will not need to pay for labor to install and setup the system. Swapping out the old panels with newer, more efficient, and cheaper panels may be less than half compared to installing the entire system from scratch.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#62

Post by marvin »

JRobertson wrote: post #35
steven2012 wrote: post #10

I'm super excited about the promise of solar panels, because my house has unobstructed exposure to the sun, and I live in the Bay Area, so we get sunshine 300+ days per year. However, every time I revisit the math, it never works out. Even if I purchase it myself, the payoff times are never less than around 17-20 years, depending on how aggressive I project the rise in electricity rates. Given that solar panels have…

If you're sincerely interested in solar panels you should look into doing it yourself. It's not as complicated as many of the solar retailers want to make it out to be. Step 1) Buy panels direct with mounts Step 2) Mount the panels yourself. They aren't super heavy, just fragile. The tricky part here is measuring and drilling the holes you need to get them secured to your roof properly. Or buying a slanted frame if y…

Isn't there a good, cheap solar tracking system available yet? Seems like you are leaving a lot of money on the table by not keeping a ~90 degree angle with the sun at most times during the day.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#63

Post by miahi »

rwmj wrote: post #12

Does anyone know if this includes the inverter? I just built an office which has 4x3m of roof on which I could easily put panels (fit them myself, I don't need someone to do that). But the cost of the inverter has put me off, and there doesn't seem to be any alternative way to power computers from it. Ideally I'd have a battery and 12V supply just to power the computers and gadgets, I don't need full mains voltage, n…

Depending on hardware, you can get a PicoPSU or similar ATX power supply at ~$50, but they are usually limited to 160-200W - so no fancy quad core desktop CPU or powerful graphics, but 200W is plenty for a normal PC.

Some LED displays also have an external power brick - if that's 12V then you can wire them to your grid. Unfortunately most of them will have higher voltage to reduce wire costs and losses.

If you can replace at least part of the AC power with 12V DC power, you can then buy a lower power (cheaper) inverter for the AC power.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#64

Post by kamjam »

bborud wrote: post #33
walshemj wrote: post #8

The problem is that this is a tax dodge for rich middle class people - at one time selling your solar energy back to the grid you got 8% return for 20 years guaranteed by the government. Even after the scheme was amended its a nice little subsidy for richer people it's the poor sods on key/coin meters that are paying for this.

I find it disheartening that every technology that takes us in the right direction, but which is not yet cost effective, is constantly pissed on by people who expect immediate solutions and who fail to see that these things are not going to develop themselves. Sure, it is a tax dodge for rich middle class people, but if people could just keep their envy in check for the decade or two it is going to take to bring cost…

There was a great TED Talk by Elon Musk. He says every new product needs to go through at least 3 iterations before becoming mass market, and Tesla is currently at iteration 2.

http://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_mind_behind_tesla_spa...

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#65

Post by fooqux »

polshaw wrote: post #31
fooqux wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting your information? What assumptions are you making here? It looks to me that coal is one of the cheapest forms of generating electricity there currently is. [1] [1]: http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/

I believe xbryanx was referring to the externalities (ie the costs arising from pollution, global warming, etc that traditionally go unpaid by the producer) rather than just the financial cost of producing the power.

Perhaps. But you don't hear about those things with the green power alternatives, either. Like, for instance, the pollutants created when manufacturing solar panels, or the amount of energy consumed in making them and safely disposing of them every 15 years or so. I'm not going to cite any articles here, because at my knowledge level, it's near impossible to separate the biased articles on topics like this. But a simple search for "pollutants from making solar panels" will garner some things to read about it.

I suppose I should say at this point that I'm all for green, cleaner energy, and wouldn't go so far as to say I'm "pro coal". I do, however, think that living in Michigan (which is lucky to have a single sunny day a week) makes me a tad pessimistic about using solar to power my house. I'm well aware that it makes more sense in places that can practically guarantee sunny days 6/7 days a week, but the TCO will need to improve massively for it to make sense in my region.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#66

Post by fancyketchup »

steven2012 wrote: post #57
ChuckMcM wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, that seems broken. I installed 5.2KW of panels on the roof of my Bay Area home in 2002, at the time panels were a lot more expensive but the subsidies were better too, I ended up paying just about $20,000 for the complete system (after rebates and with all parts, labor etc). The system is grid tied (meaning it feeds back into the grid) and we switched our billing to a watt for watt basis (not time of use as my…

http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/tools/clean_power_estimator... Using this calculator, pick a zip code in the Peninsula, I put in a 4000 watt system, estimate my bill to be $200/month, assume 2.5% increase in electricity prices per year, and assume I pay in cash. This gives me a 15 year payback period. At $100/month, it's a 24 year payback period.

