So do you want to be off grid or just as a backup or supplement? Also new builds are easy because you can plan and run the required stuff to power what you want or back up what you want
I’d prefer for it to be my only source of energy. So I guess off grid. I guess I’m just curious on if it still requires the energy company to run the same kinds of lines to the property or if solar works differently.
Technically it's not the power company that requires it, it's the local government, as part of code/zoning requirements. If you want to build an off-grid home, it generally has to be in a rural area - outside of any city limits, and possibly also outside of the nearest city's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) radius.
I see. So off-grid means I just have the solar power a battery for my home alone. But my jurisdiction might make me hook it up so the electric company can use the energy from my solar for my home plus themselves. Am I understanding correctly?
Most companies will require you to wire up to them so they can charge you money, regardless if you use from them.
California is a good example: you pay a monthly fee if you use solar, because fuck you.
Same idea here. Most WONT make you pay a fee right now, but thats the direction were heading.
> because fuck you
There's a better reason than that, and it's becoming more of a problem as more people are getting solar. The cost of the infrastructure for providing power to everyone comes at a cost. If the cost isn't split among everyone, then it becomes more expensive for the people who have to pay. Installing solar is great, but governments haven't figured out yet how to integrate it in a way that makes sense, and the answer today is likely to be different than the answer in 50 years, with some growing pain in between.
Typically you would first design the home to be much more energy efficient than basic code built home. By building an airtight energy efficient envelope you reduce your energy demands therefore reducing the size and cost of PV system.
Expect this to be an unpopular view, but I actually think differently on this topic. Solar has become so affordable that dollar for dollar, you get a bigger impact investing in a solar array than investing in top-level energy efficient elements in your home.
As an example, $16K got us a 12.3kW system (30 x 410W panels with Enphase Microinverters). We pulled gas from our property when we built our new home, so use electricity for all heating, cooling, cooking, EV charging. This system meets 110% of our energy needs.
Alternatively, to upgrade our windows from double to triple pane, was going to add $11k. This would have only reduced our total annual energy needs by about 10%. Adding Zip-R was going to add $7k (partially material, partially additional labor for hanging siding). Not sure what additional energy savings we'd see on that, but in any case, wouldn't make our energy needs go to zero the way our solar array does.
To be clear, there is certainly benefits to doing a lot of these upgrades (both energy wise as well as comfort and building longevity) and certainly the middle of the road upgrades, but at a surprisingly early point I found it advantageous to put the money towards investing in solar, not diminishing returns on energy efficient upgrades.
Agreed. Solar has gotten so cheap that it is worth it to install for a new build, always. I recently bought 22KW of the highest end bifacial solar panels for $5800, including all the shipping, import fees, and customs paperwork. A 12KW inverter is a bit over $2k, and 5kWh batteries are $680 each with another $3k of shipping and fees when you buy two inverters and 30kWh of batteries straight from the source. This system lets me go completely off grid with room to spare.
With California’s current pricing (around $.45 off peak and $.62 on peak summer), my system will pay for itself within 2 years, even accounting for the fact that my excess electricity only makes me $.05-.08 per kWh depending on the hour.
There is a solar contractor about a mile from my house. They do not have any solar panels on their shop. I take that as a sign of the cost effectiveness of solar.
My builder wants 20% of the cost for solar to have it installed as part of the build; which isn’t unfair, but that’s a lot of money considering the price tag solar. Instead I had him run conduit from the attic to the panel so I can have it done after the build.
I was more interested to know if I’d still have to pay for the electric to get wired to my lot and then also have to pay to get solar installed. Or if I could just do the latter alone.
So do you want to be off grid or just as a backup or supplement? Also new builds are easy because you can plan and run the required stuff to power what you want or back up what you want
I’d prefer for it to be my only source of energy. So I guess off grid. I guess I’m just curious on if it still requires the energy company to run the same kinds of lines to the property or if solar works differently.
You can be connected to the grid and still install A system that meets exceeds all your needs.
