Who's gone ground based solar??

[Davefr]

I'm considering going with a ground based 10KW solar system. (that's the sweet spot given the current incentives)

Given all the incentives and tax credits the payback period is in the range of 8-10 years. That assumes a doubling of electric rates over the next 10-11 years which is probably reasonable. I've verified the annual output assumptions and they're pretty accurate based on similar systems installed locally.

I have the land to dedicate to the array.

Anyone have any observations or experiences? I'm kind of on the fence whether to go for it or not.

Anyone have any regrets or praises?

 

[Highbeam]

"That assumes a doubling of electric rates over the next 10-11 years which is probably reasonable."

No it's not. Here in the PNW we enjoy a very dependable and cheap source of power. I have underwear that is 10 years old and during that time, power has not doubled.

That said, solar with net metering is still a decent deal so long as your utility allows it. I see that as the more likely problem with your adventure. One day the utility companies are going to succeed in killing that net metering deal.

 

[kd3pc]

if you have the land and the clear shot at the available sun, you are in good shape. It is much easier to repair and maintain and zero risk to your roof or home.

Be aware a lot of the power companies are charging pretty hefty fees to 'tie in" and an ongoing monthly fee. As HB says, the PoCos are no longer happy with solar and the rules/regs/requirements will surely change in the next few years no matter what happens to energy costs.

Solar and wind have lost a lot of the luster they had a decade ago, as the panacea the marketing folks presented. The weak link is still batteries and will be in spite of what mr Musk wants us to believe.

We lived aboard a sailboat with just over 300 watts of solar and casual wind and were quite comfortable even with a couple of really cloudy stormy days. We still had heating and cooling to deal with separate from that system.

It is possible, just not as cost effective and easy as the normal home.

 

[ctfjr]

Dave if I do it I will try to get my panels ground mounted. Where we live now there is a perfect spot on the north side of our house (yes, north - its far enough away from the shadow of the house). The problem I have is we are getting the house ready to sell so an adventure into solar electric will have to wait till we move.

 

[ard]

if you have the land and the clear shot at the available sun, you are in good shape. It is much easier to repair and maintain and zero risk to your roof or home..

+1

Did a ground mount, super easy- doesnt interfere with my roof, nor visually impact the house. And I was able to site with perfect sun orientation. Dig a bunch of holes, pump some concrete... rented a trencher for 200' of digging, then another 120 feet in conduit to get to the main panel.

I can actually wash dust/dirt off twice a year- and watch solar generation bump up afterwards!

 

[raddksn]

I'm watching this! My electric rate has doubled since 2011!!! I stopped decorating the house for holidays, no more dusk to dawn lights, very strict about turning off unused lights, and still my bill has gone from $50.00 -&60.00 a month to $130.00- &150.00 a month!

 

[ard]

I was at 600-700 a month at peak. My payback on a self install was 6-7 years.

California PG&E; Multiple pool pumps, 7T of AC, 30 days a year over 100F (even with triple pane, R-24/40 wall/celing assys and radiant barrier; irrigation costs w/ water well down 400 ft w 5HP pump.

 

[Davefr]

HB, you're right. I found some rate history data for OR and the average rate increase was about 3%/year from 2005 to 1015.

The proposal I rec'd assumed a 7% annual future rate hike forecast for a 10 year payback. Using historic rate increase data instead probably pushes payback to 13-14 years. That just doesn't seem worth it to me. The proposal also ignores the time value of the net $'s spent.

I'm just not seeing ground based solar being ready for "prime time" based on ROI.

Roof systems are cheaper but there's no way I'd go for that!!

 

[ard]

I'm just not seeing ground based solar being ready for "prime time" based on ROI.

Roof systems are cheaper but there's no way I'd go for that!!

Seems rather odd to categorically decide 'all ground mounts are not ready for prime time'. Quite.

What do you think the difference in cost is between a roof and ground mount? $10k? $20K? What are you basing this conclusion on?

 

[Davefr]

Seems rather odd to categorically decide 'all ground mounts are not ready for prime time'. Quite.

I don't know about "all", but even with all the incentives/tax credits I just don't find a 13-14 year payback very compelling for my situation. It seems like a large component of going solar is emotional vs. financial.

After 13-14 years the system is probably obsolete based on new technology. (not to mention the inverters that might have died before then)

What do you think the difference in cost is between a roof and ground mount? $10k? $20K? What are you basing this conclusion on?

It depends on the system. The contractor said ground based 10 KW systems average +$4k over roof. (I won't allow this stuff on my roof!!) Roof based systems are probably not as efficient since you can't always optimize the layout or the mounting angle.

I'm just learning all this stuff.

 

[bczygan]

So many people focus on alternate sources of energy.

So few focus on reducing their use of it.

 

[ard]

I don't know about "all", but even with all the incentives/tax credits I just don't find a 13-14 year payback very compelling for my situation. It seems like a large component of going solar is emotional vs. financial.

After 13-14 years the system is probably obsolete based on new technology. (not to mention the inverters that might have died before then)



It depends on the system. The contractor said ground based 10 KW systems average +$4k over roof. (I won't allow this stuff on my roof!!) Roof based systems are probably not as efficient since you can't always optimize the layout or the mounting angle.

I'm just learning all this stuff.

I'm not going to argue payback... Highly situation-specific. Depends on cost, install, CONTRACTOR PROFIT, elect cost, solar exposure, etc. Arguably my view is driven by my situation (high energy cost, diy install)


My point was the declaration that groud systems are not ready for prime time... $4000 delta in install just reflects a lazy contractor that doesn't want to deal with dirt and concrete. IMO if you've built a backyard deck you can install a ground mount rack.

 

[Davefr]

My point was the declaration that groud systems are not ready for prime time... $4000 delta in install just reflects a lazy contractor that doesn't want to deal with dirt and concrete. IMO if you've built a backyard deck you can install a ground mount rack.

At least around here, in order to get all the incentives/deductions and be able to hook into the utility you need a state licensed/certified installer and the code is very strict. A ground based system needs to be supported in concrete/steel rebar reinforced piers and meet worst case earthquake and wind speed requirements.

 

[ard]

At least around here, in order to get all the incentives/deductions and be able to hook into the utility you need a state licensed/certified installer and the code is very strict. A ground based system needs to be supported in concrete/steel rebar reinforced piers and meet worst case earthquake and wind speed requirements.

Im in northern California, over towards the sierras. There is no code that requires steel reinforcement in piers in the ground. Maybe it is different in earthquake prone oregon. The solar rack I prchased came with a CA engneer's drawing and certification. 8 inch min hole, 30 inch deep, 1.5" sched 40 galv pipe to the bottom...done.

Remember, what a 'contractor' tells you - just like what a Doctor or auto mechanic- is driven by their biases, education and experience.

A solar contractor who just does wiring and roof installs needs to call out an excavator and a concrete guy ... those two guys need to make a profit on a small job. OTOH you have a contractor who can do it all- have one of his guys jump on a trencher, punch 16 holes in the ground and dump two yards of concrete into the hole, it should not be $4k more. Not having to haul panels up to the roof, not having to place brackets on the roof and not having to break up the footprint are all avoided with a ground mount. Also, if a roof mount doesnt have optimal exposure, you can lose some of your rebate $$. So while it may cost more to install a ground, you can recoup some of the cost with efficiency

Anyway, my point is there can be factors driving the APPARENT cost delta that arent true costs or the same for everyone...

Finally, unless you will be there a while, and/or you E costs are high, neither approach may pencil out for you... no going to argue that point.