SOLAR POWER

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/30/3432172/arizona-solar-property-tax/

yes let's make it more unattractive to use clean renewable energy source

Some time circa 1980 I bought a Casio solar-powered calculator for about $8. It still works. I still use it.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/30/3432172/arizona-solar-property-tax/

these fucking ALEC people... it's gratifying that they've been failing for the most part but just grrr

I am also dismayed at the net metering battles

http://www.solarcity.com/learn/understanding-netmetering.aspx

climate change = the need to help clean energy grow , not treat it like any other business

oh hi, this is my field

ALEC sucks

most people feel that the subsidies are hindering the industry in the long run, it needs to go toe to toe with fossil - since the modules are dirt cheap, the barriers esp. in America are permitting costs & red tape.

more later maybe

I live in Southern California with a clear south facing roof. A guy came by one day to run the numbers on a solar panel system lease. He was really excited about the roof and said it would be a big savings. It turns out I would have been guaranteed to save $35/month which wasn't very exciting to me - especially since it was a 20 year lease/commitment. I just kept thinking that in even 10 years, these panels will probably cost nothing.

I also wonder why there aren't more living people wearing solar watches on 'The Walking Dead'.

the solar lease thing was attractive to me for a little bit but now I'm thinking that's basically lining the pockets of a bank somewhere.

xp
Ditto for me (SoCal south-facing roof) but my electric bill isn't that high. If I ever break down and get A/C, or a plug-in electric car, I'd do it.

u guys ya gotta take the rebates into account - payback time on a 5 KW system in CA right now is just over 6 years

(I really am busy, but had to note that)

solarpowerrocks dot com has a good rundown of rebates & incentives

That included the rebates/incentives etc etc, which were all rolled into the lease. This was about a year and a half ago. He recently came by having quit the (leading) lease company and was selling systems outright and the savings would have been similar but with a much shorter loan commitment.

He's annoyed that i won't sign up for guaranteed savings, but I just feel like it will get cheaper and cheaper so why commit now?

A perfect roof for solar PV would be large, south facing and pitched at an angle between 30º and 45º
― under the cobblestones, le dogshit (xelab), Saturday, 3 May 2014 03:04 (3 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not necessarily so, it depends whether you want to maximise your grid exports or minimise your grid consumption. A decision you have to make base don the relative value of the feed in tariff versus retail electricity price. Although south* facing panels (angled appropriately) maximises electricity production. East and west facing panels match typical domestic loads (morning and evening) . Given that panels are so cheap right now a better array would be oversized, relative to the inverter, and cover all three aspects.

*Flip south for north for my hemisphere

Panels and inverters are getting cheaper, but as they become a smaller proportion of total system cost, the effect to total system cost will be lessened so there will be a levelling off of prices. US has very high installation costs relative to Germany and especially Australia. Solar systems cost a lot more because of these 'soft' costs. There's obviously room for improvement there as both Australia and Germany are high wage economies, but soft costs will be hard to reduce.

http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2013/5306.html

If you should lock in a good FiT then you should go for it because the premium FiT backlash in Australia was savage and quick when it happened.

Solar is cost competitive with grid power in the absence of subsides in Australia although this is partly due to ridiculously high electricity prices, inflated by over investing in the electricity grid (also population density, cross subsides etc. etc.)

grid parity!! see also: Hawaii

Ed totally otm, of course

yeah yolu don't get the rebates under the lease plans. the company installing does, and 'passes that savings on to you' if you believe that.

lol don't get me started abt leasing, what a scam

see here (I don't know these people but the video is good)

http://vimeo.com/70888784

I think electrical rates will increase in thte future but solar will be cheaper - thus they have an incentive to fight people getting solar - just like the oil industry woudl fight if people could harevst and refine gasoline from their backyards.

I am getting heat pumps heater and domwestic hot water and I hope to in the future have them powered by solar

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Net-zero_energy_homes_a_building_trend_.html

envious

The next cool thing will be putting your hetapump or watever on the DC bus. 80% of what you have in your home runs on DC and solar panels produce DC. DC to DC conversion is much more efficient than DC-AC-DC. Some of the AC-DC conversion is criminally inefficient <50% doesn't get wasted.

Are you doing solar thermal for your hot water as well? Solar thermal with an electric/gas boost is very popular down here, probably the best playback for solar, plus you get storage.

