I have actually built and ran one. I do have to tell you though they are HIGH maintenance.
Respectfully; I disagree. At least; I disagree that ALL solar is not cost effective. I've got a self-installed system on my roof that will pay for itself in 5 years, yet has an expected life of 20. Even if the ROI estimates are off by 2x, the system will still be a net-profit over it's life.
Sorry; not true. Not assuming the panels are not maxed out under cloud cover. Assuming your panels and setup can handle the energy full sun can provide, then any cloud cover will reduce the output of the system. Here, for example, is the relative monthly output of my system as we passed from Summer into Winter:
Every city and building inspector is different, but generally you only have to have things to-code that are involved in the upgrade. In the case of solar, that's going to be the mounting surface (eg; your roof; but it you have the space, there's the option of putting them on their own mountings) and your power main. Plus anything you install, of course, must be to-code. The building codes for solar are actually rather generous and not hard to meet.
Respectfully; I disagree. At least; I disagree that ALL solar is not cost effective. I've got a self-installed system on my roof that will pay for itself in 5 years, yet has an expected life of 20. Even if the ROI estimates are off by 2x, the system will still be a net-profit over it's life.
I DO agree that mass-market solar companies do not produce as cost-effective a system as you can build yourself. The labor costs they charge (for job planning, install, and on-going support) eat into the profit margins of the homeowner. They also limit the system size that they will install (often to no more than 15% above current average need or the like). This limit makes it so that you can't easily install a system (through them) that is as profitable as it otherwise could be. They also use a "one size fits all" material list and a generic blueprint. This is easier for them to turn installs, but does not generally result in the best outcome for the home owner.
Sorry; not true. Not assuming the panels are not maxed out under cloud cover. Assuming your panels and setup can handle the energy full sun can provide, then any cloud cover will reduce the output of the system. Here, for example, is the relative monthly output of my system as we passed from Summer into Winter:
Nothing has changed in the system during that time; it's all weather-related.
Every city and building inspector is different, but generally you only have to have things to-code that are involved in the upgrade. In the case of solar, that's going to be the mounting surface (eg; your roof; but it you have the space, there's the option of putting them on their own mountings) and your power main. Plus anything you install, of course, must be to-code. The building codes for solar are actually rather generous and not hard to meet.
I can't say how solar and wind would compare; I never looked into installing wind. But unless you have near-constant winds that are high enough to spin a turbine, I doubt that wind would be as cost effective. As I understand it; wind turbines require constant wind, as well - gusts don't work as well. Again; I've not looked into it, so all that is guess and conjecture.
This is the crux of it, I suppose. My system produces far more power than $100/month, and it cost me around $20k net to install. But that's me and my home. Every house has a different amount of space available that can support solar panels to a differing degree. For some, the numbers make sense. For others, they do not.
All true, of course. I, myself, work from home - so my day-time power use is a significant factor. Where I'm at, there is no snow and (unfortunately) infrequent rains over the course of the year. In terms of day/night, the OP did mention that they are looking to offset the cost of the power used by their reefing; I'm not sure if that means that they are looking to offset just the cost of the reef gear, or if they are looking for everything in the house. If just the reef gear, you could "oversize" the system to cover the night-time use, perhaps (sort of an in-home buy-back).
Yes; true - the sun angle changes. I should have posted a graph of the daily fluctuations, but wanted to give a bigger picture. Suffice to say; there is daily variation as well. My panels are some of the newest on the market; I would love to find out that there are panels out there that are cost effective and aren't impacted by clouds and such, but I did not find them in my searches. The best I could do (which I did) was to get "micro inverters" so that each panel could maximize it's own draw (as opposed to "standard" systems where all panels in a string get reduced to the lowest producer's level).
My cost of solar is $10/month. You are correct that this could go up. But then, so could - will - the cost of energy itself; it always has. I'll take my chances that the fee I pay will go up slower than the cost of power.
FYI: These will still be a luxury item in terms of cost effectiveness. The market for them is for those who want solar, but don't want the "unsightly" panels on their roof. As with most things, you pay more for it to look good. ;-)