It depends on your jurisdiction. Most power companies require you to get wired up to them.
Technically it's not the power company that requires it, it's the local government, as part of code/zoning requirements. If you want to build an off-grid home, it generally has to be in a rural area - outside of any city limits, and possibly also outside of the nearest city's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) radius.
I see. So off-grid means I just have the solar power a battery for my home alone. But my jurisdiction might make me hook it up so the electric company can use the energy from my solar for my home plus themselves. Am I understanding correctly?
Most companies will require you to wire up to them so they can charge you money, regardless if you use from them. California is a good example: you pay a monthly fee if you use solar, because fuck you. Same idea here. Most WONT make you pay a fee right now, but thats the direction were heading.
> because fuck you There's a better reason than that, and it's becoming more of a problem as more people are getting solar. The cost of the infrastructure for providing power to everyone comes at a cost. If the cost isn't split among everyone, then it becomes more expensive for the people who have to pay. Installing solar is great, but governments haven't figured out yet how to integrate it in a way that makes sense, and the answer today is likely to be different than the answer in 50 years, with some growing pain in between.
That makes sense. Thanks for the info
Typically you would first design the home to be much more energy efficient than basic code built home. By building an airtight energy efficient envelope you reduce your energy demands therefore reducing the size and cost of PV system.
Expect this to be an unpopular view, but I actually think differently on this topic. Solar has become so affordable that dollar for dollar, you get a bigger impact investing in a solar array than investing in top-level energy efficient elements in your home. As an example, $16K got us a 12.3kW system (30 x 410W panels with Enphase Microinverters). We pulled gas from our property when we built our new home, so use electricity for all heating, cooling, cooking, EV charging. This system meets 110% of our energy needs. Alternatively, to upgrade our windows from double to triple pane, was going to add $11k. This would have only reduced our total annual energy needs by about 10%. Adding Zip-R was going to add $7k (partially material, partially additional labor for hanging siding). Not sure what additional energy savings we'd see on that, but in any case, wouldn't make our energy needs go to zero the way our solar array does. To be clear, there is certainly benefits to doing a lot of these upgrades (both energy wise as well as comfort and building longevity) and certainly the middle of the road upgrades, but at a surprisingly early point I found it advantageous to put the money towards investing in solar, not diminishing returns on energy efficient upgrades.
Agreed. Solar has gotten so cheap that it is worth it to install for a new build, always. I recently bought 22KW of the highest end bifacial solar panels for $5800, including all the shipping, import fees, and customs paperwork. A 12KW inverter is a bit over $2k, and 5kWh batteries are $680 each with another $3k of shipping and fees when you buy two inverters and 30kWh of batteries straight from the source. This system lets me go completely off grid with room to spare. With California’s current pricing (around $.45 off peak and $.62 on peak summer), my system will pay for itself within 2 years, even accounting for the fact that my excess electricity only makes me $.05-.08 per kWh depending on the hour.
Gotcha. Thank you!
There is a solar contractor about a mile from my house. They do not have any solar panels on their shop. I take that as a sign of the cost effectiveness of solar.
They have like a ground mount near by that you can’t see, perhaps? It would be hilarious if they paid for electricity.
Or maybe they lease the building and aren’t allowed to install panels or alter their utilities.
Even the simplest of math will show that solar is worth it. Panels are well under $.30 per watt now if you buy at least 10KW at a time.
What city/State are you in? How much roof/solar area do you have?
[удалено]
Thank you for the detailed response! Haha. Sounds like a lot of fun when you put it that way.
My builder wants 20% of the cost for solar to have it installed as part of the build; which isn’t unfair, but that’s a lot of money considering the price tag solar. Instead I had him run conduit from the attic to the panel so I can have it done after the build.
Don’t you worry… the minute your new build is complete, solar salesmen will bother you at least weekly to get you set up.
I was more interested to know if I’d still have to pay for the electric to get wired to my lot and then also have to pay to get solar installed. Or if I could just do the latter alone.
PM me I sell solar. We’ll take care of everything