NO to solar for hot water, not really a good roofspace for it right now (trees)

so you could have yoru whole house on DC if you just ran it all from solar panels? WHat abotu connection to the grid? have yoru house get inverted to dc from the street?

Pretty much, although it would be a bit heath robinson at the moment. The infrastructure in terms of plugs and sockets, DC-DC converters isn't there yet but its coming. Most of the DC focus has been in data centres at 380V and commercial lighting at 48V but 3 wire 120V DC would be pretty effective in the home.

You'd have to invert/rectify for a 2 way grid connection but that would be more efficient than all the little wall warts you currently have.

lotta new construction has 5 VDC built in, it's funny because aiui USB was never intended as a power delivery source, just data.

as Ed says, DC appliances for the home are coming soon/already here - some DC fridges are on the market now.

we'll probably still see long distance grid transmission in AC, but more and more DC at a local level - see also all the discussion around microgrids, once again folks in developing countries can leapfrog technology like they did w/cell phone infrastructure and have localized power grids.

I think you'd still have to have batteries or some other form of energy storage (flywheel etc, I have seen all kinds of zany ideas) to use solar-generated DC effectively in a home DC environment. That storage seems like the weak link in all of this right now, although lithium ion has promise it is very expensive.

this summer I am gonna put a small 300-400 watt kit together to run our chest freezer and whatever else I can throw on the inverter without hitting 50% depth of discharge on the batteries. I'll probably use MK Deka AGM type, my understanding is that they're good for 5-7 years depending on how hard you cycle them.

Deka, Trojan, Sonnenschien seem to be the brands that people talk about the most as far as storage goes right now. What brand of BMS/Charge controller are you going to use?

well Outback would be my top choice, and Morningstar my second. Since the Outbacks are around $500, I think I'll probably use an MPPT Morningstar with a 45 amp limit (maybe $350?)- both those brands have high input voltage limits so you can stack the panels in series to reduce voltage drop. If my budget can't handle it, I'll put the panels in parallel, use a Xantrex C35, and upgrade later.

feasibility of generating wind power? I mean you would have to have a really windy location I would think to get any juice

Xantrex really is the best I can think of where solar +storage are concerned. I was at a solar trade fair last week and a local integrator that has previously been all about Xantrex was repping for a Chinese brand called Solax, although when questioned they hadn't installed many.

Outback and Midnite are very popular with the Northern California Weed growing crowd.

Wind, wind isn't particularly economical at small scale, the turbines are OK but you then have to build a sacking great tower to get it to a height that will lift it out of the wind shadow of trees and other structures. Permitting for a decent size wind tower is going to be way, way harder than solar.

what aboout many many littel windmills?
they woudl be cute anyway

My concern is how to store power generated from solar in the summertime that is excess from what you need, so you can use it later in winter months. Some kind of huge batteries? would the power stay for months?
somehow convert the power to a fuel?

omfg let us ridicule these scum (C & P'd from National Report so as not to give them clicks)

<National Report>This week, a scientific research facility in Wyoming made a startling discovery that is certain to change the way millions of Americans look at the environmentalism movement, after they found conclusive evidence that solar panels not only convert the sun’s energy into usable energy, but that they are also draining the sun of its own energy, possibly with catastrophic consequences far worse than global warming.
Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy radiated from the sun isn’t merely captured in solar panels, but that energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a process they refer to as “forced photovoltaic drainage.”
“Put into laymen’s terms, the solar panels capture the sun’s energy, but pull on the sun over time, forcing more energy to be released than the sun is actually producing,” WIT claims in a scientific white paper published on Wednesday. “Imagine a waterfall, dumping water. But you aren’t catching the water in buckets, but rather sucking it in with a vacuum cleaner. Eventually, you’re going to suck in so much water that you drain the river above that waterfall completely.”

