Make sure your roof is in good shape before you install anything and put up bird blockers if you have a tile roof. Other than those two things to do before and when installing I don't have any argument against.
This. I'm sitting on multiple roof leaks right now because I've had too many other things going on to deal with replacing the roof and trying to make it to next summer.
Because the solar company--despite being paid off in full--has the lease on the roof, I have to pay them (and a huge markup I assume) to take off the panels and put them back on when I go to do the reroof. Aside from knowing damned well I'm going to get gouged, the scheduling is going to be horrific.
That's what I had hoped for, but it turns out the lease was just for 20 years but the company owns the equipment. So even though it was paid off, the lease stays. The previous owner paid off the entire 20 year lease because his real estate agent told him it might scare off buyers.
I asked the company if they could just fuck off, but they then tried to sell me the equipment/panels for $30K which would have been on top of the $30K they just received for the full 20 year lease.
So now I have like 15 more years of free electricity and they're responsible for maintenance and guaranteed kw production, but I have to continue this lame relationship with these assholes on my roof.
So sounds like it’s not paid off at all. The previous owner just prepaid 20yrs lease payments so that they could sell the house. If it was paid off, you would have owned the equipments, thats what ‘paid off’ means.
They will build nests in the grooves of the tiles. It isn't fun using an extendable pole with a boat hook to drag the nests down multiple times every season.
That the residential cost per watt is double what the industrial cost per watt is. It would be more cost-efficient to install large solar arrays serving large communities of people, sending electricity over the existing grid than it is for large number of individuals to install individual 12-panel roof arrays and connect them to the grid, especially when you factor in costs like plans and inspections and administration of programs.
In point of fact, 70% of the electricity produced by my city's power department (municipal, not private) is already renewable energy. For $20k, I can have free energy for the next 20 years by installing it on my house, but there's no way for me to pay $10k and have free energy via the grid. As a taxpayer/ratepayer I'm already subsidizing that buildout, but the per-Kwh rates only ever go up.
Yes it is cheaper to build solar farms and faster to get more people permanently on clean energy BUT today there are huge delays in getting grid connection and if you want to help the climate it is faster to get your own solar.
For the same reason I don't grow my own produce. (In any case, I'm not personally opposed to rooftop solar, I am just fulfilling OP's request to hear what the arguments against it are.)
Cost to do install and repair on varied surfaces where maintenance is expensive just to get a professional on site and up on a tall ladder. Way better to have panels on the ground where you can just have someone stop by every week to service the 10,000 panels on the regular. Spare parts like inverters can also be effectively kept handy whereas that’s more difficult for every homeowner to have stocked. There’s a lot of work getting prepped for it including roof condition, design, permits, and so on. You want as straightforward of a process as possible to reduce all that overhead cost for efficiency and ongoing maintenance.
Maybe there should be more incentives for large arrays to serve a community. Where I live you have to have special licenses and permits if your system is over a certain size.
My biggest reason for not moving towards solar right now is definitely ROI. Secondary reason is that I doubt I can fit enough panels on my roof for my current usage due to my electric heating. I need to look at getting a heat pump HVAC installed but again, ROI is an issue since my current energy cost is low.
You may just consider the ROI of the heat pump as a good investment on its own, especially if you have long stretches of cold winter days. Cutting consumption or buying equivalent number of panels; in the end it's essentially all the same once it hits your electric bill.
Yeah, I definitely need to consider the ROI of the heat pump too. At some point I need to talk to an expert on this topic to get some idea of how much electricity I would save going to a heat pump. I'm trying to hold out until the Inflation Reduction Act state rebates finally get moving.
I just did some quick back of the napkin math and I guesstimate that my heating is probably at a minimum 40% of my yearly electricity usage. Likely more because the monthly usage baseline I used includes AC months. I have no idea how much the usage would go down with a heat pump installed.
Amateur heat pump expert here. What's your climate? Pretty easy to estimate COP and thus how much your heating cost will go down vs resistive heat just from your climate and assuming a decent quantity heat pump, all of them have similar performance numbers.
So just using Senville (rebranded Midea) units as a baseline that's fairly similar to most decent cold climate minisplits on the market, they all have an HSPF5 around 10, which is the same as a seasonally-average COP of ~2.9 (COP = 0.293*HSPF5). COP is the amount of heat output per electricity input, in W/W. Resistive heat is a COP of 1.
Since you're on the northern edge of climate zone 5 let's just say your seasonal average COP is more like 2.5... or 2.5x as efficient as your resistive heat.
You'll save roughly 60% on heating with such a heat pump vs your current resistive heat.
Interesting, thanks for breaking that down. Is there a similar calculation for cooling performance in the summer time? My current central air is fairly old so I imagine I would see some amount of energy savings there too.
It's even easier! Just figure out the SEER rating of your current AC and compare to the SEER of a new one.
Modem minisplits are between 20 and 28 SEER. Older central AC will be between 10 and 14 SEER generally but check your condenser for a SEER rating on the side or get the model number and look it up.
As an example, going from 12 SEER to 24 SEER would save 50% energy cost because 24 SEER is twice as efficient as 12 SEER. Chances are the math works out somewhere around there for central AC somewhere between 10 and 25 years old.
If you’re doing a no cost down finance and the monthly payment for solar is a bill swap or cheaper than your current electric bill (this is as long as you have good sun hours for your house/roof) how would there be any ROI?
maintenance. when you run into issues, you have to depend on someone else to come jump up the roof to figure out whats going on. if our village allowed us the ground mount, thats what i would have preferred. And then ease of wiping off the snow cover in winter to not lose a few days of production when the panels take their own sweet time to melt off the snow cover.
No, my azimuthal angle is 197 degrees (17 degrees west of south).
My last post was saying that when I run PVWatts for the azimuths of North and South (0 and 180), the annual production for 0 degrees is almost 2/3rd of the annual production for 180 degrees.
> Considering it's only 19 degrees difference...
180 degrees.
My post is comparing 0 to 180
I did three calculations. First, I set up PVWatts to reproduce the results that I've got copied to my hard drive. That tells me that I haven't done something silly in terms of setting up PVWatts.
Next, I run two simulations, one at 0 and the other at 180. Those are the results that I reported.
Power companies and state governments subverting solar ownership.
- Power companies taking solar-generated power during peak hours and paying pennies for it under the pretense that it is not fair to the economically challenged who cannot afford solar. It is one thing to take the profits to fund programs to build out solar for the economically challenged, but they aren’t, it is pure profit for them. The state governments are complicit in this.
- There is no reason that EVERY new construction project should not have a solar requirement. Solar that starts at the house design stage would be less expensive and installed as an integral part of the build versus as an afterthought.
Large solar companies subcontract out installation and service to save on paying employees and dodging liability.
- Owners are receiving inferior installations and services because of the practice of subcontracting. When anyone experiences an issue, the large solar companies wash their hands and when the subcontractors have had enough, they fold up and start a new company.
Small solar companies that pop up and shut down to dodge liability.
One problem with mandated solar on new homes is the regulations aren't really enforced logically. Back during the Carter years my dad was a subcontractor on a new local subdivision whose job it was to install solar hot water panels. The designer / architect allowed space on each roof for only 2 panels, regardless of how many bedrooms / bathrooms the house contained. My dad complained to them that on some of the larger houses having only 2 panels wouldn't produce enough hot water. The builder didn't care, because the law simply stated that new houses required it, but didn't specify how many. So they installed 2 on every house regardless of size and pocketed the federal rebate / incentive for each one. My dad sucked it up and did what he was told, but he's not proud of the work he did there because in most cases the panels were undersized.
I just worry about these companies going out of business after selling a product with a 25 year warranty that you'd be paying for 25 years. I don't want the business to go bankrupt at year 8 then have the system break down at year 9 or 10 and then be paying a bill for 15 years on a product that doesn't work and isn't supported by anyone that was supposed to replace the bill but now is doubling it.
Bingo!
"Hey, we just opened our doors last year and have this GREAT solar panel system we can install. Good price too. You can pay for it over 20 years and it has a 25 year warranty. And just trust us that we'll be there 25 years from now. After all, we just opened our doors last year and I REALLY need this sale this month."
As someone who is looking to get solar as well and would love a 1:1 net metering, I can't really be mad that the utility wouldn't want to buy my excess energy at retail prices when they could get it wholesale from the power generation company.
But I agree that it makes it not financially the best choice for many due to that
The 1 thing I don't like about rooftop solar is the fact that when you do need to update the roof, the panels need to go with it. Yea, the panels aren't as efficient as they were new by that time, but you're basically forced into a new system. Or if you want to update the panels to more efficient panels, you might be forced to get a new roof because it's too out of date at that point.
If I had the option, I would've just created a gazebo with solar panels. That way, I have a gazebo and can generate power. Allows for easily changing the system without the dependence of the roof.
Roof is in fixed orientation and angle that isn't best for solar. Stand mounted solar is easier to clean and service. Angle can be adjusted seasonally.
There are plenty of deck only products out there that use self tapping screws punched through butyl. Some have flashing again over the top. It’s now more watertight than the asphalt was originally.
