Smiley face
Solar Energy
  • Most Recent Posts

  • Fill out our simple online form for a Free Quote on a solar installation for your home or business.

    Free Solar Quote
  • Solar Energy Cost

    Would you like to own your electricity? Want to stop worrying about rate inflation from your utility company, charging you whatever they like? Did you know that rates have been rising by about 6% each year in California for example? They will only keep going up and up unless you do something about it!

    By installing a solar electric system you can SAVE MONEY, break free from the clutches of your utility company and HELP the Environment too.

    Only 20 Years ago, solar energy cost 7 times as much. Advanced technologies have contributed to the enormous decrease in price, but it is mainly due to the increase in manufacturing volumes, as more and more people realise the benefits of solar energy.

    There’s more good news. Solar energy cost will continue to decline as the market continues to grow, making it even more affordable.

    Governments too have realised the benefits. Incentives are available form state, federal and local governments, as well as some utility companies.       Check out the DSIRE websiteto find out what’s available in your area (USA only).

    Another cost benefit is that you will get paid for the excess electricity you produce through a system called – Net-metering.

    $ – Just how much does solar energy cost? – $

    It varies. Depending on the size of your household, the amount of electricity you use, the particular solar energy system you choose, how much sunshine you receive in your area and available government funding to name only a few.

    As a very rough guide, depending on the above conditions – - -

    • A solar hot water system will cost between US $2,000 and $4,000.
    • A photovoltaic system will cost between US $8,000 and $10,000 for a 1kW system. (or $8 – $10 /Watt)

    An average American family, living in a 3-bedroom home will require a 1.5 – 3kW system, which will cost between US $13,000 and US $27,000, before rebates.


    Lets take a couple of example of a Californian household to illustrate just how much you can save with all these incentives:

    Example 1:

    An average family needing 2.5 Kilowatt system –
    (current electricity bill between $50 and $75 per month)

    Cost of Solar electric system incl. Installation: $22,500

    LESS: Government Rebate: – $7,000 *

    LESS: Tax credit: -$1,163 **
    ___________________________________

    You pay only: $14,337
    ___________________________________

    Example 2:

    An average family needing 3 Kilowatt system –
    (current electricity bill between $75 and $100 per month)

    Cost of Solar electric system incl. Installation: $27,000

    LESS: Government Rebate: – $8,400 *

    LESS: Tax credit: -$1,395 **
    ___________________________________

    You pay only: $17,205
    ___________________________________

    Save even more with Net Metering each year.

    * (2.5 Kw system = 2500 watt x $2.80 per watt rebate = $7,000)
    (3Kw system = 3000 watt x $2.80 per watt rebate = $8,400)

    ** (7.5% of system cost after rebate. $22,500 – $7,000 x 7.5% = $1,163)
    (7.5% of system cost after rebate. $27,000 – $8,400 x 7.5% = $1,395)

    As a rough guide: Add .5 to your system size for each additional $25 on your bill and $4,500 to the cost before incentives.

    PLEASE NOTE that these prices are only estimates and will vary depending on many different factors that needs to be taken into account for each specific installation.

    See this article in its original location here

    Check us out on the web at www.allenergysolar.com

    Sweet looking design, snazzy solar panels, and nearly net zero in energy consumption and cost. What a great idea to make an up front investment in something you know is going to help the environment and your wallet/pocketbook in the long run. Check out the article below on this unique, but hopefully becoming more common, net zero house.

    A Minnesota couple has almost, but not quite, built the net-zero energy house 25 miles from the Canadian border. A story by David Shaffer in the tomorrow’s Star Tribune business section points to the article the couple published in the September/October issue of Solar Today.

    Architect Nancy Schultz and husband Dr. John Eckfeldt , a professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, built their lakefront home near Isabella, Minn., 80 miles northeast of Duluth.. It’s is tightly insulated with R-values of 55 and 90 in the walls and roof.