WIT is adamant that there’s no immediate danger, however. “Currently, solar panels are an energy niche, and do not pose a serious risk to the sun. But if we converted our grids to solar energy in a big way, with panels on domestic homes and commercial businesses, and paving our parking lots with panels, we’d start seeing very serious problems over time. If every home in the world had solar panels on their roofs, global temperatures would drop by as much as thirty degrees over twenty years, and the sun could die out within three hundred to four hundred years.”
The study was commissioned in August 2011 by the Halliburton corporation, who wanted to learn if the energy giant should start manufacturing and selling solar panels domestically and internationally. Halliburton’s executives wanted to know more about the sustainability of solar energy and how photovoltaic technology might evolve over the next ten years. But based on the findings of WIT’s research in the field, Halliburton revealed on Friday that they will not be entering the solar energy market.
“Solar panels destroying the sun could potentially be the worst man-made climate disaster in the history of the world, and Halliburton will not be taking part in that,” the company stated in a press release issued Friday morning. “It’s obvious, based on the findings of this neutral scientific research group, that humans needs to become more dependent on fossil fuels like oil and coal, not less. Because these so-called `green technologies’ are far more dangerous to the Earth than any hydrofracking operation or deep-water drilling station. What good is clean air when our very sun is no longer functional?”
- See more at: http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/#sthash.w1rwE6tn.dpuf

oh n/m it's a parody site

http://www.thermodynamicpanelsuk.com/

anyone knwo much abotu this

solar leasing vs. owning - which is the better?

even w/o my knowledge of the industry, as a homeowner I'd never lease:

http://www.pv-tech.org/guest_blog/the_true_costs_of_solar_leasing

leases don't make sense for residences afaik

Solar Tariffs Seem Certain To Hurt U.S. Installation Market

http://www.revisionenergy.com/maine-nh-solar-financing-loans.php

thinking of doing this

Does anyone have any thoughts about solar roadways?

(Is there a separate thread where it's being discussed?)

fuckin Nevada, it blows my mind

thanks to WmC for the link

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/20/10793732/nevada-solar-industry-explained

not sure what can be done at this point, the brazen bait-and-switch move here is just insane

yeah this is ridiculous and will bite them in the ass

they're not the only states where investor-owned utilities are trying to roll back net-energy-metering - distributed generation systems are basically a death knell for the traditional utility distribution system model

awful

but no fear, the Republican Party is almost dead

PUC is caving on the retroactive issue, hopefully:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nevada-puc-to-reconsider-grandfathering-rooftop-solar-customers-into-new-ne

there's no way this entire debacle doesn't get reversed at some pt imo - either because of lawsuits or political pressure

boo

I haven't posted or even been on ILX for a long time but this seems like a good time to decloak.

Naturally net-metering is important but providing parity payment is unsustainable and although the way it was handled in Nevada was utterly boneheaded it probably had to go in time. My understanding was that NV provided no-sunset for parity net metering payments and rather than closing the scheme for new installs pulled the rug from under existing owners. In a market with so many PPAs and people having bought into sola under assumptions of payback over time that was plain wrong.

Over here in Australia we've had all kinds of incentive scheme from Carbo based credits, generous (66c/kWh) and less generous gross metering, and net metering. Currently every new customer gets the carbon credit (Renewable Energy Target) up front and a net metering create of ~5c/kWh for the avoided wholesale cost of electricity. There is no credit for the avoided transmission and distribution costs and the benefit that that solar offers the network is not compensated for - that said the extra costs that solar customers (and those with big A/Cs and pools) impose not he network are not fairly distributed either.

All of this is leading to much more generous pricing and compensation models. We've had a regulatory process (called Power of Choice) which is leading to more cost reflective network pricing (Residential Demand Charges and or Time of Use) which will penalise A/C use and reduce the self-consumption benefit of solar (without storage). Further off It something I've been working on if the Local Generation Network Credit which is a proposed mechanism for compensating distributed generator owners for the value they do offer the network. It will go some way to recognise that solar on a residential zone sub at 2pm is not very useful but at 4pm it is very useful. There's a good description of the way it works in other jurisdictions in the briefing paper for one of the workshops I've been involved in.

https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/LNCVNM_towards_an_LNC_methodology.pdf

The TL;DR on this: this shit is complicated

thanks, gonna dig into that when I have time.

I am sympathetic to the "costs of distribution" argument in terms of reforming net metering, but as you note the retroactive penalty was where the PUC really fucked up in NV.

CA PUC smarter than NV PUC:

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Solar-companies-and-customers-win-big-in-6790872.php

great news

I know, I'm just paranoid.