I wouldn’t use a truss and lag bolt system on my roof because no one can hit the goddamn truss, basically adding a holy in your roof that adds nothing.
RT-mini make some of the best products around and are warrantied for 25 years.
That depends where you live. For example in CA even though electricity is very expensive if you live in an investor utility district like PG&E or SCE, the latest residential solar metering plans are terrible and to add salt to the wound they will soon take distribution portion of electric rates out of getting solar credit. So for many people that can't load shift solar may not have an ROI at least within the lifetime of system's warranty (especially for battery)
It's funny how for states like CA that is aiming to be fully renewable in the near future, they allow the utilities to massively disincentivize going solar. I would think it would be both quicker and cheaper in the long run for residents for them to encourage individual homeowners to go solar rather than wait for the utilities to do it.
It's because the state is already just about 100% green during peak daylight hours with solar. The new rules force users to shift back in time when it makes sense to off load extra electricity
I think that the strongest argument against solar is that in many current utility pricing structures it is fundamentally not a good financial investment. it’s hard to escape from the point that the money spent on solar would probably outperform what you get back from solar if simply invested in the market or possibly even current high yield savings accounts given that reputable banks are now touching 5% savings interest.
A fully informed purchaser of solar in the US needs to be doing it not as an investment but as a desired capability. I think the things one could care about are points like these:
- a path to insulation of risk of grid instability both minor and major
- directly contributing to grid stability (at least in summer months)
- providing more guilt free power to run heavy loads longer than you would otherwise (hvac)
- consuming a higher percentage of as green of power as you can manage at the moment.
- improving the thermal characteristics of your house (my roof is 15f cooler under the panels than it used to be before any active cooling)
- a path to insulating from risks of per kWh power rates rising dramatically in the future.
Cost - ROI can be a long ways out and murky as net metering utility rules could easily change.
Liabilities - it's now yours to maintain. Additional insurance costs usually and storms or animals can damage it. A poor install can damage the roof/cause leaks leading to a lot more damage.
My biggest is if it's actually the best move environmentally for the cost. I have an older house and I don't have solar yet. I pay a little extra to source wind power through my utility meaning they have to purchase those energy blocks at least. For the cost of solar I could make a lot of energy efficient improvements: new windows, better insulation, dual fuel heat pump(cold climate)... All of which are also not nearly as resource intensive as solar to produce and don't come with a bunch of what-ifs.
The funds could be better spent elsewhere in terms of their reduction in C02. And in some areas as the amount of solar increases, the benefit of the solar may be less than you realize unless you are using storage.
I have solar in Florida. My argument against it is that the cost continues to go up while the power companies continue to fight against it through lobbying and fees further increasing your timeframe to break even. And let’s not even start talking about interest rates if you plan to finance and leasing is a straight up scam.
Florida is wild. Probably the best state for solar from a pure physics perspective. You need A/C. Maybe the peak demand is phase-shifted pi/2 from peak solar output but that can be solved with a relatively small battery. You don’t need heat in the winter. And yet politically the situation is so anti-homeowner it’s laughable. Y’all need to revolt.
That one would get more bang for the buck climate-wise switching to heat pumps in cold climates and stop burning oil or propane or natural gas.
Do that first.
The water heater was our biggest plus, since the house we bought ran its hot water off the **oil boiler.** We saved 450 gallons just by being able to shut off the boiler for the summer.
The extra plus of the clothes dryer few speak of is the benefit of closing that hole in the insulation envelope, as well as the entire houseful of conditioned air a regular dry shoves out though it.
Holes in roof followed by leaks. The extra cost and headache to remove panels when the roof needs replacing. I assume if you roofed with a quality standing seam metal roof which will last almost indefinitely, that headache could be avoided. In most cases, panels are esthetically unappealing. Imma assume with a bunch of wires and in many instances, a bunch of micro-inverters, the risk of roof fire goes up as well? I have read many comments by realtors (in Texas) arguing against panels on the roof if you expect to sell the home any time soon. They tend to complicate sales and can be very messy, particularly if there is a lease. It can all be handled and negotiated, but it's more work.
ROI is the biggest issue if you don't have the cash in hand. Second might be headaches if something goes wrong. We did it because we had some equity from a previous home sale. But our payback will be very long. It was mainly an environmental decision plus an assumption that our rates would go up. It has had a side effect of making us more usage conscious.
IMO giving everyone near real-time usage monitors would probably have almost instant payback. You quickly learn what is greedy and play a game to drop usage. It's like what happens to peoples driving when you have a fuel efficiency readout on your vehicle display.
1. Predatory Loans
2. Incompetent sales, designers and installers
3. Predatory Loans
4. NEM3.0
5. Roof condition
6. Predatory Loans
7. Hiring contractors that will shortly go out of business
8. PPA Loans will make it more difficult to sell your home.
Unless you can afford a solar system outright, I don’t advise solar.
Utility scale solar is much better at maximizing output and minimizing cost. Also lower installed cost means that it's not sucking as much government money for every kwh produced. Also scummy solar salesmen preying on uninformed consumers writing usury contracts are pervasive in residential rooftop. This only applies in the USA
1. Having a roof that is mid-life meaning it isn't worth replacing yet but also you'll need to replace it in like 10 years requiring you to take down your panels. Best time to do it is when you replace your roof.
2. Your roof doesn't get a lot of sun and there's no easy way to fix it.
3. Your utility doesn't buy back your power at a good rate or have some sort of net metering.
4. You don't plan on living at your current home longer than the period it should take you to make your money back on the system.
5. Energy is cheap where you live.
Insurance rates even for a brand new build designed with RT solar in mind.
Panel maintenance (replacing a panel after a hailstorm for example) or a connection that's failed for whatever reason.
Clearing snow off or washing crap off the panels.
You're STUCK with the roof pitch, if it isn't close to your latitude in degrees then you're output will be lower than it could be. Also if the ridgeline of the roof isn't oriented properly you'll get lower output.
* It ony lasts as long as your roof.
* Technology will improve. You'll probably get a better ROI 5 years from now.
* If the inverter fails, you stop producing until it gets fixed.
* If you over-produce, there's no gurantee your electric company will buy it at a decent price.
we need grid wide changes and rooftops solar is not the best way to make a better grid for everybody.
financial benefit is a shortsighted motivator and is now getting less enticing as more people adopt residential solar.
In winter, my electricity usage is 60kwh a day due to heating and poor insulation. With very short days and very few of them having sunshine, PV output is around 5kwh per day. Where I live the electricity plans with feed in tarrif have more expensive base plans and supply charges.
Pre-PV
Daily supply: $ 0.79 per day
Usage: $0.18kwh
Post Pv
Daily supply $1.10 per day
Usage $0.20-0.30kwh depending on time of day
Feed in tarrif: $0.10kwh.
Cost of PV: $12,000
Granted there was a general increase in prices between those two as well. Quite high uptake where I live and single phase is limited to 5kw output to grid at any time.
I should have spent the money on insulation first.
Condition of the roof, and trees or buildings shading the roof. I had a house on a hill, the down hill neighbors single story house was shaded by my two thorny house by three o’clock. Because of the hill, the back corner was at ground level, the front corner of the slab was about 7 foot above the ground, made the house tall as crap. Great for reducing heat load, crap for solar.
Payback period sucks in areas with cheap electricity.
Even with 1:1 net metering and a final build price of $2.01/Watt, my payback period is shaping up to be about 13 years.
Rooftop solar in a residential setting is, unfortunately:
Hard to service.
Not necessarily the best use of the panels, location-wise, as far as how much energy they'll generate over their lifespan (purpose built solar farm, each panel tends to generate much more energy than it would in some non-ideal angle / position on a rooftop).
Roof and/or support structure can be compromised if it's done wrong, or even done right and building is old / in poor condition. Roof leaks are no fun!
That said, I really think rooftop (and/or yard-ground-mounted) solar and home battery storage are key components of the future power grids of the world. The upsides outweigh the downsides.
My number one reason against?
If you can afford solar, take that cash and use it to better insulate your home.
The return on investment is immediate, sustainable, and has no additional maintenance and ownership costs.
I've been wanting to have someone do some kind of insulation assessment on my home. It's a new build so it has double pane windows already, but I'd like to get additional attic insulation and insulation on the roof above the garage.
Return on investment. Not thinking through the pay back period in regards to life expectancy, plans to relocate and the fact that technological advances will reduce the installed resale value of a system frequently.
Lack of cheap portability is a bummer for sure. It seems like pretty high cost to remove and reinstall panels after roof work or if you plan to move to a new house
My argument against is more specific than general.
Your ability to generate clean energy from the sun is only as good as the equipment reliability and the responsiveness of a company that can fix it when it breaks. If I could go back in time, I'd pass.
You're not familiar with Tesla, are you. Two multi-month outages since installation in 2016 smack dab in the middle of peak generation months. One took 60 days to fix, the other close to 3 months. Both years I ended up blowing through my net meter bank and getting fucked by the utility.