    It has passive solar heating using south-facing glass, plus a rooftop solar heat collector that recirculates liquid through an experimental heat-storage “crib” beneath the house filled with sand, gravel and taconite ore pellets. The house also has a heat-recovery system for outgoing air and a ground-loop system to preheat incoming air.

    Other rooftop solar panels generate electricity. A small electric boiler is a backup heat source. Overall the house is “near net-zero,” meaning is uses almost all renewable energy and has almost no carbon footprint.

    “We have been going up there for 30 years,” said Schultz. “We decided to build it as an experiment station.”

    But Minnesota winters were still too much. In the article, the couple said the heat-storage system wasn’t able to keep the house at 70 degrees F when the outside temperature was minus 40 degrees, but they are working on improvements.

    But it’s not cheap. The house cost $342 per square foot, compared to $200 per square foot and up for a conventional house, Schultz said.

     

    See the article in its original location here.

    Check us out at www.allenergysolar.com

    “The Cost of Solar Power is Dropping, While the Price of Nearly Every Other Energy Source is Increasing”  Think about this, that means that with solar panels on your roof, each subsequent year will yield a greater cost savings to the solar powered home owner.

    Idaho power is taking advantage of this trend and using it to their advantage.  They know that peak energy consumption happens when it is piping hot out and everyone is staying inside with their AC blaring.  How convenient that at the same time solar energy production is at its highest and can offset these increases.  Think about your energy bills in the summer compared to the winter.  Big difference right?  The hardest thing for the power companies is keeping up with hot day summer demand so only more and more power companies like Idaho Power will being going solar. How ’bout you?

    Check out the full article on Idaho power here.

    Check us out on the web for your commercial or residential solar project:  www.allenergysolar.com

    While I am not sure if it is possible to love solar as much as we do, for those that come close it is interesting to imagine that some home owners associations might try to prevent some people from putting up solar.  We have never run into such a problem, but apparently, in rare instances this has happened.  Check it out here: Homeowners Associations and then check us out www.allenergysolar.com.

    In the summer months we start to see our electric bills skyrocket.  Isn’t it interesting that the this big ball of burning gas can actually help cool us down even as we are heating up!  Because the sun is higher in the sky during the summer months, solar powered homes and businesses can take advantage of their solar systems producing the most amount of energy for them when them when they need it the most.

    Awesome right? This company in Pennsylvania certainly thinks so.  Read their story: Solar Panels and Iced Tea or check us out at www. allenergysolar.com to start your story.

    From the looks of it, Michigan and Wisconsin have the two lowest renewable energy standards in the Midwest. The states have committed to ramping up their renewable use to 10 percent by 2015, while other states in the region, like Minnesota and Illinois, are shooting for more than 20 percent by 2025.

    But there’s more to Renewable Portfolio Standards, or RPS, than just straight percentages. And while some states are aiming higher than others, there are ongoing battles in places like Missouri and Ohio over various methods that utilities can use to meet the marks — from buying out-of-state Renewable Energy Credits to producing solar power at in-state locations.

    Still, some advocates say Michigan and Wisconsin should be shooting higher, or at least looking past 2015, based on successes in other states. Various studies show that renewable energy mandates have helped decrease the use of finite fossil fuels and increase economic development and jobs across the U.S. And the costs for renewable sources, like wind and solar, are becoming competitive with mainstays like coal.

    Behind the numbers

    It’s not like you can just look at percentages and figure this out. There’s a lot of small print, said Galen Barbose, a staff research associate at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, an arm of U.S. Department of Energy. The RPS in Ohio, for instance, can fool some people. The standard is for 25 percent “alternative energy resources” by 2024.

    But only half of that has to be met with renewables, Barbose explains. The other half can be met with everything from “clean coal“ to advanced nuclear technologies. Compared to Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin will have a higher percentage of renewable energy by 2015 if the standards are met.