The ITC recommended like four different options, nobody has any idea what's going to happen and it's the uncertainty that's wearing on me

60 more days of misery, uncertainly, market disruption, and fear. This is the worst.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/11/13/the-clock-ticks-itc-turns-section-201-over-to-president-trump/

pv magazine staff has found no sources that can tell us more about this confidential report, and ITC staff has stated that a public version will be released at an unspecified later date. {...}

In other words, President Trump can do just about anything. There are precious few limitations, but these include that initial trade action can last four years (and be extended to up to eight years), and that tariffs are limited to 50% of the price of products “above the rate existing before the proclamation of action”.

This last detail may be more complex than it first appears. While all the commissioners who recommended import duties would have the tariff values calculated on the cost when solar products enter the nation, SolarWorld and Suniva have asked for duties equal to 50% of the prices during timeframes covering previous years when solar cells and modules were much more expensive.

Neither SolarWorld nor Suniva has done much to mitigate these proposals, which we at pv magazine feel are dangerous and unreasonable.

"uncertainty"

dumbfucks

both of those companies can burn in hell, forever

so selfish and stupid

yeah it's rather remarkable

Other solar groups have stepped up to support the cause using social and advertising campaigns. A coalition of manufacturers, U.S. Made Solar, has been running TV advertisements during shows that President Trump watches regularly, such as Fox & Friends.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-industry-makes-last-ditch-lobbying-against-solar-tariffs#gs.rMpfhZI

we'll know within two weeks, probably. good article.

30% tariff, could have been worse, hopefully Solar World and Suniva die now

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breaking-trump-admin-issues-a-30-solar-tariff#gs.8mgzsVs

well looks like Solar World found a way out

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/sunpower-acquires-solarworld-americas#gs.E0HOHd0

Anyone here have experience getting solar at home? I've been intrigued for years, but the numbers seem completely unappetizing. When I put our address into the supposedly close to accurate free google solar calculator, for example (https://www.google.com/get/sunroof), it claims savings of $6000 over *20 years*. $300 a year for two decades seems a pretty paltry reward for putting five-figures into the system, even with (dwindling) tax write-offs and rebates. And yeah, floating somewhere in there is environmental impact, but on that front it seems much more efficient/easy to just find ways to use less power, or if you're feeling generous just donating that huge amount of upfront install cost to a food pantry or something, where every dollar given gets exponential returns.

I dunno. Am I looking at this all wrong?

(caveats: i don't own a home, and i haven't payed close attention to this stuff for a while)

i think you're generally looking at it in a reasonable way. a couple thoughts:

- solar panels are getting less expensive and are a lot cheaper than they used to be, but they still typically have long payback periods (the amount of time it takes to recoup the upfront cost) for individual homeowners.
- some utilities have amazing financing programs where they'll pay quite a bit of the upfront costs and gradually bill it to you on your utility statement every month. some don't.
- in general, solar is much more economical at scale. at some point if we don't have the dumbest person of all time as our president, maybe we'll upgrade our grid and energy policies so that individual homeowners with solar can even feed excess energy INTO the grid and make a little money. but instead we live in this world.
- you're spot on, i think, about looking for other ways to use less power and using that money for something else right now. you can get a free home energy audit (disclosure: i work in this field) from your utility that will identify energy saving measures, and in a lot of cases the utility will even install free equipment (smart thermostats, energy-saving aerators for faucets, etc). energy efficiency measures typically have a MUCH shorter payback period than solar panels on a roof.

oops, my link was broken. i meant to link to an image of concentrated solar power:

https://news.energysage.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/11.14.18_solar.jpg

curious to hear from people from other non-chicago places though! like i said, i haven't followed it closely in a while and it's possible that people in warm sunny progressive places are able to take advantage of residential solar in a more cost-efficient manner

final, contradictory, thought - if you're planning on staying in your house for 15 to 20 years (long enough to cover the payback period and start recouping costs) and have extra money, you should still consider it!
just know that in 5 years there will be better, cheaper solar and your neighbors will be putting it on their roofs and recouping their costs in 8 years instead of 15 (or whatever). the price of solar is likely to keep dropping, so the longer you wait, the better the deal. i'm sure there are people who put solar on their roofs 10 years ago that are insanely jealous of the current tech and prices.

final final thought: i don't think IL has a state tax credit for residential solar right now. if it were me and i had a home and some money, i'd wait until we get a state tax credit, in addition to the federal incentives.

Yeah, thanks for all that. We have a relatively new home, so everything is running pretty efficiently. Our total power bill last year was $1100, which ... doesn't seem that high. Now, if solar could take *$600* off the bill annually ... that would still be kinda low for the investment, since it's not even a sure thing we'll even be in this house for another 15-20 years; incredibly, we're (likely) empty nesters in about six!

