# Is solar energy worth it in low sun/cold climates?



## dave42 (Aug 4, 2009)

I live in Monterey Bay, CA, where we aren&#8217;t particularly known for sunshine.  Would it be worth the money to invest in solar energy?  Do cold temperatures affect how efficient panels are?  I'm not really knowledgeable in solar energy so any information would help out a lot!


----------



## kok328 (Aug 4, 2009)

The payback time to realize a savings is too long.  You'll be long gone by the time the panels pay for themselves; let alone provide you and energy credit that will pay for the panels, battery banks, switching hubs, S&H, installation and maintenance.


----------



## go sunny (Aug 8, 2009)

Solar energy means save money and save our earth. Solar Heater DIY is obviously simple to do and safer to implement.  To pursue my green living, I have read several online books and guides about teaching people how to have Solar Heater DIY.  I found that Solar Heater DIY is the most practical way to implement, thus easy to follow.


----------



## Doorman (Aug 10, 2009)

If you don´t have much sunlight where you live I would definitely not recommend solar panels. I´m sure you have high bills over there for heating in winter etc so probably best to stick with electricity unfortunately. It should be quite cheap where you live though...


----------



## sundance (Aug 11, 2009)

Actually, solar power is just as efficient in colder locations. Articles have mentioned that solar panels convert energy more effectively in colder climates even. I think the science behind it is that the colder the material is, the better conductor it is for electricity. San Luis Valley gets freezing winters but they have some of the best solar resources in Colorado.


----------



## dave42 (Aug 12, 2009)

What you guys are saying makes sense.  Maybe solar power isn't the best option for me.  Even if solar power isn't ideal for my home, I'm still interested in it.  Can anyone recommend a good web site on the subject so I can educate myself?


----------



## kok328 (Aug 13, 2009)

I will have to clarify my statements after realizing what other are saying in their post and perhaps should have asked for clarification on the original post.  I worked for a solar panel manufacturer and was aware of the cost versus payback time period.  This knowledge was what my statement was based on.  However, due to my background, I totally forgot about solar heating versus solar electricity.  I will have to defer to the group when it comes to solar heating.  However, as far as solar electricity, the performance is in the battery bank not the panel but, the panel itself still has a 20yr. payback time frame and they do degrade over time.


----------



## dennisprange (Aug 15, 2009)

If your on the grid, the utility company is the battery, Monterey does not have cold winters and has natual gas anyway.


----------



## Irish1970 (Aug 21, 2009)

Hey Dave,

Where I live in South Carolina,  solar panels are definitely a good investment and the payback is really quick.  If you aren't sure about your area of Northern California, I suggest you check out websites that specialize in solar panels.  There are some companies that even sell DIY Solar Panels kits that are pretty easy to install.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Aug 22, 2009)

It'd be great if Obama put some stimulus money into a "solar panel" and "wind energy" program for the US  besides his "Cash for Clunkers" program.  It's investment by both industry and the public in these technologies that drives research and development, and research and development in turn results in higher performance and lower costs.

Here in Manitoba, we keep hearing that switching to Compact Fluorescent lighting and shutting off lights at night or the TV when no one is watching is good for the environment.  I still can't figure out why.  ALL of our electricity is "hydroelectricity", meaning that it's produced by water flowing through turbines which turn generator shafts.  So, it's not like we have to burn coal or diesel fuel to produce that electricity.  If I were a sceptic, I'd believe my government was lying to me about CF lights being "greener".


----------



## nma (Aug 19, 2010)

At the moment it totally depends on the type of system (water or pv) and the incentives available in your area. All other things being equal though, you should spend money on efficiency and insulation until you have run out of projects to do, then put a solar array on the roof. Having said that, incentives in my area were so good last year that we did it, and the payback time will be in the single digit years.


----------



## nma (Aug 19, 2010)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> It'd be great if Obama put some stimulus money into a "solar panel" and "wind energy" program for the US  besides his "Cash for Clunkers" program..


I agree, there could be more, but there is quite a lot of this available already, some federal, some state, and some utility funded.



Nestor_Kelebay said:


> Here in Manitoba, we keep hearing that switching to Compact Fluorescent lighting and shutting off lights at night or the TV when no one is watching is good for the environment.  I still can't figure out why.  ALL of our electricity is "hydroelectricity", meaning that it's produced by water flowing through turbines which turn generator shafts.  So, it's not like we have to burn coal or diesel fuel to produce that electricity.  If I were a sceptic, I'd believe my government was lying to me about CF lights being "greener".


Well, these kinds of public service announcements are targeted at the general public, there will be some fringe cases. If all of your power really is hydro, then you're not contributing to greenhouse gasses, although hydro power does still negatively effect ecosystems. I'm not sure why the government would want to lie to you about cfls.