    Irene Dimitry is director of energy efficiency and renewables for DTE Energy in Detroit. Her utility spent time researching rules in other states before the 2008 passage of Michigan’s 10 percent by 2015 standard. We found that it was very difficult to compare across states,” Dimitry said, “because different things qualified and just looking at the straight percentage requirement doesn’t tell you the whole story. Michigan’s 10 percent requirement doesn’t sound like so much as a percentage, but in terms of megawatt hours and what we actually have to build and produce, it’s an awful lot, and it’s more than most other states.”

    Dimitry quotes a July 2009 report by SNL Financial that ranks Michigan fifth in the nation based on megawatt hours produced under 2014 benchmarks. Minnesota was No. 3, Illinois was No. 7, and Wisconsin was No. 13.

    A learning curve

    Barbose sees the Midwest RPS goals as ambitious, but typical of other states. “In the early stages of an RPS, the challenges usually lie in the policies themselves,” he said. “The policies are imperfectly designed.” Barbose said Midwest states are in different stages of compliance with their RPS policies, so some are experiencing “growing pains” while others haven’t gotten that far.

    Minnesota and Wisconsin have had (an RPS) in force for many years. They have a well-established program, and well-established processes,” he said. “In Ohio, they’re just kind of getting started. Illinois is a couple of years into their RPS now.”

    Minnesota utilities are on track to meet a 25 percent by 2025 standard, which applies to most utilities there, according to the state’s Office of Energy Security. While Wisconsin and Minnesota have been able to successfully implement their RPS programs, Barbose said, “some of the other states are maybe struggling a little bit.”

    There’s a fight over Missouri’s 15 percent by 2021 Renewable Electricity Standard, or RES, which was approved by voters in 2008.

    The ballot initiative in Missouri required the drafting of administrative rules following the vote. When those rules were later adopted by the state Legislature, key provisions were eliminated, says Josh Jones, clean energy organizer with Renew Missouri, a nonprofit that helped gather 175,000 signatures for the ballot initiative.

    The “deal-breaker” was the removal of geographic sourcing, Jones said. The standard sold to voters would have required power companies to buy renewable energy from in-state facilities, or at least neighboring states that supplied electricity to Missouri.

    Jones said a University of Missouri-St. Louis study, done before the vote and the redrafted rules, estimated 9,500 jobs and almost $3 billion in economic development from 3,500 megawatts of in-state or neighboring-state renewable generation.

    The utilities now will be able to fully comply by purchasing the cheapest (Renewable Energy Credits) from anywhere on the open market,” he said.

    The bottom line

    • About 3.6 percent of Michigan’s electricity is produced by renewable sources, according to the latest data from the Michigan Public Service Commission. That’s up from 2.9 percent in 2007.The data show the cost of power from a conventional coal plant is at $133 per megawatt hour, while average costs for renewable energy are coming in at about $102 for wind and $99 for biomass.
    • They should follow Minnesota’s and Illinois’ lead,” Stanfield said. “That’s certainly doable given the capacity in the Midwest for wind and other renewables.”
    • Justin Barnes, a policy analyst at the North Carolina Solar Center, said Midwest utilities haven’t had problems meeting state renewable standards, based on compliance reports. The center runs the DSIRE project, which stands for Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency.

    Xcel Energy has voluntarily created a solar rewards program in Minnesota. This reward pays it’s customers a large sum of money to help offset the cost of installing solar. In exchange Xcel takes ownership of the Renewable Energy Credits – a bi-product of generating renewable energy. It is a huge incentive and truly brings the upfront investment down to a manageable amount. But what is Xcel doing elsewhere?

    The following article was posted on Renewable Energy world yesterday.

    Colorado’s PV Industry Threatened by Xcel Energy

    By Blake Jones, Namaste Solar |   February 21, 2011

    The immediate result is that sales activity in Xcel’s customer-sited PV market has come to a grinding halt. Xcel Energy’s Solar*Rewards program will not accept new project applications until the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) addresses the issue.  Unfortunately, Xcel’s actions parallel those taken by Colorado’s other IOU and second largest utility, Black Hills Energy, which took similar actions last October that have effectively killed its portion of the state’s PV market.  In the meantime, until this issue is resolved by the CPUC, local solar companies only have previously-approved projects, if any, to sustain them while the future of Colorado’s solar industry and customer-sited PV market hangs in the balance.