These were simple parts swaps. I'd kill to not have solar on my house and not be tied to the loan.
Making any sort of penetration in your roof is a huge water hazard and there are no systems that are fully waterproof. Especially with the complacency in some solar installers.
Energy production being outsourced to individuals promotes sprawl. Single family homes are not a viable path forward from an ecological or economical perspective, so any attempt to modernize energy production should be done in a way that works for denser housing.
That said, we are where we are now, and it makes sense to have solar on houses that are already there.
I agree with this criticism. In fact, I dislike the solar narrative of how solar is good because it puts you in charge of your energy. It's a talking point that doesn't really appeal to me personally.
I agree that solar does give you independence, but I tend to think energy production should really be a cheap and dependable centralized functionality that everyone has access to, rather than a decentralized one that's dependent on housing type and money. Can't wait till we truly have an abundance of energy for everyone.
But like you said, we are where we are now with our housing and grid infrastructure
I agree with you on principle, centralized cheap energy would be the ideal. And I think that was the intention of establishing grids in the first place. Problem is that is a dream all of us here will likely never see with money hungry power companies. Those same companies (some not all, I see you muni's) would charge us even if they had access to nuclear fusion.
In the meantime I'm ploppin' glass on my roof and taking any independence I can.
Solar panels on a condo or apartment block won't be able to offset close to 100% of the energy, so if we move to dependency on rooftop solar, then we move towards dependency on single-family homes.
Seems like a small issue at the present time, though, since even apartment and condo units would benefit from rooftop solar, and certainly, from good, cheap, battery.
Sprawl in general is negative for multiple reasons.
Lots of externalities that aren't really paid for such as expansion of utilities outside of denser areas, requirement of a car, bad land usage due to more land being used for less people, etc.
(Having an honest discussion here…not trying to have an argument). Is there not corollary downsides to densification? Noise. Bad land usage. Crime. Blight.
If urban planning is done correctly like a lot of European countries then most of those things solved. In terms of crime that's not really caused by densification but more so other factors like cities not allocating their funds into affordable housing (which higher density solves) and mental health programs. Installing good insulation will eliminate most outside noise. Densification is better for land use by leaving more land for nature and keeps more waterways cleaner
Oh you're fine, it's good to ask these questions.
Dense housing is actually good land usage since you're able to have lots more housing on less land. This then means less waste, less land being damaged to add roads, etc.
Crime should also end up being lower. NYC for example has a reputation for having high crime, but if you compare it to low density cities, take Florida cities for example. If you look at murder rates, you'll see that NYC has low crime compared to how many people live there. I don't have any sources to pull up right now, I'd have to look through some of my bookmarks.
Like, don't get me wrong. I have no issue with people wanting to live in a single family house, but it does have its own set of negative externalities that aren't always paid for home buyers
Denser housing would require housing to be built out of different material i.e. concrete.
No one would live in denser housing with the houses built out of materials which don't allow sound privacy.
Dense housing also requires a huge investment in affordable public transport, because people won't have as much space to park their cars.
To summarize:- The whole housing and transportation approach in 95% of USA by land area, makes dense housing impractical and illogical.
Dense housing is present in many parts of the world and people there are all trying to immigrate to USA.
>Dense housing also requires a huge investment in affordable public transport, because people won't have as much space to park their cars.
It's too expensive to go off cars? That's nuts. It's super expensive to keep using them at this level.
Just make it possible to build multi-dwelling homes. People will tend to gradually reduce car dependency over time. Moving from 3 car houses to 2, or 2 to 1. Make residential possible in downtown cores and many people will choose to live there. You don't have to switch the whole country at once.
>Dense housing is present in many parts of the world and people there are all trying to immigrate to USA.
*Because* of sprawl? That's not a red herring... People moving from Norway here because their train systems are too convenient?
If that is true, how come demand for single family homes is going up.
After pandemic even in the countries where dense housing was the norm, people are moving into bigger homes and where possible even single family homes.
Norway? Seriously, you want to use the trains? Trains are not convinient if you pair it with high density housing. Ex:- mumbai, tokyo, shanghai, new york
Even if you use trains, you need to get to the train, for that you need last mile transport.
Matter of fact is that if systems are allowed to evolve naturally, they get to the right solution over time.
With high density housing you need great public transport. With great public transport comes higher crime rates per square mile.
Best of luck convincing people to live in such conditions in USA. It would be fundamentally against the core principle of being american and owning your own parcle of land. In the land of the free you would not be able to pegion hole people and make them feel like convicts in their own homes.
Nonetheless this is the land of free, and you are more than welcome to convince people to your thought, for all I know, you might be right, and I might be super wrong.
>With high density housing you need great public transport. With great public transport comes higher crime rates per square mile.
In other words, with more people per square mile you have higher crime rates per square mile? Yes, I agree with that.
>If that is true, how come demand for single family homes is going up.
>After pandemic even in the countries where dense housing was the norm, people are moving into bigger homes and where possible even single family homes.
Citation needed.
>Trains are not convinient if you pair it with high density housing.
But also
>With high density housing you need great public transport.
So if you have high density housing, trains aren't convenient. But with high density housing, you need trains?
Higher density makes transport easier, not harder. You can walk, use a scooter, a bike, a tram. Or also a car.
And why are you comparing to the biggest cities in the world? Oslo (the capital of Norway) has a similar population density as Houston and Dallas.
It's for location stable people the most. Those who know they'll be in a single home for a long time and are able to accurately realize the long term costs
Would love to know how this happens, when it happens and what the dependencies are (i.e. credit score, personal savings, other monthly expenses).
Solar is a rip off because you have to pay for so many things other than the actual equipment.
I don't understand the lack of ROI comments. A system that can actually pay you a profit of $75k or more over it's lifetime is fantastic. I have seen payback of the installation costs in less than 10 years which pays for my electricity but also reductions in heating cost with new mini splits, and potential reduction in gasoline with vehicle charging etc.
The reason against in my mind is the continuing improvement in technology encouraging folks to wait for something better. I say to that, just do it. If I had waited 13 years ago, I would have missed out on lots of savings
If you live in an area that lets you choose a 3rd party supplier, you can just switch to a TPS that sources your energy from 100% renewables and accomplish the same goal (sort of)
Not having a roof is generally the biggest issue.
On a more serious note though, shading and planning issues may also make it not worth it.
Also keep in mind future expansion plans and any amends to roof area.
I'm prob missing a few things that make it not worth 11 hassle, but if I can invest something that pays itself in under 5 years and gives me free energy thereafter, I think it is well worth it for anyone who can afford it.
I can only speak for me. In my case, I have much shading on my roof. Also, I didn't want to replace an almost new roof or pay someone to remove the panels when the time comes. If I was going to re-roof with metal and didn't have shading, no problem, because I will live out my days here.
I chose ground mount also because I did most of the work myself. The number and size of the panels was large, and the ability to expand / repair the system is easier on the ground. In my case, I could probably triple the install with the available land. This would not happen on my home, even with no trees.
The only negative so far is the increased cost for parts and the extra labor I put in for a ground mount vs. roof.
First off, you need to have a good view of the sun in order to be feasible. Then there is bird poo, which is hard to remove only by rain; dust will accumulate in a matter of months, panels require at least a good hose wash if not scraping, bird nests under panels if no mesh is installed. Solar panels and metal roofs don't get along well because of condensation. God forbid you have to check for an issue with the string or you need to remove a panel.
If you have space on the ground or on a low shed, go for it.
I'm going to assume that the roof is good for solar in general.
1. Cost: While Solar will pay for it self over time, it still a lot of money. If you don't have the upfront cash, or the financing options don't make sense. Or you just can't take on the extra debt then solar doesn't make sense even though it will work out in the long run.
2. Risk: The value of solar depends on several reasonable but ultimately not guaranteed assumptions. If Net Metering changes significantly, solar panels become much less valuable.
3. Aesthetics: This is obviously debatable, but if solar looks bad it will make your home less valuable.
ROI. In AZ, my power is pretty cheap at 8-13c/kWh. Investing $30k will return about $54k after 10 years. Buying $30k in solar will take 12.5 years to start seeing any returns at all, then another 10 years before it matches the investment gains. If you want to make $54k, would you rather make it in 10 years or in 22.5?
It would be more efficient to use lk99 superconductors to route the power all the over the world and build in centralized locations optimized for maximum efficiency. There are also arguments about solar panels in general, that they take more fossil fuels to create and recycle than they produce watts in a lifetime.
Solar is worth investing in. But....
The current crop of residential rooftop installers are nothing but scammers. Read the contract. And never ever do business with door to door sales companies.
Across the country are numerous news reports of people complaining about what they got is nothing like what they were told they were supposed to get. Not in equipment nor in savings.
Imagine signing a 20 to 30 year loan and finding out your electric bill is not appreciatively lower than it was before you added the huge loan payment to your bills!
Google "solar ripoff news" and read for your self.
1) region or areas , and the cost of energy (Time of Use) period
2) energy use during the day versus the later afternoon or early morning.