I have three friends that have gotten or are about to get solar, and the stories/numbers/savings they cite just don't jibe with my (casual) research. I, too, would love to hear stories from places that are not Chicagoland, though.

detailed breakdowns for IL available here:

https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/illinois/

8-year payback period and 15.73% IRR on average

a lot of those saving are due to the 26% tax credit - do you have a tax burden? that's where the real savings are with this.

Thanks. It looks like the tax credit expires after 2021, and President Asshole could just order it ended tomorrow, couldn't he? Either way, in theory I'd get a 26% tax rebate for 2020, then 21% in 2021, then nothing after that. But if that website is more or less accurate, and the avg. savings is more or less what I pay in power annually, then yeah, 8 (or maybe 10) year payback seems possible. We have a consult with someone tomorrow, I'm curious what they say.

no the tax credit is 26% if you get it installed in 2020 - then, if the credit is more than your tax burden, you can spread the credit out over an up-to-five-year period. but it's a one-time credit, 26% of your total cost *including* installation.

the difference in payback times between states is based entirely on state or utility-based incentives, so if you have time dig in to the state incentives on that page.

According to that site it looks like IL offers no rebates or tax incentives.

ah yeah looks like the incentives ran out (that happens frequently)

this might help:

There is still hope for residents of Springfield and Chicago, which each have their own solar grant programs. Your installer (click here to see what you can save with solar power on your home) will give you all the details on those and any other grants and rebates you may qualify for.

for what it's worth I'm a big fan of the SMA inverters that have an optional outlet you can install that provides 15-amp 120V power during the day if there is a power outage

SMA is so bloody expensive though. Buy Chinese either Ginlong or Sungrow. I’ve visited both their factories and their quality systems are great. I commissioned a full quality audit on Ginlong a few years back and they rated really highly and I only ever had one quality issue in dealing with them over 1000s of installs. (a weird clipping issue at maximum output that got solved in subsequent models)

If you have a difficult roof or shading issues, get SolarEdge.

I agree with Ed, Sungrow is good as well and SolarEdge is the best choice for shaded roofs - SMA won't work well with shade

I just *really* like the Secure Power Supply feature on SMA

also, Ed I would love to hear the gory details about that clipping issue if you are so inclined

We've got an ideal house and roof for a lot of this, so we'll see what the guy says tomorrow.

Just got off the phone with a good friend of mine who deals with these issues on a regular basis, and he is dubious about solar. Very bullish on geothermal though, because it's a constant. There's nothing to generate, no changing costs or production. It just does this thing. Vs. solar, which is beholden to myriad other factors.

He also, as Karl noted above, stressed the importance of simple shit, like insulation, to making sure your home is as efficient as possible. Doesn't matter where your power or heat or cooling is coming from if you lose half of it through your walls and windows.

Quick question: if I'm about to talk to this guy about solar, what specific questions do you think I should I ask him? What answers would be most useful for someone on the fence?

estimated payback time

price difference for different inverter options as Ed noted (Sungrow, Solar Edge, SMA if you want to spend a bit more for a backup outlet)

I dunno, what are your on-the-fence concerns? Like for example, this:

There's nothing to generate, no changing costs or production. It just does this thing. Vs. solar, which is beholden to myriad other factors.

I really don't agree with - solar is maintenance free, by design. set it and forget it. And the production is very consistent within seasonal variation. I've talked to people still getting 70% output from their Motorola panels made in the 1970s.

The guy I talked to was great, helped a lot. Estimated payback time with more efficient and reliable (which is to say, more expensive) panels could be about 7 years, which is not bad. And cost would in theory be reduced by 40% or so once you take into account tax rebates and SRECs and whatnot, with a lot of that coming back to you more or less the first year. Though it's still a *considerable* initial cash expenditure. Obviously a lower outright price would be better than a higher price with a promise of refunds, but that's not where we're at.