    Prior to the unexpected announcement, incentive levels for the Xcel Energy Solar*Rewards program had been set according to capacity-based tiers that Xcel published – and updated daily – on its website (see snapshot below — more info in sidebar at end of the article).  Modeled after the California Solar Initiative (CSI), the capacity-based tiers were established in 2009 with the intention of providing a road map of how the solar incentives would decline over time, thereby providing critically important transparency and visibility.

    Solar companies used this information to plan their business operations and communicate to potential solar customers.  Last Wednesday, Xcel Energy detoured from this road map with their unexpected, unilateral announcement.  It was equivalent to immediately skipping over the remaining five steps that collectively represented over 36 MW in just one of the four Solar*Rewards incentive categories (first table in sidebar below).

    Why is Xcel Energy doing this?  In its press release, it claims that, “The changes are prompted by the decline in solar panel costs and increasing subsidization from government programs. Together, these developments have reduced the level of Xcel Energy incentives needed to support customer participation in Solar*Rewards.”  Indeed, solar panel costs have declined over 50% in the past 2-3 years, but it’s unclear what government programs Xcel is referring to that are increasing their subsidization.

    Either way, the decreasing cost of installing solar has allowed the incentive levels to be reduced proportionately over the same time period, in keeping with the program’s original outline.  As future cost reductions were realized, the capacity-based tiers should have allowed for a smooth transition, allowing demand and cost reductions to drive the decrease in incentives.  Demand would only be sustained if costs continued to decline – that’s part of the beauty of such a system – so it’s unclear why Xcel Energy felt the need to accelerate the incentive reductions and ignore their own previous road map to the detriment of the local solar industry.

    Xcel Energy’s actions threaten to reverse the progress that Colorado has made since the Solar*Rewards program was launched five years ago as a result of a voter-approved Renewable Energy Standard (RES).  Colorado’s RES is one of the best in the country (30% by 2020) and Colorado has been among the top five PV markets in the U.S. for many years.  Since its launch in 2006, the Solar*Rewards program helped create over 5,300 local solar jobs at over 400+ companies that have collectively installed more than 70 MW of customer-sited PV systems (see graph below).

    If Xcel’s actions are approved by the CPUC, I predict that over 50-75% of these jobs will be lost by the end of this year, causing Colorado to lose valuable solar industry infrastructure that took five years to build.

    According to the press release, Xcel Energy predicts that over 59 MW of PV systems will be installed in 2011.  Despite the information provided, it’s difficult to discern how much of this is customer-sited and how much is utility-scale.  For example, the 59 MW likely contains a single 30+ MW utility-scale PV project in southern Colorado that SunPower and Iberdrola have been contracted to install.  Xcel seems to claim that the existing backlog of approved, but not-yet-installed, customer-sited projects totals over 6 MW and that over 10 MW of customer-sited solar will be sold in 2011, but I personally don’t see how that can happen at their proposed incentive levels.

    This unilateral move by Xcel Energy is a departure from the expectations of Colorado’s voters, explicit in 2004’s voter-approved ballot initiative, in which they states that the RES and solar incentive program should contribute to building a sustainable solar industry in Colorado. Businesses depend on transparent, stable, long-term policies to make hiring and investment decisions, and this move undermines the previously-established capacity-based tiers that Xcel Energy created and obtained approval for from the CPUC.

    With the national and international spotlight that President Obama put on the Colorado solar marketplace in 2008 (when he signed the historic American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at the site of a 100 kW PV system in Denver), this is an embarrassment to our state that might spoil Colorado’s “New Energy Economy” success story.  Xcel’s regrettable and surprising act demonstrates the urgent need for a reformed incentive program that will help build a sustainable solar industry, and in Colorado’s case, I strongly believe that this requires that the incentive program be independent from Xcel Energy’s and Black Hills Energy’s control.