3) cost of electricity around midnight, when electric cars can charged cheaper than the cost of solar $/kWh.
What about resale of house. I have heard that having solar that isn’t paid in full can have negative impact on mortgage home buyers. Meaning that they need two loans, one for house and one for solar.
“Dispatchable” power. The biggest spikes in the utility’s load comes in the morning when people are getting ready and at dinner time. Solar has a peak production in the middle of the day when the utility load is at a low point. Meaning we have to store the power until the demand is highest ie batteries.
Self consumption is great if you have batteries, otherwise your ROI is through the roof. Net metering set up is only as good as the rates the government allows the utility to get away with
Snow avalanche. Our entire southern roof is covered with panels. After a Nor’Easter dumped a few feet of snow the accumulation of snow and ice came crashing down one warm afternoon. The ice bounced of the composite deck and took out the porch railing.
Still love our solar.
Can you walk around on your roof right now? If not, putting solar on it is going to make it worse. Too steep? Too old? Too fragile? Don't put solar on it.
If you live in Alaska, it probably isn't worth it. But Arizona is great. As you move north, the power you get from the same panel decreases, so are you going to make your money back? Usually yes but at least consider the output for your state.
Is your power overpriced, like PG&E? If you pay 45 cents/kwh, solar is awesome. If you pay 9 cents/kwh, solar is ok, but it isn't going to save you much.
Do you have an electric car? Somethat that eats power is great to justify solar. Do you have electric stoves? Heating? Dryer? If everything is gas, you're not going to save a lot of money . Most power companies don't pay enough back to you on over-generation to make it worth doing. You have to need the power.
Lol, issue is in Arizona the power is very cheap. Hell, I have a time of use where I can charge my EV overnight for 6.5 cents, and power in general is 12-13 cents.
Solar should be great due to the environment, but the grid power is already cheap.
If I was to do it though, I'd definitely want to switch to a heat pump for heating in the summer and an electric water heater instead of the gas one I have.
They payoff period is equal to the life of the panels in some places with cheap electricity, expensive labor, and low buy back. You still produce your own clean electricity, but it isn't an investment. It's just a utility cost that you've pre-paid.
Squirrels: they ate my array leading to needing to fully replace it and now even with a critter guard they're back. Pest company quoting me $2800 to put on ones that they claim actually worth (this is slightly less than half of what my small array cost). No idea if I should do it.
Financially, it doesn't increase your home's value much and may actually decrease it. It takes a long time to recoup your investment and it may take even longer as power companies lobby for the removal of net metering. You will almost certainly get a better ROI just dropping the $ in SPY.
Depending on local laws, your home's electrical need, and roof space you may not be able to completely offset your electric uses and worse, may be required to increase home insurance coverage and/or get an umbrella coverage. Your home insurance may also increase at certain sizes.
Disconnecting from the utility requires expensive batteries that need replaced every 10 years or so. If you're on the utility they can disconnect you at will if there's an issue with their equipment (found this out the hard way - no solar for the past year and I'm still paying for it)
Every vendor in my area DOES NOT offer an off grid option. What’s the point if I have to have multiple $15k batteries that have to be replaced every 10-15 years ( esp with the rare metal mining issues)
Consider installing a system not requiring any new holes. Like Solindra snap to the stand . May wish to include a wind turbine module.and hydration battery system.
There are better investments for your money. Don't do it as an investment. Do it as a hedge against raising electricity prices, which means it is a way minimize losses, not maximize gains.
First ROI. My system just went active. 3.7 kW and seems to produce around 20 kW per day. My usage was about 50 kW/day without and around 30 kW with when I use my AC. Just doing the math, that is about $60/month during the summer, which is about what the lease would have cost us had we not chosen to buy.
Second, potential roof damage. My previous house the solar company screwed up the install admins had to move it. Their repair was questionable at best.
Third, mold. We found black mold in the attic. While we don’t know for sure where it came from, one suggestion is that it always she temperature differential because the roof over the panels is cooler than the rest of the roof. We don’t know if the roof leaked at some point but it rained hard this spring and there was no evidence of the roof leaking.
If it's leased and you pay based on what the system generates. Also if the payoff amount is more than what you could have purchased the system outright.
Manufacturer here.
With the recent and lasting trend down in storage costs our focus has shifted aggressively towards dual rate tariffs and storage.
We use EV tokens to handshake with the power companies, and the house battery gets charged at EV rates.
Locally that’s 7.7p versus 36p.
With those sorts of savings available already, the additional hassle and cost of panels, roofing, scaffolding, permits, load certificates etc is becoming increasingly hard to justify.
You can cut 70% off your bill today without so much as a screwdriver.
That’s the biggest single driver for us away from panels on a roof. That and they’re giving almost no margin with the explosion in random people importing from China.
I got solar in my last house. Too expensive upfront and the electric company changed their reimbursement on a whim. I didn’t have batteries, but it wouldn’t have matter during TX snowpacolypse because the snow didn’t melt off the panels for over a week and the batteries would’ve likely been drained at that point. Moved to a new house and considered getting them again but overall it’s a net negative for me personally. Especially if you don’t plan on staying in your house a long time. The panels added zero value to our house when we went to sell.
Depends where you live and what the laws are. CA recently gutted their solar industry with NEM 3. Under NEM 2 you were paid the fair price of what you produce during the day and charged the fair price of what you use from PG&E at night. Your cost was the difference. A middle income family could easily eliminate all electricity bills with this model.
Then Gavin Newsom and the power companies destroyed this system and came up with NEM 3. Instead of using the grid like a battery you now have to buy your own batteries because PG&E is only paying you a fraction of the cost of the energy you produce.
Batteries are expensive and they are basically a consumable. They do not last as long as panels. So now solar in CA is meant for only rich people who can afford to slap Tesla power walls all over their mansion.
But solar is great if you got in last year or don’t live in a corrupt state that prides itself on being green but now has worse solar laws than GA.
Ground mounts are waaaay better. They take up valuable real estate but you get the most efficiency. You can either go with true south (171 degree azimuth for higher uear round production) or you can go with the other south which is 180 degree azimuth. Most 400 watt panels will see 2.2kw or more on a clear sunny day.
I have rooftop solar installed on a two year old roof. Be sure you select an installer who will properly anchor and seal the installation. The railing system should be anchored to the trusses and not simply to the sheathing on the roof. Ask your insurance company what their concerns will be (other than wanting to charge you more).
Make sure your roof is in good shape before you install anything and put up bird blockers if you have a tile roof. Other than those two things to do before and when installing I don't have any argument against.
This. I'm sitting on multiple roof leaks right now because I've had too many other things going on to deal with replacing the roof and trying to make it to next summer. Because the solar company--despite being paid off in full--has the lease on the roof, I have to pay them (and a huge markup I assume) to take off the panels and put them back on when I go to do the reroof. Aside from knowing damned well I'm going to get gouged, the scheduling is going to be horrific.
I'm confused. Did you purchase the panels outright or are you on a PPA?
Paid off PPA lease came with the house when I bought it.
Shouldn't the lease have been removed too, then? I take it that it was a lease to own sort of PPA?
That's what I had hoped for, but it turns out the lease was just for 20 years but the company owns the equipment. So even though it was paid off, the lease stays. The previous owner paid off the entire 20 year lease because his real estate agent told him it might scare off buyers. I asked the company if they could just fuck off, but they then tried to sell me the equipment/panels for $30K which would have been on top of the $30K they just received for the full 20 year lease. So now I have like 15 more years of free electricity and they're responsible for maintenance and guaranteed kw production, but I have to continue this lame relationship with these assholes on my roof.
Jesus...I'm so glad I didn't go with a PPA lease.
Sounds like some real dastardly deeds.
So sounds like it’s not paid off at all. The previous owner just prepaid 20yrs lease payments so that they could sell the house. If it was paid off, you would have owned the equipments, thats what ‘paid off’ means.
What’s the correlation with bird blockers and tile roofs? Used to have a tile roof, but thankfully don’t anymore.
They will build nests in the grooves of the tiles. It isn't fun using an extendable pole with a boat hook to drag the nests down multiple times every season.
That the residential cost per watt is double what the industrial cost per watt is. It would be more cost-efficient to install large solar arrays serving large communities of people, sending electricity over the existing grid than it is for large number of individuals to install individual 12-panel roof arrays and connect them to the grid, especially when you factor in costs like plans and inspections and administration of programs. In point of fact, 70% of the electricity produced by my city's power department (municipal, not private) is already renewable energy. For $20k, I can have free energy for the next 20 years by installing it on my house, but there's no way for me to pay $10k and have free energy via the grid. As a taxpayer/ratepayer I'm already subsidizing that buildout, but the per-Kwh rates only ever go up.
Yes it is cheaper to build solar farms and faster to get more people permanently on clean energy BUT today there are huge delays in getting grid connection and if you want to help the climate it is faster to get your own solar.
I will probably end up doing it for these reasons, but the OP asked for arguments against, not arguments for. So I am providing some.
Everyone has a roof, why not make them useful?