I don't have a PV system, but I know people who do, so take this with a grain of salt: The default assumptions in that calculator are probably a little wrong.

First I think most people are paying closer to $5 per Watt, and I know someone who just refinanced his house in Long Beach at 3.5%, fixed. For comparison, the calculator assumes $10 per watt, and 8%. If you use halve the installed cost, there is obviously a big effect on the payback period (down to 6.5 years with tax incentives).

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#67

Post by qwerta »

spongle wrote: post #54
qwerta wrote: post #32

I find this article bit too skeptical. Solar panels improved a lot in recent years, and you can break even with investment even in UK without subsidies. My friend in Czech Republic is a software developer. He works from home and his house is not connected to grid. He has 12-volt house grid with dozen car batteries. His office has 2 LED screens. Everything is powered by solar energy, except once a week he runs a gener…

I could do the same myself and certainly will next year. The only appliance I have that consumes mega power is the washing machine. I've got a gas Aga that can be converted to solid fuel if need be and provides most of the heating as well and the only other things already work on 12v. I don't own a toaster, dryer, kettle, microwave or massive television. I have LED lighting everywhere as well and have programmed my f…

Most electronics use low-voltage DC internally. You only need DC-DC converter with stabilizer to run 32" TV. My friend also has microwave and fridge, all 12V.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#68

Post by objclxt »

teamonkey wrote: post #5

> Photovoltaic panel systems costing £5,200 ($9,212) With the exchange rate at 1.62 USD to the GBP, I can't imagine how they got that dollar figure. Remember that UK prices include sales tax @20%, so that puts the retail price at about USD$7000 pre-tax.

> Remember that UK prices include sales tax @20%

Solar panels are charged only 5% VAT, not 20%.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#69

Post by ansible »

marvin wrote: post #62
JRobertson wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're sincerely interested in solar panels you should look into doing it yourself. It's not as complicated as many of the solar retailers want to make it out to be. Step 1) Buy panels direct with mounts Step 2) Mount the panels yourself. They aren't super heavy, just fragile. The tricky part here is measuring and drilling the holes you need to get them secured to your roof properly. Or buying a slanted frame if y…

Isn't there a good, cheap solar tracking system available yet? Seems like you are leaving a lot of money on the table by not keeping a ~90 degree angle with the sun at most times during the day.

Good, cheap, reliable? Not that I know of. Mounting costs are higher too; you something like a post in concrete to attach the panel, rather than just screw it to your roof.

People are still working on that sort of thing. An interesting system I saw a few years back was one based on the sunlight heating up a fluid. The fluid (maybe it was a gas) expands a cylinder that keeps the panel pointed at the sun. At night, the fluid cools, and the system resets to its default state, pointing east for the next day. So 100% mechanical, without any active control.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#70

Post by ChuckMcM »

steven2012 wrote: post #57
ChuckMcM wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, that seems broken. I installed 5.2KW of panels on the roof of my Bay Area home in 2002, at the time panels were a lot more expensive but the subsidies were better too, I ended up paying just about $20,000 for the complete system (after rebates and with all parts, labor etc). The system is grid tied (meaning it feeds back into the grid) and we switched our billing to a watt for watt basis (not time of use as my…

http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/tools/clean_power_estimator... Using this calculator, pick a zip code in the Peninsula, I put in a 4000 watt system, estimate my bill to be $200/month, assume 2.5% increase in electricity prices per year, and assume I pay in cash. This gives me a 15 year payback period. At $100/month, it's a 24 year payback period.

Not that anyone would do it this way, but that calculator got me thinking. Often I have heard home affordability expressed as dollars per month vs dollars financed. So for example this worked example of a $200,000 mortgage [1] has a $1553.45 monthly payment, so for each $1 per month you got $124.24 of house. Does that make sense?

If so, now consider that your $200/month electricity bill is the equivalent of $124.24 x $200 or $24,847 worth of "house".

Our actual bills were $250 - $300/month pre-panels and effectively about $15/month post panels. In terms of money returned by 7 years we had paid less in electricity than we had paid for the panels. But that discounts what $20,000 would have been worth if we had invested it (that is the 'do nothing' alternative since you aren't really considering putting that money under a mattress :-) And of course we also made our house more efficient which we would have gotten that pay back either way.

The only downside to our system has been trying to explain to people why it doesn't provide power when the power is off.

[1] http://hfa3741.hubpages.com/hub/How-Much-Does-a-200-000-Hous...

Post reply on HN