----------



## carnuck (Oct 7, 2010)

{4 letter word} the CFLs! They have mercury and are supposed to be disposed of properly when they burn out and require Hazmat to be called if they break (at some companies employees have been fired for NOT calling them).
   I suggest that if you haven't done CFLs yet (I already did, and yes they have paid for themselves with the gov't incentives, but that doesn't mean I like having a possible poison bomb ticking in my house) leapfrog over and go to LED replacements. CFL starters use lots of energy just to fire the lights up so turning them on/off uses as much energy as running them a few hours.
   LEDs use 1/5th (going from memory) the energy of CFLs and 1/10th that of incandescents (which are being outlawed for sale in the US very soon) and last almost forever, plus they are almost infinitely variable for adjusting light levels (unlike most CFLs) Just watch the color you choose (some are very hard on the eyes due to the wavelength)


----------



## nma (Oct 7, 2010)

carnuck said:


> {4 letter word} the CFLs! They have mercury and are supposed to be disposed of properly when they burn out and require Hazmat to be called if they break (at some companies employees have been fired for NOT calling them).


They don't require hazmat treatment. That is ridiculous.
 "CFL starters use lots of energy just to fire the lights up so turning them on/off uses as much energy as running them a few hours."
That is completely untrue.


----------



## carnuck (Oct 8, 2010)

CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury : NPR

Hazmat is only required to be called now if more than 5 or 6 are broken. (like if you drop a case, but not just a single bulb although you do need to take precautions not to breathe in the mercury vapor)
The company I used to work for based their policy of "call or be fired" on this incident:
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/pdf/prospecthistory.pdf

The current batch of CFLs use less energy on startup than earlier ones (with electromagnetic starters)
The more often they are switched off, the less time they last. Many of mine have been burning for more than 5 years of average use (exterior light has been on 5 years except during power outages)

As for going to LEDs rather than CFLs
http://www.earthled.com/evolux-led-light-bulb.html

(I have no stock or interest in the company selling/making them)


----------



## nma (Oct 8, 2010)

carnuck said:


> CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury : NPR
> 
> Hazmat is only required to be called now if more than 5 or 6 are broken. (like if you drop a case, but not just a single bulb although you do need to take precautions not to breathe in the mercury vapor)
> The company I used to work for based their policy of "call or be fired" on this incident:
> http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/pdf/prospecthistory.pdf


This is nonsense. There is some mercury in CFLS, and broken cfls should be cleaned up and the area vented, but the total amount of mercury added through cfls is far less than the total saved by the reduction in coal burning mercury emissions. The whole mercury hazard thing is largely an urban myth.


carnuck said:


> CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury : NPR
> The current batch of CFLs use less energy on startup than earlier ones (with electromagnetic starters)


The idea that they use more energy on startup is a myth. Please do some basic reading on electricity before you post misleading information.


----------



## carnuck (Oct 10, 2010)

nma said:


> This is nonsense. There is some mercury in CFLS, and broken cfls should be cleaned up and the area vented, but the total amount of mercury added through cfls is far less than the total saved by the reduction in coal burning mercury emissions. The whole mercury hazard thing is largely an urban myth.
> 
> The idea that they use more energy on startup is a myth. Please do some basic reading on electricity before you post misleading information.



I did read up and aside from flickering, the early CFLs magnetic starters used enough energy to operate a CFL for about 10 minutes. (early tube florescents used more than that because the ballasts were always powered up, which is where the idea of less energy by continually running originally came from)

As for the hazard of broken bulbs, I didn't write info on these websites (including the EPA's own admission that 1 broken CFL releases enough mercury vapor to render a room up to 300 times the allowable exposure limit)

CFL Hazards

Shining a light on fluorescent bulbs - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com

Compact fluorescent lamp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not being a doomsayer. I use them still myself, but plan to change them out for LED lighting as it becomes economically feasible.


----------



## nma (Oct 10, 2010)

carnuck said:


> I did read up and aside from flickering, the early CFLs magnetic starters used enough energy to operate a CFL for about 10 minutes. (early tube florescents used more than that because the ballasts were always powered up, which is where the idea of less energy by continually running originally came from)


This is nonsense. No modern CFL draws more power on startup than at any other point. I have no idea where you got this incorrect idea.


carnuck said:


> As for the hazard of broken bulbs, I didn't write info on these websites (including the EPA's own admission that 1 broken CFL releases enough mercury vapor to render a room up to 300 times the allowable exposure limit)


You are misquoting from the EPA site. Please don't propagate incorrect opinions on this.


----------



## carnuck (Oct 17, 2010)

Talk about coincidence! Today I got a flyer from Lowes today that says NOT to throw CFLs in the garbage because it's illegal to do. They will take them at the store for proper disposal.