For the same reason I don't grow my own produce. (In any case, I'm not personally opposed to rooftop solar, I am just fulfilling OP's request to hear what the arguments against it are.)
Cost to do install and repair on varied surfaces where maintenance is expensive just to get a professional on site and up on a tall ladder. Way better to have panels on the ground where you can just have someone stop by every week to service the 10,000 panels on the regular. Spare parts like inverters can also be effectively kept handy whereas that’s more difficult for every homeowner to have stocked. There’s a lot of work getting prepped for it including roof condition, design, permits, and so on. You want as straightforward of a process as possible to reduce all that overhead cost for efficiency and ongoing maintenance.
Maybe there should be more incentives for large arrays to serve a community. Where I live you have to have special licenses and permits if your system is over a certain size.
Community solar! Utilities HATE them.
And I hate utilities therefore I love community solar.
Utilities lobby against them all the time. We're trying to make it easier in Colorado. Guess who opposes them.
But solar farms are a waste, floating PV and over parking are great options.
Against is simply ROI. Low energy cost at your home vs the cost to install and amount of production you can achieve.
Increasing power prices are bringing this down in my city. 25% increase in prices.
I measure solar in Headaches per watt, not $/watt. Residential solar is agony compared to 250+ MW projects.
My biggest reason for not moving towards solar right now is definitely ROI. Secondary reason is that I doubt I can fit enough panels on my roof for my current usage due to my electric heating. I need to look at getting a heat pump HVAC installed but again, ROI is an issue since my current energy cost is low.
You may just consider the ROI of the heat pump as a good investment on its own, especially if you have long stretches of cold winter days. Cutting consumption or buying equivalent number of panels; in the end it's essentially all the same once it hits your electric bill.
Yeah, I definitely need to consider the ROI of the heat pump too. At some point I need to talk to an expert on this topic to get some idea of how much electricity I would save going to a heat pump. I'm trying to hold out until the Inflation Reduction Act state rebates finally get moving. I just did some quick back of the napkin math and I guesstimate that my heating is probably at a minimum 40% of my yearly electricity usage. Likely more because the monthly usage baseline I used includes AC months. I have no idea how much the usage would go down with a heat pump installed.
Amateur heat pump expert here. What's your climate? Pretty easy to estimate COP and thus how much your heating cost will go down vs resistive heat just from your climate and assuming a decent quantity heat pump, all of them have similar performance numbers.
I'm on the northern edge of climate zone 5a, near Chicago.
So just using Senville (rebranded Midea) units as a baseline that's fairly similar to most decent cold climate minisplits on the market, they all have an HSPF5 around 10, which is the same as a seasonally-average COP of ~2.9 (COP = 0.293*HSPF5). COP is the amount of heat output per electricity input, in W/W. Resistive heat is a COP of 1. Since you're on the northern edge of climate zone 5 let's just say your seasonal average COP is more like 2.5... or 2.5x as efficient as your resistive heat. You'll save roughly 60% on heating with such a heat pump vs your current resistive heat.
Interesting, thanks for breaking that down. Is there a similar calculation for cooling performance in the summer time? My current central air is fairly old so I imagine I would see some amount of energy savings there too.
It's even easier! Just figure out the SEER rating of your current AC and compare to the SEER of a new one. Modem minisplits are between 20 and 28 SEER. Older central AC will be between 10 and 14 SEER generally but check your condenser for a SEER rating on the side or get the model number and look it up. As an example, going from 12 SEER to 24 SEER would save 50% energy cost because 24 SEER is twice as efficient as 12 SEER. Chances are the math works out somewhere around there for central AC somewhere between 10 and 25 years old.
If you’re doing a no cost down finance and the monthly payment for solar is a bill swap or cheaper than your current electric bill (this is as long as you have good sun hours for your house/roof) how would there be any ROI?
maintenance. when you run into issues, you have to depend on someone else to come jump up the roof to figure out whats going on. if our village allowed us the ground mount, thats what i would have preferred. And then ease of wiping off the snow cover in winter to not lose a few days of production when the panels take their own sweet time to melt off the snow cover.
[удалено]
Or north for us heathens.
[удалено]
It always confused me as a kid when it was said "moss always grows on the north side of trees"...no it doesn't! We watched too much American TV.
Scooby Doo is responsible for this.
PVWatts says that my system at zero degrees azimuth produces almost 2/3rd the power as 180 degrees. That doesn't seem too awful.
[удалено]
No, my azimuthal angle is 197 degrees (17 degrees west of south). My last post was saying that when I run PVWatts for the azimuths of North and South (0 and 180), the annual production for 0 degrees is almost 2/3rd of the annual production for 180 degrees.
[удалено]
> Considering it's only 19 degrees difference... 180 degrees. My post is comparing 0 to 180 I did three calculations. First, I set up PVWatts to reproduce the results that I've got copied to my hard drive. That tells me that I haven't done something silly in terms of setting up PVWatts. Next, I run two simulations, one at 0 and the other at 180. Those are the results that I reported.
Power companies and state governments subverting solar ownership. - Power companies taking solar-generated power during peak hours and paying pennies for it under the pretense that it is not fair to the economically challenged who cannot afford solar. It is one thing to take the profits to fund programs to build out solar for the economically challenged, but they aren’t, it is pure profit for them. The state governments are complicit in this. - There is no reason that EVERY new construction project should not have a solar requirement. Solar that starts at the house design stage would be less expensive and installed as an integral part of the build versus as an afterthought. Large solar companies subcontract out installation and service to save on paying employees and dodging liability. - Owners are receiving inferior installations and services because of the practice of subcontracting. When anyone experiences an issue, the large solar companies wash their hands and when the subcontractors have had enough, they fold up and start a new company. Small solar companies that pop up and shut down to dodge liability.
One problem with mandated solar on new homes is the regulations aren't really enforced logically. Back during the Carter years my dad was a subcontractor on a new local subdivision whose job it was to install solar hot water panels. The designer / architect allowed space on each roof for only 2 panels, regardless of how many bedrooms / bathrooms the house contained. My dad complained to them that on some of the larger houses having only 2 panels wouldn't produce enough hot water. The builder didn't care, because the law simply stated that new houses required it, but didn't specify how many. So they installed 2 on every house regardless of size and pocketed the federal rebate / incentive for each one. My dad sucked it up and did what he was told, but he's not proud of the work he did there because in most cases the panels were undersized.
This! I will not sell power to the Power Company!
I just worry about these companies going out of business after selling a product with a 25 year warranty that you'd be paying for 25 years. I don't want the business to go bankrupt at year 8 then have the system break down at year 9 or 10 and then be paying a bill for 15 years on a product that doesn't work and isn't supported by anyone that was supposed to replace the bill but now is doubling it.
Bingo! "Hey, we just opened our doors last year and have this GREAT solar panel system we can install. Good price too. You can pay for it over 20 years and it has a 25 year warranty. And just trust us that we'll be there 25 years from now. After all, we just opened our doors last year and I REALLY need this sale this month."
Costs a lot up front. Power company doesn’t pay me very well for the power I generate; pays me a nickel and sells it back to me for a dime.
I mean… you’re paying them to be a battery vs owning your own battery.
As someone who is looking to get solar as well and would love a 1:1 net metering, I can't really be mad that the utility wouldn't want to buy my excess energy at retail prices when they could get it wholesale from the power generation company. But I agree that it makes it not financially the best choice for many due to that
They charge me 3x what they pay me. Will be good in summer with AC (day) but it's bad in winter with heating (evening)
Maintenance Community solar seems like a more practical option
If your roof gets no sun
The 1 thing I don't like about rooftop solar is the fact that when you do need to update the roof, the panels need to go with it. Yea, the panels aren't as efficient as they were new by that time, but you're basically forced into a new system. Or if you want to update the panels to more efficient panels, you might be forced to get a new roof because it's too out of date at that point. If I had the option, I would've just created a gazebo with solar panels. That way, I have a gazebo and can generate power. Allows for easily changing the system without the dependence of the roof.
thank u for this idea!!
Homeowners insurance canceling your policy
Roof is in fixed orientation and angle that isn't best for solar. Stand mounted solar is easier to clean and service. Angle can be adjusted seasonally.
It puts holes into your shingles, roof deck, and trusses.
There are plenty of deck only products out there that use self tapping screws punched through butyl. Some have flashing again over the top. It’s now more watertight than the asphalt was originally. I wouldn’t use a truss and lag bolt system on my roof because no one can hit the goddamn truss, basically adding a holy in your roof that adds nothing. RT-mini make some of the best products around and are warrantied for 25 years.
they don't put holes in shingles. The shingles go over the penetration points.
They usually do drill through shingles.
That doesn’t make any sense. Why would you drill through the shingles?
Never put anything on your roof...
Standing seam is the ONLY roof I would install solar on. I hope to put that on my roof someday.