    The solar industry will be organizing a protest to Xcel Energy’s actions on the steps of the state capital in Denver next Friday, February 25, at 12:00 p.m.  Please join us there to express your support. This is not just about Colorado – it’s also about stopping a national precedent from being set by two Colorado utilities that have pulled the plug on a growing solar industry.  For more information or to get involved, please contact the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (CoSEIA) at www.coseia.org.


    Sidebar: Xcel Energy Solar*Rewards Program

    More info at this link.

    Snapshots of three of the four incentive categories

    • Small – Customer-Owned (<10 kW)
    • Small – Third Party Developer (<10 kW)
    • Medium – Tier 1 (10-100 kW)

    Snapshot of the just the tiers:

    Small — Customer-Owned (<10 kW)
    Step Upfront Price
    per watt DC
    MW in step MW Confirmed MW Remaining
    in Step
    Date Step Began
    1 $1.50 0.5 0.518378 -.018378 10/25/09
    2 $1.00 1 1.042552 -.042552 11/11/09
    3 85¢ 1 1.028433 -.028433 12/2/09
    4 70¢ 1 1.048483 -.048483 12/31/09
    5 55¢ 1 1.006607 -0.006607 3/18/10
    6 45¢ 3 3.051158 -0.051158 5/14/10
    7*(current) 35¢ 4 1.786143 2.213857 10/14/10
    8 25¢ 4 4
    9 15¢ 4 4
    10 10¢ 8 8
    11 10 10
    12 10 10
    Small — Third Party Developer (<10 kW)
    Step Price per
    kWh generated
    MW in step MW Confirmed MW Remaining
    in Step
    Date

    Step Began

    1 11¢ 3 3.0323 -0.0323 starting price
    2 2 2.082185 -0.082185 9/08/10
    3 1 1.006397 -0.006397 12/23/10
    4* (currentl level) 1 0.365708 0.634292 01/26/11
    5 1 1
    6 3.5¢ 2 2
    7 2.5¢ 4 4
    8 4 4
    9 8 8
    10 .05¢ 8 8
    11 .05¢ 10 10
    12 .01¢ 10 10

