The Economist Misses Point on Going Solar

Yes, but imagine how much it would cost to redesign and rebuild everyone's house from the ground up? Who are these people who can affortd ot do that. And if this 'mini house' is anything to go by, who'd want to live there in the first place? It looks like the administration trailer at a construction site. I mean, if you're going to criticize the article, at least make a convincing argument.

I think those numbers are extremely inflated. I had solar put in on my house, which is an old house, with a pool, 4 person family, and pretty much every energy suck inside, and my savings was HUGE.

I paid ~25k for panels (after rebates), use 30,000 KWh per year, and was paying about $690 / month. I have had 2 bills since installation and i paid $1.43 and $1.60 for the last two months.

So I think the cost of the installation is way too high, who needs that big of a system for someone who uses that little energy? I think he was ripped off a bit. Also solar is not for everyone, if you live in an area that has high energy rates, or u fall into higher tiers of usage it definitely is worth a look, if u already have an energy efficient house then it probably doesn't make sense.

BTW I had already switched out to LED lights on the outside of the house and CFLs throughout the inside, and replaced some appliances and still didn't get my bill down that much.

Then again, this is "The Economist", the official mouthpiece for big business and "free enterprise".

These people are close to religious nuts in their devotion to the invisible hand of the market... And they support Bjorn Lomborg (among others). That alone should tell you all you need to know.

65K is way too much for a system for 8300kWh/year. The cost should be about 20-25K or so. The journalist needs to be a better shopper.

Remember that the economics of PV depends on time of use net metering. You don't say which utility is providing her power, but using PG&E E-7 rates as an example, selling power to the utility during the day at 30 cents and then buying it back at night at 9 cents certainly makes economics a lot more favorable.

Very interesting debate, and one that has gone on for a long time.

I wonder what the carbon foot print would be of having " the house and its systems ... designed or redesigned from the ground up?" I am afraid that it would be significant and might offset the energy savings.

Here in CA we have a terrible problem with sprawl, my heart has been broken over and over as productive farmland, and beautiful open space has been covered with homes, many of which have solar panels, but still with the resultant long commutes and car based lifestyles. (Look at Tracy, CA on google satellite) With that said designing for energy efficiency should be a part of EVERY remodel. Also check out Architecture 2030.org, for a very cogent discussion of the built environment's effect on energy and GHG production, and how to fix it.

I wish so much that we would stop subsidizing the extraction industries so that the true price of energy would be expressed in the market. If this were the case, I think the discussion of whether "solar pays" would be very different.

Good point - A lot of people dismiss renewables because they can't supply the same raw power as we're used to from fossil fuels. But a bit of imagination, some system redesign and a little 'expectation management' could provide us with a great quality of life, and tech that is truly sustainable.

How can you compare retro fitting an existing house (presumably built for more than 1 inhabitant) to a geeked out prefab/RV that is the 'minihome' ?

The bottom line is solar is far too expensive to justify retrofitting his house, yes there maybe other venues to lower his consumption (ie- energystar appliances,tankless waterheaters) but as far as power generation on a small individual homeowner scale- its no where near cost effective.
(Ironically if he were able to reduce his usage and his bill- this just makes solar even less attractive.)
Hopefully small scale solar will be cost effective soon - preferably occurring without our power rates skyrocketing.

I don't think The Economist has missed the point completely. Certainly trying to meet the requirements of an inefficient home with solar PV is inefficient, but there is still a strong case to be made that meeting the requirements of an efficient home may be more cost & environmentally effective with electricity produced off site than electricity produced by roof mounted PV.

I think the example above of meeting heating, refrigeration, cooking etc with gas is disingenuous - gas is NOT a fuel for the future, nor is it particularly efficient. I am not aware of any gas heating or cooling technology that can approach the performance of a modern heat pump at low temperature differentials. All you're doing is replacing grid generator emissions with household emissions - though, granted, with much higher efficiency that if you were supplying a conventional heater with power from a thermal plant, CHP does deliver a lot of good compared to the status quo.

Though may be better than electricity from coal, it's certainly not better than electricity from renewables.

That said, I think The Economist has taken either a worst case perspective, or just messed up its calcs. By my calculations he only needs 3.5kW of panels installed to break even (assuming 8 hours per day, 300days/year). $65k for 4kW of PV? Whatever.

MY - your argument simply points out the problems with wasteful consumption, not the benefits of PV. Good design prevents waste. PV generates electricity. The two are completely separate.

As I have said before, we Americans are an innovative bunch. Our economy is set up based on capitolism and this is what is going to save us, not big government programs.

These products WILL come down in price because of new technology from companys willing to invest because they see a potential proffit(not investment from inefficent gov't programs) we will be able to put solar pannels on our homes for under $10,000.

the more the gov't get involved the longer it will take and the more expensive it will be.

"65K is way too much for a system for 8300kWh/year. The cost should be about 20-25K or so. The journalist needs to be a better shopper."

Absolutely, his calculations must be way off. I've done so for a house that requires air conditioning, and it wouldn't be that much.

For about $3-4k he could cut his hot water expenses in half, which are probably half of that $900 yearly bill (assuming his hot water is electric, if it's gas it's still money saved)

Ever look at the yellow tag on a refrigerator and a hot water heater? $900 per year seems a bit low to me. Washer, dryer, dishwasher?

Sorry NIck you've lost me completely there.
In a house, how are they seperate? Good design prevents waste, so you need less input, so your PV can have more effect, surely.

Many people spend thousands to remodel their bathrooms, and justify it economically because it will increase the value of their home, in effect possibly costing nothing.

Installing power generation will also increase the value of a home, and in the same way could also cost nothing. Spending money to improve ones home is not the same as buying fireworks, you get to keep the improvements. Yet unlike the bathroom remodel, solar power will actually produce income as well.

Yes, I am a bit tired of people discouraging solar power because it takes so long to "pay for itself". The fact that it will pay for itself at all is very impressive.

Actually, I think you're the one missing the point, as I doubt that everyone in the US is going to tear down their house to make room for one designed from the ground up to be "efficient'.

That being the case, how well one can retrofit or add solar technology to existing housing is very much to the point.
It's all very well to say that one should do it "for the planet", but most families have bills to pay and kids to feed. As such, the costs involved in going solar have to make economic sense. (i.e. invest money to save money)

Which, in turn, is why we've been celebrating every time panels go up in efficiency and down in price. Because then, and only then, will the numbers make sense.

A lot of that price isn't the pannels themselves--between a contractor, inverters, "rigging" (for lack of a better word)--those costs add up.

These calculations for payback time always seem to assume the price of electricity will remain constant. They should take into account that electricity prices may rise sharply over the next few years, especially with the coming energy crunch.

payback times are about 80% determined by POLICY, not by capitalism. coal, gas and oil are highly, highly subsidized by US. wilderness-killing utility-scale renewables are on track to be highly subsidized by us. sooooo, the invisible hand has been caught cheating and needs to have it's wrist slapped.

time to level the playing field. let's get full buybacks (not just net metering), massive government subsidies for individual systems (only for the next 100 years, like fossil fuels got), low-interest loans for the entire system (paid back through the property tax system, like in SF, which makes it 100% tax deductible), and steeply tiered energy pricing. NO subsidies for any utility-scale power. At that point, we can let the invisible hand back into the game, and see how it works.

NO "payback" since we'll be flowing $500 - $1,500/year to the additional property tax for about 5 - 8 years, and in the meantime, if we manage our demand right, we will be collecting checks from the utility every month.

why not? it's exactly the systems the utilities have bribed their way into! time for a little energy revolution, if you ask me.