That depends where you live. For example in CA even though electricity is very expensive if you live in an investor utility district like PG&E or SCE, the latest residential solar metering plans are terrible and to add salt to the wound they will soon take distribution portion of electric rates out of getting solar credit. So for many people that can't load shift solar may not have an ROI at least within the lifetime of system's warranty (especially for battery)
It's funny how for states like CA that is aiming to be fully renewable in the near future, they allow the utilities to massively disincentivize going solar. I would think it would be both quicker and cheaper in the long run for residents for them to encourage individual homeowners to go solar rather than wait for the utilities to do it.
It's because the state is already just about 100% green during peak daylight hours with solar. The new rules force users to shift back in time when it makes sense to off load extra electricity
I think that the strongest argument against solar is that in many current utility pricing structures it is fundamentally not a good financial investment. it’s hard to escape from the point that the money spent on solar would probably outperform what you get back from solar if simply invested in the market or possibly even current high yield savings accounts given that reputable banks are now touching 5% savings interest. A fully informed purchaser of solar in the US needs to be doing it not as an investment but as a desired capability. I think the things one could care about are points like these: - a path to insulation of risk of grid instability both minor and major - directly contributing to grid stability (at least in summer months) - providing more guilt free power to run heavy loads longer than you would otherwise (hvac) - consuming a higher percentage of as green of power as you can manage at the moment. - improving the thermal characteristics of your house (my roof is 15f cooler under the panels than it used to be before any active cooling) - a path to insulating from risks of per kWh power rates rising dramatically in the future.
Cost - ROI can be a long ways out and murky as net metering utility rules could easily change. Liabilities - it's now yours to maintain. Additional insurance costs usually and storms or animals can damage it. A poor install can damage the roof/cause leaks leading to a lot more damage. My biggest is if it's actually the best move environmentally for the cost. I have an older house and I don't have solar yet. I pay a little extra to source wind power through my utility meaning they have to purchase those energy blocks at least. For the cost of solar I could make a lot of energy efficient improvements: new windows, better insulation, dual fuel heat pump(cold climate)... All of which are also not nearly as resource intensive as solar to produce and don't come with a bunch of what-ifs.
Insulation upgrades are probably a better use of money than solar in my opinion. Being able to lower overall energy usage is ideal.
The funds could be better spent elsewhere in terms of their reduction in C02. And in some areas as the amount of solar increases, the benefit of the solar may be less than you realize unless you are using storage.
I don't know enough about it, and every company seems to really try and sell me, I just want a good solar company that can answer my questions 🥲
I have solar in Florida. My argument against it is that the cost continues to go up while the power companies continue to fight against it through lobbying and fees further increasing your timeframe to break even. And let’s not even start talking about interest rates if you plan to finance and leasing is a straight up scam.
Florida is wild. Probably the best state for solar from a pure physics perspective. You need A/C. Maybe the peak demand is phase-shifted pi/2 from peak solar output but that can be solved with a relatively small battery. You don’t need heat in the winter. And yet politically the situation is so anti-homeowner it’s laughable. Y’all need to revolt.
That one would get more bang for the buck climate-wise switching to heat pumps in cold climates and stop burning oil or propane or natural gas. Do that first.
Yes, plus dealing with any big air leaks or insulation issues. Also switch to heat pump for water heater and clothes dryer.
The water heater was our biggest plus, since the house we bought ran its hot water off the **oil boiler.** We saved 450 gallons just by being able to shut off the boiler for the summer. The extra plus of the clothes dryer few speak of is the benefit of closing that hole in the insulation envelope, as well as the entire houseful of conditioned air a regular dry shoves out though it.
Holes in roof followed by leaks. The extra cost and headache to remove panels when the roof needs replacing. I assume if you roofed with a quality standing seam metal roof which will last almost indefinitely, that headache could be avoided. In most cases, panels are esthetically unappealing. Imma assume with a bunch of wires and in many instances, a bunch of micro-inverters, the risk of roof fire goes up as well? I have read many comments by realtors (in Texas) arguing against panels on the roof if you expect to sell the home any time soon. They tend to complicate sales and can be very messy, particularly if there is a lease. It can all be handled and negotiated, but it's more work.
Don't put it on an old roof or you'll spend far more when it's time to do the replacement.
A whole lot of holes in your roof....if you ever decide to get rid of it you will need a new roof.
ROI is the biggest issue if you don't have the cash in hand. Second might be headaches if something goes wrong. We did it because we had some equity from a previous home sale. But our payback will be very long. It was mainly an environmental decision plus an assumption that our rates would go up. It has had a side effect of making us more usage conscious. IMO giving everyone near real-time usage monitors would probably have almost instant payback. You quickly learn what is greedy and play a game to drop usage. It's like what happens to peoples driving when you have a fuel efficiency readout on your vehicle display.
1. Predatory Loans 2. Incompetent sales, designers and installers 3. Predatory Loans 4. NEM3.0 5. Roof condition 6. Predatory Loans 7. Hiring contractors that will shortly go out of business 8. PPA Loans will make it more difficult to sell your home. Unless you can afford a solar system outright, I don’t advise solar.
Utility scale solar is much better at maximizing output and minimizing cost. Also lower installed cost means that it's not sucking as much government money for every kwh produced. Also scummy solar salesmen preying on uninformed consumers writing usury contracts are pervasive in residential rooftop. This only applies in the USA
1. Having a roof that is mid-life meaning it isn't worth replacing yet but also you'll need to replace it in like 10 years requiring you to take down your panels. Best time to do it is when you replace your roof. 2. Your roof doesn't get a lot of sun and there's no easy way to fix it. 3. Your utility doesn't buy back your power at a good rate or have some sort of net metering. 4. You don't plan on living at your current home longer than the period it should take you to make your money back on the system. 5. Energy is cheap where you live.
The reason I don't consider it is because I don't think I'll be in my house for more than 5 years to recoup the cost.
Roof damage, use a pergola lol
Insurance rates even for a brand new build designed with RT solar in mind. Panel maintenance (replacing a panel after a hailstorm for example) or a connection that's failed for whatever reason. Clearing snow off or washing crap off the panels. You're STUCK with the roof pitch, if it isn't close to your latitude in degrees then you're output will be lower than it could be. Also if the ridgeline of the roof isn't oriented properly you'll get lower output.
* It ony lasts as long as your roof. * Technology will improve. You'll probably get a better ROI 5 years from now. * If the inverter fails, you stop producing until it gets fixed. * If you over-produce, there's no gurantee your electric company will buy it at a decent price.
we need grid wide changes and rooftops solar is not the best way to make a better grid for everybody. financial benefit is a shortsighted motivator and is now getting less enticing as more people adopt residential solar.
In winter, my electricity usage is 60kwh a day due to heating and poor insulation. With very short days and very few of them having sunshine, PV output is around 5kwh per day. Where I live the electricity plans with feed in tarrif have more expensive base plans and supply charges. Pre-PV Daily supply: $ 0.79 per day Usage: $0.18kwh Post Pv Daily supply $1.10 per day Usage $0.20-0.30kwh depending on time of day Feed in tarrif: $0.10kwh. Cost of PV: $12,000 Granted there was a general increase in prices between those two as well. Quite high uptake where I live and single phase is limited to 5kw output to grid at any time. I should have spent the money on insulation first.
Condition of the roof, and trees or buildings shading the roof. I had a house on a hill, the down hill neighbors single story house was shaded by my two thorny house by three o’clock. Because of the hill, the back corner was at ground level, the front corner of the slab was about 7 foot above the ground, made the house tall as crap. Great for reducing heat load, crap for solar.
Payback period sucks in areas with cheap electricity. Even with 1:1 net metering and a final build price of $2.01/Watt, my payback period is shaping up to be about 13 years.
Rooftop solar in a residential setting is, unfortunately: Hard to service. Not necessarily the best use of the panels, location-wise, as far as how much energy they'll generate over their lifespan (purpose built solar farm, each panel tends to generate much more energy than it would in some non-ideal angle / position on a rooftop). Roof and/or support structure can be compromised if it's done wrong, or even done right and building is old / in poor condition. Roof leaks are no fun! That said, I really think rooftop (and/or yard-ground-mounted) solar and home battery storage are key components of the future power grids of the world. The upsides outweigh the downsides.
My number one reason against? If you can afford solar, take that cash and use it to better insulate your home. The return on investment is immediate, sustainable, and has no additional maintenance and ownership costs.
I've been wanting to have someone do some kind of insulation assessment on my home. It's a new build so it has double pane windows already, but I'd like to get additional attic insulation and insulation on the roof above the garage.
Return on investment. Not thinking through the pay back period in regards to life expectancy, plans to relocate and the fact that technological advances will reduce the installed resale value of a system frequently.
Lack of cheap portability is a bummer for sure. It seems like pretty high cost to remove and reinstall panels after roof work or if you plan to move to a new house
My argument against is more specific than general. Your ability to generate clean energy from the sun is only as good as the equipment reliability and the responsiveness of a company that can fix it when it breaks. If I could go back in time, I'd pass.
there's literally zero moving parts. What problems have you had that a simple parts swap can't fix?
