Solar electric power: Would it work for St. Louis?
Findsolar.com has a neat solar calculator that shows how well a solar-powered residential electrical system would work in your area.
According to the calculator, St. Louis has a “good” rating for residential solar energy — 4.859 kWh/sq-m/day, to be exact.
According to the Department of Energy, the average electric bill in Missouri is $79.48 (November 2007), and the average monthly consumption is 1,069 kWh (12,828 kWh/yr).
Using those figures, solar electric power in Missouri (through Ameren utility) would cost 8.8 cents/kWh (currently Missourians pay an average of 6.3 cents/kWh) with an average monthly electric bill of $94.
The calculator estimates the cost of installing a solar energy system on a home at $43,000, after a $2,000 federal tax credit.
Therefore, the estimated savings will look something like this:
(The above is based on an assumed utility inflation rate of 3.78 percent.)
That’s not great, but it’s better than many states — the SmartEnergyViews blog notes that in Tennessee, the payback for a residential PV system would take roughly 95 years. On the other end of the spectrum:
Folks living in Florida…can get a much better deal, because a) they get slightly more solar radiation, but more important b) they have a state rebate incentive that will pay for half the system.
Are those numbers good enough to spark a solar energy revolution in Missouri? Perhaps not quite yet. But with solar technology rapidly improving and energy costs skyrocketing, it might not be long before residential solar power starts looking pretty attractive.
Suggesting a payback time like those indicated in the article would get you laughed out of any corporate budget meeting, and your job would be in jeopardy. Typically, in a financially strong organization, a three-year payback is OK for a low-risk project. Sometimes, an economically weak project can be pushed through based on ecological or other benefits. If the company is in trouble or the life of the resulting benefits is at all dubious, you’d better come up with a one-year payback.
Unfortunately, now matter how much of a public show some people like to make of hugging trees, when it comes to putting their own money on the line just to eliminate greenhouse gas, it ain’t going to happen.
Quick question:
Where in Missouri or the Greater St Louis area can one find out about installing one’s own solar power system?
RHarnack,
The Findsolar.com site has a “Solar pros” locator tool:
http://findsolar.com/index.php?page=findacontractor
I put in MO and St. Louis and got 2 companies with solid reviews, with plenty of info available about each company.
RH-ol’ john should be in here shortly to instruct you in the construction of an entire self-sufficient compound.
The local Yellow Pages list several solar equipment dealers, and there are plenty of others on the Internet for anyone who is interested. Popular Mechanics and similar magazine have published solar heating articles for do-it-yourselfers for years. Know how to sweat copper tubing and spread black paint?
Solar Power would cost me 8.8 cents/kw yet I’m paying 6.4 cents at the moment. So how does the cost savings work in the above math? An assumed increase in value of my house the moment you add solar panels as well as getting my tax dollars to foot a part of my neighbors bill. Sound familiar.
We can spend money on more pollution controls (which Ameron is currently doing at 6.4 cents/kw), readily increase our Nuclear capacity in Missouri (adding a second reactor at the lone nuclear plant in Missouri), update the transmission grid and home with smart meter/digital controls, and conserve while still paying less the 8.8 cents/kw.
I agree with Tim about needing to build more nuclear power plants. It’s clear that individual homeowners installing solar panels is very impractical. A better solar solution is not photo-voltaic cells anyway. It is a current and proven technology using focused solar energy for heat. All current main line power plants generate heat to make steam to run turbines. By using large focused mirrors to heat special oil filled pipes, these pipes heat water to generate steam just like any current coal, nuclear, or gas fired plant. The benefit is the fuel (solar) is free and there are no emissions. There is currently an operating plant using this technology out west (Utah maybe? I forget). Solar can be best utilized as a mainline plant, not individuals slapping photo-voltaic cells on their roof for tens of thousands of dollars.
The largest solar array in the world is being developed in the Mojave desert in California, by Solel of Israel, to supply Pacific Gas and Electric. Solel has had another array in operation for some time, maybe as long as 35 years. An Australian firm is also active. Check it out on the Internet.
Here come the nuclear advocates! I remember being at a college campus where the nuclear energy industry paid students to pretend that they were environmentalists in favor of nuclear energy. Nobody wants to have radioactive waste sitting around for millions of years, and especially not in their own backyard!
So I took my most recent electric bill and estimated my annual usage using the maximum annual savings of $800. (to give this a chance to be financially viable)
I used the site that is hot linked and it estimated that the cost of the system could be recouped within 32 years! One tiny problem, this did not include the 6% interest paid over a 30 year term (as listed on the site) so my real payoff time frame was 71.1 years! Was the site meant to be misleading or is this just an honest mistake?
Look, I’m all for saving money and resources. But if you need to cook the books to make this appear economically viable then I can’t trust you or your product. And I understand the concept of “utility,” but I can’t suspend all logic and make a decision that is economically disastrous just because it makes me “feel good” to be “green.”
We (the American people) need an honest dialogue with real numbers so we can make the best decisions for our families on how to best use and maximize all of our valuable resources (time, money, etc.!). What we don’t need is a politician or some other hack spewing talking points that are entirely predicated on an agenda other than the truth –the whole truth if possible!
Let’s lay out all of the pros and cons of energy options (because nothing in this world is perfect) and have a real dialogue to determine a national policy that is practical for today (greater supply=lower prices) and moves us forward in the future. If we don’t, then we will repeat the same mistakes of the past 30+ years.
Mike