I think my friend's thing with geothermal is that the energy being generated is constant. It's not linked to sun or shade or snow or cloud cover or whatever, it's just there, year-round. There is no degradation of panels or reduction of panel efficiency, there is no fear of needing (or wanting) to upgrade in the near future, and it covers the biggest drag on a lot of homes, heating and cooling. Of course, it costs a lot more to install! But for example, solar, the Panasonic panels the guy prefers (with iirc solar edge inverter) have a 25 year warranty, which is great ... except who knows how things will look in 25 years, in terms of technology and options and the like. A similar consideration is that when it comes time for a new roof, the panels have to be removed and replaced, too, which could add thousands to the cost. And so on.

There is no degradation of panels or reduction of panel efficiency

this is not a thing that happens, panels have a 25-year output warranty for a reason, and work for even longer as noted above

no fear of needing (or wanting) to upgrade in the near future

also not an issue - don't replace existing panels to upgrade, just add more on a newer inverter.

the biggest drag on a lot of homes, heating and cooling

OK this I agree with.

fwiw my parents have had many painful and expensive difficulties with their geothermal system, they have had no issue with the solar at all.

sure there's an early-adopter price tag still. but as you have seen, the numbers are good in terms of IRR.

My mom has geothermal and loves it, but is not really a candidate for solar.

And panels absolutely do degrade, however slightly. So says the guy I just spoke with and everything I've seen. The cheaper the panel, the quicker (or more) they will start to degrade. The more expensive the panel (like the ones he was pitching), the better they work and the longer they work before any significantly reduced returns (plus better warranties). Granted, around 1% annual decline in productivity is not that big, but that still means 10% after 10 years, and so on, which is not nothing. If we were to, say, want to sell our house in ten years, solar may factor as a selling point, but esp. if we can say it offsets 100% of the house's consumption. It's still good to say 90%, or 85%, but it may not hit that magic psychological number, imo, to get the ideal ROI.

And adding to the system in the future obviously costs money, too. Just things to consider.

it's way less than 1% a year degradation, more like 1/4 of a %

there's a reason they guarantee >80% output for 25 years, 1% a year would be a lot more than that

and yeah you are correct that "100% coverage" is often not a good idea in terms of ROI

Just googling I saw something like an average of .5% annual degradation, and that's linked, like output and efficiency, to quality, which is to say, cost. But yeah, that's a relatively minor concern. Degradation, not cost, that is. A higher priced system here would go for around $22K. A lower cost system would go for around $18k. Both are huge numbers, and if you finance, obviously that number goes up.

fwiw that amount sounds just about right for installed cost on 5-6 KW

I just got his formal pitch, if you're curious, but it includes:

Panel degradation rate: 3% in year 1; 0.26% years 2-25 - 90% efficient @ yr 25

ah that's really interesting! thanks. I did not know that more degradation was assumed in year 1.

After saying my roof isn't great for solar I'm now starting to thing I should jump on this. The Roof is bad because it is flat and mainly taken up by my roof deck, but havingng Saturday up their a lot the shading on the exposed parts isn't actually as bad as I thought and now you can get a 400W standard size panel(SunPower), I could actually get some useful production out of it. There's an outside chance I could squeeze 6 on the eastern end of the roof and 2 on the western end, really its probably 4 and 2 but that could still be 2.4kW. Panels would probably have to be flat rather than on tilt frames or the homeowners association would flip and the shading means I'd have to have micro inverters (Enphase) or optimisers (SolarEdge) to get the best out of a system.

I've had the Enphase option priced out and it comes in at AU$3.74/W which makes me wince, especially as we won't qualify for the current VIC government rebate which would bring that down. I've got a mate going through the same process and his (much bigger) system is quoted out at $1.22/W or AU$1.08/W if he gets the rebate. Thats on a SolarEdge System with optimisers and and Longi 350W Mono PERC panels.

Not that it's really about payback but It would take me about 10 years to breakeven on that

26% solar tax credit extended for 2 years as part of the COVID bill, definitely a good thing

https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/12/solar-investment-tax-credit-extended-at-26-for-two-additional-years/

even better news

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/07/28/solar-investment-tax-credit-to-be-extended-10-years-at-30/

Dunno if I mentioned it, but we did end up getting solar and have been very happy with it so far.

what inverter type, do you know?

also, Josh, note this key provision:

"The tax credit applies to residential adopters of solar technology. If the bill is passed, the 30% credit will be retroactively applied to anyone who installed their system since the beginning of 2022."

We had it done in 2020, so already got whatever rebates and whatnot we were expecting.

As for inverter type, I believe we have a Solar Edge Single Phase Inverter with HD-Wave.