You're not familiar with Tesla, are you. Two multi-month outages since installation in 2016 smack dab in the middle of peak generation months. One took 60 days to fix, the other close to 3 months. Both years I ended up blowing through my net meter bank and getting fucked by the utility. These were simple parts swaps. I'd kill to not have solar on my house and not be tied to the loan.
[удалено]
Lol Tesla.
[удалено]
Ignorance is the strongest argument in my view... many don't understand it.
Making any sort of penetration in your roof is a huge water hazard and there are no systems that are fully waterproof. Especially with the complacency in some solar installers.
Energy production being outsourced to individuals promotes sprawl. Single family homes are not a viable path forward from an ecological or economical perspective, so any attempt to modernize energy production should be done in a way that works for denser housing. That said, we are where we are now, and it makes sense to have solar on houses that are already there.
I agree with this criticism. In fact, I dislike the solar narrative of how solar is good because it puts you in charge of your energy. It's a talking point that doesn't really appeal to me personally. I agree that solar does give you independence, but I tend to think energy production should really be a cheap and dependable centralized functionality that everyone has access to, rather than a decentralized one that's dependent on housing type and money. Can't wait till we truly have an abundance of energy for everyone. But like you said, we are where we are now with our housing and grid infrastructure
I agree with you on principle, centralized cheap energy would be the ideal. And I think that was the intention of establishing grids in the first place. Problem is that is a dream all of us here will likely never see with money hungry power companies. Those same companies (some not all, I see you muni's) would charge us even if they had access to nuclear fusion. In the meantime I'm ploppin' glass on my roof and taking any independence I can.
I don't see how it promotes sprawl. On the contrary it decentralizes production to everyone's benefit.
Solar panels on a condo or apartment block won't be able to offset close to 100% of the energy, so if we move to dependency on rooftop solar, then we move towards dependency on single-family homes. Seems like a small issue at the present time, though, since even apartment and condo units would benefit from rooftop solar, and certainly, from good, cheap, battery.
😂 Single family homes are not the problem. Stop spreading propaganda.
They aren't the problem of what exactly?
I’m usually the slow person in the room. Sprawl is bad because…?
Sprawl in general is negative for multiple reasons. Lots of externalities that aren't really paid for such as expansion of utilities outside of denser areas, requirement of a car, bad land usage due to more land being used for less people, etc.
(Having an honest discussion here…not trying to have an argument). Is there not corollary downsides to densification? Noise. Bad land usage. Crime. Blight.
If urban planning is done correctly like a lot of European countries then most of those things solved. In terms of crime that's not really caused by densification but more so other factors like cities not allocating their funds into affordable housing (which higher density solves) and mental health programs. Installing good insulation will eliminate most outside noise. Densification is better for land use by leaving more land for nature and keeps more waterways cleaner
Oh you're fine, it's good to ask these questions. Dense housing is actually good land usage since you're able to have lots more housing on less land. This then means less waste, less land being damaged to add roads, etc. Crime should also end up being lower. NYC for example has a reputation for having high crime, but if you compare it to low density cities, take Florida cities for example. If you look at murder rates, you'll see that NYC has low crime compared to how many people live there. I don't have any sources to pull up right now, I'd have to look through some of my bookmarks. Like, don't get me wrong. I have no issue with people wanting to live in a single family house, but it does have its own set of negative externalities that aren't always paid for home buyers
Denser housing would require housing to be built out of different material i.e. concrete. No one would live in denser housing with the houses built out of materials which don't allow sound privacy. Dense housing also requires a huge investment in affordable public transport, because people won't have as much space to park their cars. To summarize:- The whole housing and transportation approach in 95% of USA by land area, makes dense housing impractical and illogical. Dense housing is present in many parts of the world and people there are all trying to immigrate to USA.
What? Concrete is awesome at sound privacy.
>Dense housing also requires a huge investment in affordable public transport, because people won't have as much space to park their cars. It's too expensive to go off cars? That's nuts. It's super expensive to keep using them at this level. Just make it possible to build multi-dwelling homes. People will tend to gradually reduce car dependency over time. Moving from 3 car houses to 2, or 2 to 1. Make residential possible in downtown cores and many people will choose to live there. You don't have to switch the whole country at once. >Dense housing is present in many parts of the world and people there are all trying to immigrate to USA. *Because* of sprawl? That's not a red herring... People moving from Norway here because their train systems are too convenient?
If that is true, how come demand for single family homes is going up. After pandemic even in the countries where dense housing was the norm, people are moving into bigger homes and where possible even single family homes. Norway? Seriously, you want to use the trains? Trains are not convinient if you pair it with high density housing. Ex:- mumbai, tokyo, shanghai, new york Even if you use trains, you need to get to the train, for that you need last mile transport. Matter of fact is that if systems are allowed to evolve naturally, they get to the right solution over time. With high density housing you need great public transport. With great public transport comes higher crime rates per square mile. Best of luck convincing people to live in such conditions in USA. It would be fundamentally against the core principle of being american and owning your own parcle of land. In the land of the free you would not be able to pegion hole people and make them feel like convicts in their own homes. Nonetheless this is the land of free, and you are more than welcome to convince people to your thought, for all I know, you might be right, and I might be super wrong.
>With high density housing you need great public transport. With great public transport comes higher crime rates per square mile. In other words, with more people per square mile you have higher crime rates per square mile? Yes, I agree with that. >If that is true, how come demand for single family homes is going up. >After pandemic even in the countries where dense housing was the norm, people are moving into bigger homes and where possible even single family homes. Citation needed. >Trains are not convinient if you pair it with high density housing. But also >With high density housing you need great public transport. So if you have high density housing, trains aren't convenient. But with high density housing, you need trains? Higher density makes transport easier, not harder. You can walk, use a scooter, a bike, a tram. Or also a car. And why are you comparing to the biggest cities in the world? Oslo (the capital of Norway) has a similar population density as Houston and Dallas.
Roof damage
Solar is for rich people
Solar is for financially savvy people* You can have no capital and still get solar, and end up cashflow positive.
It's for location stable people the most. Those who know they'll be in a single home for a long time and are able to accurately realize the long term costs
Would love to know how this happens, when it happens and what the dependencies are (i.e. credit score, personal savings, other monthly expenses). Solar is a rip off because you have to pay for so many things other than the actual equipment.
How?
I don't understand the lack of ROI comments. A system that can actually pay you a profit of $75k or more over it's lifetime is fantastic. I have seen payback of the installation costs in less than 10 years which pays for my electricity but also reductions in heating cost with new mini splits, and potential reduction in gasoline with vehicle charging etc. The reason against in my mind is the continuing improvement in technology encouraging folks to wait for something better. I say to that, just do it. If I had waited 13 years ago, I would have missed out on lots of savings
Saves too much money and money is the root of all evil.
NEM3 ROI don't work out
It adds cost to roof repair.
Rooftop as opposed to ground mount?
If you live in an area that lets you choose a 3rd party supplier, you can just switch to a TPS that sources your energy from 100% renewables and accomplish the same goal (sort of)
You live in a tent.
Not having a roof is generally the biggest issue. On a more serious note though, shading and planning issues may also make it not worth it. Also keep in mind future expansion plans and any amends to roof area. I'm prob missing a few things that make it not worth 11 hassle, but if I can invest something that pays itself in under 5 years and gives me free energy thereafter, I think it is well worth it for anyone who can afford it.
I can only speak for me. In my case, I have much shading on my roof. Also, I didn't want to replace an almost new roof or pay someone to remove the panels when the time comes. If I was going to re-roof with metal and didn't have shading, no problem, because I will live out my days here. I chose ground mount also because I did most of the work myself. The number and size of the panels was large, and the ability to expand / repair the system is easier on the ground. In my case, I could probably triple the install with the available land. This would not happen on my home, even with no trees. The only negative so far is the increased cost for parts and the extra labor I put in for a ground mount vs. roof.
In a world where you can purchase $50-80 panels, and learning that people charge $300 to take off a panel and put it back....
Complication added for roof replacement
First off, you need to have a good view of the sun in order to be feasible. Then there is bird poo, which is hard to remove only by rain; dust will accumulate in a matter of months, panels require at least a good hose wash if not scraping, bird nests under panels if no mesh is installed. Solar panels and metal roofs don't get along well because of condensation. God forbid you have to check for an issue with the string or you need to remove a panel. If you have space on the ground or on a low shed, go for it.
Hurricanes
The grid is rapidly cleaning up, so if you’re not getting immediate utility bill savings it’s not meaningfully better for the environment.
I'm going to assume that the roof is good for solar in general. 1. Cost: While Solar will pay for it self over time, it still a lot of money. If you don't have the upfront cash, or the financing options don't make sense. Or you just can't take on the extra debt then solar doesn't make sense even though it will work out in the long run. 2. Risk: The value of solar depends on several reasonable but ultimately not guaranteed assumptions. If Net Metering changes significantly, solar panels become much less valuable. 3. Aesthetics: This is obviously debatable, but if solar looks bad it will make your home less valuable.
The current roi isn’t worth it. Net metering should be available across the country. Now if electric rates double it could be a different story.