    Over the last two decades, Minnesota has experienced a dramatic change in our energy use and energy policies. We are closer than ever to achieving a new energy economy using homegrown resources that create jobs, protect our air and water, and strengthen our state’s economy and communities. However, there is still much that needs to be accomplished to reach our state, regional, and national clean energy and global warming pollution reduction goals. Looking back, what are some of the biggest energy changes and successes for Minnesota over the past 25 years, and more importantly, what steps need to be taken to continue to improve the way we use energy and our energy policies?
    Twenty-five years ago, the energy landscape of Minnesota and the United States looked much different than it does today. Despite tangible examples of the results of our nation’s fossil fuel addiction, such as the oil crises of 1973 and 1979, the country seemed to be stalled – or even moving backwards – on the path to a new energy economy. As a significant sign of the times, Ronald Reagan famously removed President Carter’s solar panels from the White House. And while the first commercial-scale wind farms were built about 25 years ago, the technology was written off as unreliable and expensive. Massive investments in coal plants to meet electricity needs were the norm, and utilities were far more concerned about finding customers for a glut of coal-fired power than developing energy efficiency measures or renewable energy. Our country was at a crossroads on energy. With rising oil, natural gas, and electrical prices, it was clear that the American economy was going to feel the energy squeeze if real leadership wasn’t shown. Minnesota’s brutal winters meant that our state would be among those that bore the brunt of these increasing costs.
    Over the next 25 years, Minnesota gradually turned its attention to new energy and conservation. Landmark change came in 2007 when the legislature and Governor Pawlenty agreed on sweeping clean energy, energy efficiency, and global warming policies. Approved overwhelmingly by a bipartisan Minnesota legislature, this legislation guarantees that 25 percent of our state’s electricity will be generated from renewable energy by 2020. At the same time, all electric and gas utilities will invest in energy-efficiency measures to achieve a 1.5 percent annual energy savings. The new laws in 2007 also established global warming pollution reduction goals for 2015 and 2025, culminating with an 80 percent reduction in 2050. This legislation also instituted a state-wide moratorium on new coal-fired electricity for Minnesota consumers, preventing new construction of coal-fired power plants to serve Minnesota-or new coal power contracts from existing plants.
    Today, Minnesota is among the nation’s leaders in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and as a state we have many victories to celebrate. Minnesota has over 1,800 megawatts of installed wind power-currently generating nearly 10 percent of all our electricity. We also import wind energy from North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa, each of which receives 10 to 20 percent of its state’s electricity generation from wind. Additionally, as the energy landscape rapidly changed, investors in 2009 withdrew support from a $1.6 billion coal-fired power plant after protracted delays and organized opposition; while the Upper Midwest’s largest solar farm was recently built near St. Cloud at St. John’s University.
    As Minnesota aggressively pursues our statewide energy efficiency and clean energy goals, the cleantech industries have become the one bright spot in a troubling economic landscape. Clean energy developers, installers, component manufactures, and agricultural landowners with renewable generation on their land are all growing Minnesota’s economy and creating sustainable, local jobs. Two Minnesota construction companies – Blattner and Mortenson – are top players in a multibillion dollar wind farm industry, a competitive edge they gained building wind farms in Minnesota in the 1990s.
    Minnesota has also seen many advances in how we use energy in transportation and transit. Just this year, the legislature and governor agreed on a new policy called Minnesota Complete Streets. It directs the Minnesota Department of Transportation that when it builds or rebuilds roads, it must to make them safe and accessible for all users, including those traveling on foot, bike, bus, or wheelchair. Minnesotans can expect more focus on providing sidewalks, crosswalks, safe wheelchair ramps, bike lanes and paths, safe bus stops, and other road designs that improve safety and use less energy.
    While Minnesota has many successes to celebrate, there is still much to be accomplished. Today, as 25 years ago, our country is at another crossroads on energy. Sixty percent of Minnesota’s electricity still comes from coal-fired power plants that deposit mercury and global warming pollution into Minnesota’s water and air. Worldwide, and right here in Minnesota, we are already starting to see and feel the effects of climate change. Our addiction to oil has only grown, despite record gas prices, and we are now forced to drill the most inaccessible oil in some of the world’s most fragile areas. The Midwest is growing its dependence on the oil from Alberta’s tar sands, some of the most polluting oil left on earth.
    During the summer of 2010, with shocking signs of weather havoc all around the world and with oil spewing from a broken deepwater drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, our U.S. Senate was unable to take action on energy – and even chose to skip the debate. Without a clearly defined and stable path set forth by federal legislation, clean energy development on the state level is put in jeopardy. Without federal action, states and industries cannot have the clarity that clean energy is the foundation of our nation’s future economic health. With such uncertainty and additional barriers imposed by fossil fuel interests, Minnesota cannot reach its full clean energy and efficiency potential.
    If we are to meet our clean energy and carbon reduction goals, Minnesota needs to continue to lead on smart energy policy and build on our previous success. Continued progress towards our already-established state goals, pursuing increased and better forms of transit and transportation, developing advanced biofuels and support for electric cars, leadership on Midwest-wide and federal carbon reduction legislation, and a federal Renewable Energy Standard and Energy Efficiency Standard are just some of the ways that Minnesota can continue to lead the region and nation.

    The level of energy innovation and energy policy progress that has been made in the past 25 years is monumental. But now we need to build on and accelerate our past progress to ensure that in the next 25 years we’ll be nearing the finish line and realizing a modern energy system, powered by renewables and efficiency.