----------



## Suzienatural (Nov 1, 2010)

I think the answer to that needs to be based on your individual situation.  Start by asking yourself a few questions - What is my current energy use?  How much space do I have available to place the panels.  What is my personal objective with regards to installing panels?  What can I afford?
You may find it helpful to visit with a knowledgeable, reputable solar installer in your area - someone concerned with helping you make an informed decision 1st and selling you a system 2nd.  You might be surprised to learn what the average hours of available sunlight are in your area and how that figures into deciding if it is right for you.  There are also tax credits available - both at the federal level and specific to your area.
As you can tell, I don't believe that question has a simple yes or no answer.   
Good Luck!


----------



## carnuck (Nov 4, 2010)

Almost everyone has a roof where PV can be mounted, BUT you need to make them so they can be quickly removed in the event of a fire because they can't be turned off and one of the most common places for fires is in the attic, so they often have to cut through the roof (and solar panels!) which is a significant shock potential to firemen. 

Solar Panel System Dangers : Florence Township Fire Department

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=explosive-gas-silane-used-to-make-photovoltaics

Solar Safety for Firefighters: The Myths and the Facts


----------



## carnuck (Nov 4, 2010)

duplicate post somehow


----------



## kaytav (Apr 20, 2011)

Solar power is derived from the energy inherent in sunlight. A days worth of sunlight contains enough energy to meet our needs for an entire year. The energy capture, however, is one based on a chemical reaction. It is not heat oriented or sensitive. A solar panel receiving the same amount of sunlight will produce the same electrical current whether the temperature is ninety degrees or nine. In short, it doesn't matter if you live in a cold climate. The real issue is the amount of sunlight you receive.


----------



## vette2020 (Feb 1, 2012)

Yeah, I wouldn't invest it in unless you adequate sunshine. Also, if you really wanted to get in done you should become really knowledgeable about it since it's a pretty big step.


----------



## BobAristide (May 19, 2012)

Let's not forget that in 2012 Germany reached their goal of providing 30% of their energy form solar. Yes, Germany. If they don't have much sun at all, besides the summer, it can be done in many other places.


----------



## thegogetter222 (May 31, 2012)

I have a roof facing south with full sun exposure from sunrise to sunset.  A local professional solor company come and gave me a 100% supplemental quote... well after all the incentives and subsidies offered by the Fed govt and state and local govts of PA, my out of pocket bill was going to be approx. $35,000.  He then proceeded to sell me on a fancy way of looking at return on investment that was WAY over my head.  I went home and this is the math I wrote out on a napkin:

$35,000 (not including interest charged on financing) divided by $100p/m normal monthly electric bill = 350 months or 29yrs. of normal electric bills assuming no fluctutions, plus additional time to pay off interest accrued, plus additional time to pay off maintenance needed.  Assuming I'll need a new roof in the next 5-10 years, didn't help the sell, then again after another 20-30yrs led me to realize i'm pissing in the wind.

final answer was "no" for me.  Hope this helped in some weird way


----------



## slownsteady (Sep 19, 2012)

> I have a roof facing south with full sun exposure from sunrise to sunset. A local professional solor company come and gave me a 100% supplemental quote... well after all the incentives and subsidies offered by the Fed govt and state and local govts of PA, my out of pocket bill was going to be approx. $35,000.



That's hard to believe. Did you get more than one quote? Maybe this guy was selling hot air.


----------



## Wuzzat? (Sep 19, 2012)

The insolation for nearby San Francisco is not all that bad
http://www.porta-energy.com/Insolation_USA.htm
Figure your house will need 1 kw for a yearly average, which is maybe a 7 sq. yd panel.
With sunlight only 5 hrs/day you'd need about 35 sq. yds.


----------



## slownsteady (Sep 20, 2012)

> The insolation for nearby San Francisco is not all that bad
> http://www.porta-energy.com/Insolation_USA.htm



Interesting site: what's the definition of "insolation", exactly?


----------



## Wuzzat? (Sep 20, 2012)

[ame]http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define:+insolation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8[/ame]
You're welcome!


----------



## CallMeVilla (Sep 26, 2012)

In CA, the model design does NOT involve batteries so the cost is much lower.  Bobodu I know has batteries (old technolog around here) Even in overcast days, solar energy gets through.  The power is sent onto the grid to offset your electricity bill.  You get a rebate if your net upload exceeds your usage  --  but you get a discount based on your total upload anyway.  State of CA has tax rebates which really help too.

The best way is to call Solar Alliance (very active in CA) and ask!


----------



## AlanW (Jan 1, 2013)

> Would it be worth the money to invest in solar energy?


I don't think so. As others here have mentioned, it will take too long time to recover your money.



> Do cold temperatures affect how efficient panels are?


Yes, they do.
__________________
Planning to expand our Waterproofing Expertsniche business.


----------

