One Man's Case for Residential Solar
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 10.23.06
After crunching some numbers, running some tests and making some (fairly safe) assumptions, user SanDiegoDave100 over at Motley Fool is able to make a pretty good case for using a solar power system to provide electricity for his home and an all-electric car like the forthcoming Tesla Roadster or the company's more affordable second and third models. How does he figure? Dave figured his total energy bill for the month (600 kilowatt-hours [kWh] of electricity for his house + 60 gallons of gasoline for his car) to be $280 or so; Tesla estimates it'd take 375 kWh to make their car go 1,500 miles (Dave's monthly driving estimate), so he needs about 975 kWh per month. Based on his zipcode (in San Diego, CA), an 8 kilowatt system would provide about 950 kWh per month over the span of each year; after rebates, such a system would cost $37,800. He figures a home equity loan for $37,000 at 6.5% would cost $239/month, about $40 less than his current energy usage, without any carbon emissions or oil consumption. Sure, it isn't perfect and certainly wouldn't work for everyone, but it's encouraging to see that solar is becoming more and more viable for small-scale, residential projects. ::Motley Fool via ::AutoblogGreen
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Want to Save $100 A Year and Power San Diego? Just Turn off Your XBox
- Is Home Ownership a Good Thing? Part II
- Let There Be Solar Panels...And There Were: Vatican Completes Rooftop Solar Array
- The North Face Installs 1 MW Solar Power System at West Coast Distribution Center
Good start, but where does the loan for the $100,000 car come into play? For financial justification, the gasoline car & electric car need to be of equal cost.
Reducing one's environmental footprint requires using less in a more intelligent manner. A massive array of solar panels and a state of the art electric car doesn't cut it. Keep your current car (since the energy required to manufacture one is enormous) and ride a bike/scooter. Find the smallest place to live that you can. Only buy what you really need.
Interesting idea, but I fear there are too many estimates involved (on both sides) to be able to draw any valid conclusions. How do we know the $280/mo figure is the lowest possible figure achievable? If there are efficiency savings to be had with the existing setup, surely it is better to pursue them, at least in the short term? Is it better to run a pre-existing car in a more environmentally aware manner or just bin it and get a new one, with all the associated environmental impacts of the production? Could a change in habits with the current setup yield better returns than the solar + rebate option? Is that even a fair comparison, given a rebate is given to one and not the other?
I applaud Dave's efforts. San Diego is a great place for solar - especially with all the current incentives available.
To those of you nitpicking him, thanks for showing again that no good deed goes unpunished.