GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

After reading an article on solar power in the new Consumers Report I wonder if anyone out there has experience, good or bad, with rooftop photo voltaic panels? We live in Georgia, just south of Atlanta, and half of our house's roofs faces about due South. I don't yet know how Georgia Power views "competitors," and that would be a consideration.

As we are both retirees, the payback period would be a consideration. With outright cash purchase or even a low interest loan the ROI might shorten the payback period.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

I would think your state and the Feds would assist in such a purchase.

OviedoPhotos

I researched them recently and was startled by what I learned. Basically they have a life of about 20 years or so, exposed to the elements every day and night. However the deal breaker for me was that currently they are no more than 25% efficient. For now I'll pass, I'm expecting some new developments in 2017 which is supposed to make them more efficient. In FL the power companies are fighting the growth of solar.

Carl D Loc: Albemarle, NC.

At this point in time they're not worth it because of the high cost per watt, yes I did say "watt". As someone who worked in this industry, let me tell you one of the dirty little deals that the electric companies play, they will pay at the going rate per kW but when a lot of people start doing this they will pay the cost avoidance rate. That's approx. one third of the retail rate. You then lose money hand over fist. That's what happened to the hydroelectric business of 30 years ago. Don't think for a moment that the big electric companies are going to let you make money off of them for long. As far as financing the cells, you won't be getting hardly any money per month out of that by the time they deduct the loan rate from your electric bill. Another point to consider is at what point is the maintenance of the cells yours. That can get pricey. Like I said I worked in this industry and I wouldn't own any solar cells, there also not very efficient.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

FWIW:

You have several options, buying them yourself or going with a company like Sunvest or Solar City where you only pay for the power that you generate. They will install the units on your roof, they get the tax breaks and incentives, but you have zero cash outlay. You may end up with a system that costs you zero dollars ands cuts your reliance on power company power by 50%, also it allows you to buy power at a reduced rate with no delivery charge added in to your monthly bill. Any power generated that you do not use goes back up the line to the grid and credited on your power bill.

I have a 5.98 kW system on my roof (I also have a good southern exposure), and last month I generated 106% of my power - other days are more, and some of course are less.

I went with Solar City myself, and have been quite pleased with the company, the solar cells and the power generation they afford. Solar City maintains the cells, so insurance, repairs and replacement is on them should it be needed. The installation was top shelf and very efficiently done in a few hours.

Edit: Whoops... misspoke... I did 103% for the month of June with a southern roof exposure and a 5.98 kW system on the main roof - 23 panels.

(Download)

lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

don't waste your money, the solar panels will add considerable weight to your roof, make it look ugly, and will take many years to recoup your investment, i would not do it.....speaking from a engineers point of view...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

A friend in Poughkeepsie, NY has a large solar array in his back yard, and he loves it. If I were younger, I'd go that route, but the payback would never arrive in my lifetime. Solar has gotten so popular in some areas that it has become restricted - too much of a good thing? In AZ, there is a lengthy waiting period before you can install panels - and deny electric companies their income. Electric companies in HI are limiting the payback for current they receive from solar customers.

paulie1138 Loc: Arizona

I have to weigh in on this. I live in Arizona. I put up a 9.25 KW system, cost after incentives and rebates, 9,700. My annual power bills were about 4,000, and that was 3 rate increases ago. Since 2011, my annual bill has been around 350! Oh, and 240 of that is my "meter" fee. Everybody pays that anyway. (Used to be called grid maintenance fee.) life expectancy, guaranteed to 80% for 25 years. I know some locals that have had PV since the mid 70's, and they still output 80% or more. My R.O.I. was just under 3 years. My utility gives me .03 per excess kW generated, but happily charges me .13 when I need it at night. Go solar if you plan to stay in your place for more than the ROI.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

Many thanks for the thoughtful replies! Since we are in the earliest stages of evaluating this project the opinions will be of great use. As far as the time frame of ROI is concerned, at my age - 72 - that is obviously a real concern. We have the cash - probably - for an installation, but we also want to redo our kitchen, etc, etc...