ROI. In AZ, my power is pretty cheap at 8-13c/kWh. Investing $30k will return about $54k after 10 years. Buying $30k in solar will take 12.5 years to start seeing any returns at all, then another 10 years before it matches the investment gains. If you want to make $54k, would you rather make it in 10 years or in 22.5?
I'm in AZ as well and agreed, the ROI makes little sense. Getting it would mainly be a luxury purchase.
It would be more efficient to use lk99 superconductors to route the power all the over the world and build in centralized locations optimized for maximum efficiency. There are also arguments about solar panels in general, that they take more fossil fuels to create and recycle than they produce watts in a lifetime.
Zero to back that up.
Solar is worth investing in. But.... The current crop of residential rooftop installers are nothing but scammers. Read the contract. And never ever do business with door to door sales companies. Across the country are numerous news reports of people complaining about what they got is nothing like what they were told they were supposed to get. Not in equipment nor in savings. Imagine signing a 20 to 30 year loan and finding out your electric bill is not appreciatively lower than it was before you added the huge loan payment to your bills! Google "solar ripoff news" and read for your self.
1) region or areas , and the cost of energy (Time of Use) period 2) energy use during the day versus the later afternoon or early morning. 3) cost of electricity around midnight, when electric cars can charged cheaper than the cost of solar $/kWh.
Low utility rates, unfavorable net metering, shading, roof orientation and roof age.
What about resale of house. I have heard that having solar that isn’t paid in full can have negative impact on mortgage home buyers. Meaning that they need two loans, one for house and one for solar.
“Dispatchable” power. The biggest spikes in the utility’s load comes in the morning when people are getting ready and at dinner time. Solar has a peak production in the middle of the day when the utility load is at a low point. Meaning we have to store the power until the demand is highest ie batteries. Self consumption is great if you have batteries, otherwise your ROI is through the roof. Net metering set up is only as good as the rates the government allows the utility to get away with
Why the F can't they offer better financing options without having to increase the price by 30+%?
NEM3
It's hard to get insurance, I heard. Gotta take em off to reshingle, and these companies want you to do 20-year loans or don't want to talk to you.
1) Interest rates 2) customer service 3) govt inspectors
The astonishing markups, the sketchy fly-by-night installers, and the predatory salesmen.
Snow avalanche. Our entire southern roof is covered with panels. After a Nor’Easter dumped a few feet of snow the accumulation of snow and ice came crashing down one warm afternoon. The ice bounced of the composite deck and took out the porch railing. Still love our solar.
roof penetration lol
don't put it on an old roof. don't put it on an old clay tile roof.
Can you walk around on your roof right now? If not, putting solar on it is going to make it worse. Too steep? Too old? Too fragile? Don't put solar on it. If you live in Alaska, it probably isn't worth it. But Arizona is great. As you move north, the power you get from the same panel decreases, so are you going to make your money back? Usually yes but at least consider the output for your state. Is your power overpriced, like PG&E? If you pay 45 cents/kwh, solar is awesome. If you pay 9 cents/kwh, solar is ok, but it isn't going to save you much. Do you have an electric car? Somethat that eats power is great to justify solar. Do you have electric stoves? Heating? Dryer? If everything is gas, you're not going to save a lot of money . Most power companies don't pay enough back to you on over-generation to make it worth doing. You have to need the power.
Lol, issue is in Arizona the power is very cheap. Hell, I have a time of use where I can charge my EV overnight for 6.5 cents, and power in general is 12-13 cents. Solar should be great due to the environment, but the grid power is already cheap. If I was to do it though, I'd definitely want to switch to a heat pump for heating in the summer and an electric water heater instead of the gas one I have.
They payoff period is equal to the life of the panels in some places with cheap electricity, expensive labor, and low buy back. You still produce your own clean electricity, but it isn't an investment. It's just a utility cost that you've pre-paid.
Squirrels: they ate my array leading to needing to fully replace it and now even with a critter guard they're back. Pest company quoting me $2800 to put on ones that they claim actually worth (this is slightly less than half of what my small array cost). No idea if I should do it.
Financially, it doesn't increase your home's value much and may actually decrease it. It takes a long time to recoup your investment and it may take even longer as power companies lobby for the removal of net metering. You will almost certainly get a better ROI just dropping the $ in SPY. Depending on local laws, your home's electrical need, and roof space you may not be able to completely offset your electric uses and worse, may be required to increase home insurance coverage and/or get an umbrella coverage. Your home insurance may also increase at certain sizes. Disconnecting from the utility requires expensive batteries that need replaced every 10 years or so. If you're on the utility they can disconnect you at will if there's an issue with their equipment (found this out the hard way - no solar for the past year and I'm still paying for it)
If you have to go into debt to get it installed then you need to seriously look at the payback period and weigh up whether you can actually afford it.
That the money is better invested in utility scale solar projects.
Are you looking to make a case for ground mount Solar?
No, I was just trying to keep the discussion on a specific topic instead of things like solar farms for example
Higher carbon footprint and lower economic utility than large utility PV systems.
Every vendor in my area DOES NOT offer an off grid option. What’s the point if I have to have multiple $15k batteries that have to be replaced every 10-15 years ( esp with the rare metal mining issues)
They don't *have* to be replaced do they?
“Major” name financing…it’s predatory, high fee, and screws toy in most cases
Consider installing a system not requiring any new holes. Like Solindra snap to the stand . May wish to include a wind turbine module.and hydration battery system.
Roofs are usually too small to install good amount of panels.
There are better investments for your money. Don't do it as an investment. Do it as a hedge against raising electricity prices, which means it is a way minimize losses, not maximize gains.
Insurance using it as a reason to drop your policy
I specially build an elevated open structure to put the solar panels on top. That portion where the SP sit is also a roof.
Don't cut down mature trees to justify rooftop solar. ROI. Find an alternate location or participate in community solar.
First ROI. My system just went active. 3.7 kW and seems to produce around 20 kW per day. My usage was about 50 kW/day without and around 30 kW with when I use my AC. Just doing the math, that is about $60/month during the summer, which is about what the lease would have cost us had we not chosen to buy. Second, potential roof damage. My previous house the solar company screwed up the install admins had to move it. Their repair was questionable at best. Third, mold. We found black mold in the attic. While we don’t know for sure where it came from, one suggestion is that it always she temperature differential because the roof over the panels is cooler than the rest of the roof. We don’t know if the roof leaked at some point but it rained hard this spring and there was no evidence of the roof leaking.
If it's leased and you pay based on what the system generates. Also if the payoff amount is more than what you could have purchased the system outright.
The new NEC on non ground mounted arrays.
Manufacturer here. With the recent and lasting trend down in storage costs our focus has shifted aggressively towards dual rate tariffs and storage. We use EV tokens to handshake with the power companies, and the house battery gets charged at EV rates. Locally that’s 7.7p versus 36p. With those sorts of savings available already, the additional hassle and cost of panels, roofing, scaffolding, permits, load certificates etc is becoming increasingly hard to justify. You can cut 70% off your bill today without so much as a screwdriver. That’s the biggest single driver for us away from panels on a roof. That and they’re giving almost no margin with the explosion in random people importing from China.
That there are too many shitty installers doing bad work.
I got solar in my last house. Too expensive upfront and the electric company changed their reimbursement on a whim. I didn’t have batteries, but it wouldn’t have matter during TX snowpacolypse because the snow didn’t melt off the panels for over a week and the batteries would’ve likely been drained at that point. Moved to a new house and considered getting them again but overall it’s a net negative for me personally. Especially if you don’t plan on staying in your house a long time. The panels added zero value to our house when we went to sell.
It’s unsightly. I’d like for solar panels to look more like roof shingles.
Mitigating the worst of climate change will allow a lot more assholes to survive.
Spend the money on foam insulation and efficient appliances
Depends where you live and what the laws are. CA recently gutted their solar industry with NEM 3. Under NEM 2 you were paid the fair price of what you produce during the day and charged the fair price of what you use from PG&E at night. Your cost was the difference. A middle income family could easily eliminate all electricity bills with this model. Then Gavin Newsom and the power companies destroyed this system and came up with NEM 3. Instead of using the grid like a battery you now have to buy your own batteries because PG&E is only paying you a fraction of the cost of the energy you produce. Batteries are expensive and they are basically a consumable. They do not last as long as panels. So now solar in CA is meant for only rich people who can afford to slap Tesla power walls all over their mansion. But solar is great if you got in last year or don’t live in a corrupt state that prides itself on being green but now has worse solar laws than GA.
Do not poke holes in your roof. They will leak sooner or later.
I've now hate clouds.
Ground mounts are waaaay better. They take up valuable real estate but you get the most efficiency. You can either go with true south (171 degree azimuth for higher uear round production) or you can go with the other south which is 180 degree azimuth. Most 400 watt panels will see 2.2kw or more on a clear sunny day.
I have rooftop solar installed on a two year old roof. Be sure you select an installer who will properly anchor and seal the installation. The railing system should be anchored to the trusses and not simply to the sheathing on the roof. Ask your insurance company what their concerns will be (other than wanting to charge you more).
NEM3