Carl D Loc: Albemarle, NC.

Redo your kitchen, it'll be much more enjoyable.

whitewolfowner

You will never get your money back. Solar panels are not a good idea for many reasons. First they are a fire hazard; if you ever have a fire, the firemen will not be able to navigate around your roof properly to put out the fire and vent the house and some have fallen from roofs because of them. Insurance companies are catching on to this fact and could be jacking rates to those that have them.

Second, they are a health hazard. They put out EMF emissions and cause serious health problems to those that are sensitive to them and who knows what down the road long term.

Third, it can take up to thirty years or more to get your investment back. The cost of a kilowatt of electricity from the cells is presently at about 72 cents a kilowatt and can take up to 30years to get your return. Donald Trump has warned people about this in his speeches.

Fourth, they are a hazard to birds; they mistake them for water and dive into them. If they are any size at all they will break the panel and the insides are highly hazardous materials; another health hazard.

Fifth, if you have a hail storm, the panels could al be destroyed.

Sixth, they only produce electricity when the sun is out; so if your not in an area where the sun is out all the time, you will only produce electricity on certain days.

Seventh, they never produce the amount of electricity that they claim they do. Also, as the panels age, their production rate goes down dramatically.

Eighth, they have maintenance issues from storms, batteries going bad (they are very expensive to replace), wind and damage form birds. The panels have to be cleaned to keep them producing at their best and id it snows and covers them up, they do not produce at all and they do not produce at night either.

Believe me, unless you are very young, wealthy and want to be independent from the grid and are willing to pay the price for it, they are just not worth it in way form or fashion. And the last place you want them is on the roof because of the fire hazard, maintenance and health reasons. If you ever do get them, have them on the ground, away from the house as far as possible and have them follow the sun in the sky to get anywhere the output they claim you will get. And your only reason for doing it, would to be independent from the grid and understand you are paying a large premium for the privilege. The government is pushing solar and wind power right now as a scheme to jack our electric rates sky high (as much as 5X or more in areas where these are abundant) in the near future and billing them as green energy. Believe me, they are anything but green energy; it's all part of the global warming scam.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

You state a lot of things -

I would welcome actual proof though on many of your items, in particular the fire hazards.... for example, being a past fireman it really makes little difference if a roof is vented on the southern exposure or the northern exposure, so having solar panels on one side of the roof really makes little or no difference if a vent needs cut in the opposite side of the roof. Properly installed panels are also not much of a fire hazard from overheating due to cut off safety features.

EMF - any proof of EMF from properly installed and grid tied DC panels?

Thanks.

Past Pro Loc: Spring Hill, Florida

We live in sunny Florida. I put up regular panels (2 4x8s) about four years ago. They are only used for hot water, my heater runs on electricity. I can honesty say that the panels provide at least 90% of the heated water used. My electric bill averages $125.00 per month, and the house is 100% electric, about 2,600 sq. ft. I think I'm coming out ahead. YMMV.

carlberg

We've had roof-top solar panels for nearly 10 years. We had $10K in a CD paying around 2%. That's $200 a year interest minus tax. We put the $10K into solar panels and our electric bills went from about $100 a month to about $10 a month, that's a saving of $90 a month X 12 = $1080 or 10.8% annual return on the $10K. It's also entertaining, watching our electric meter run backwards (really).

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

I appreciate your input, but I'd like some substantiation.

*Any documentation of the health hazards of EMF from solar panels - which generate DC - as opposed to EMF from ordinary house AC wiring?

*Other than Elon Musk's proposed house power capable battery storage, I'm unaware of solar cell installations which utilize batteries. Would you clarify?

*You assert that the government is scheming to raise our electric rates? Documentation?

*Let's not go into the global warming "scam," to use your term.

Still, you raise other points for consideration.