Solar Boats Revisited: Lithium vs Diesel Cost

6/25/2012
The newer generation of love boat next to its soon obsolete diesel predecessor


My previous article about the Kaohsiung Love River Boats showed that despite the solar panels having about as much use as the third eye on a peacock, their use of lithium batteries does in fact cut down on emissions significantly. Their diesel counterparts are not only uglier and older, but are also louder and more polluting. This article focuses on the financial feasibility of going electric in a commercial passenger enterprise.


Diesel vs Lithium - A Cost Comparison

The noisy, stinky, run-down diesel boats make a poor competitor to the Kaohsiung Love River's shiny new solar boats. The new fleet is silent, looks pretty, seats nearly twice as many people per trip, and understandably are selling 5000 tickets a week to the diesel’s 1800 tickets. This means that its initial investment of $250,000 USD per boat is payed back in about the same time as the older fleet, but the marketing attraction only serves to skew a direct comparison of diesel and battery power. To directly compare the diesel and battery-powered boats, this comparison will put each type in their own 7000 ticket per week market, and assume a 36 person diesel powered boat to compare with the 36 person battery-powered boat (fewer ticket sales per ride makes the comparison unfair for the current 20 person diesel boat).


Cost Comparison – Operating Costs


Prices per kWh of electricity vs kWhe of diesel, with the
extreme examples of Italy and Kazakhstan for comparison.
These boats pay "commercial" prices for their electricity. 
The average cost of electricity per kWh for households in Taiwan is 8.6¢. Commercial rates, and therefore the rates paid for charging these boats, are slightly lower at an average rate of about 8¢ per kW[1][2][3]. At this low rate the cost of running a 10 boat battery powered fleet selling 7,000 tickets a week is $1.59 USD per trip, or $16,203 USD per year. Diesel, on the other hand, costs $1.01 USD per liter in Taiwan[4], and, at 4 liters used per trip, each trip costs $4.05 USD, or $41,248.65 USD per yearThis means that it costs less than half as much to run an electric boat than it does to run a comparable diesel.


Cost of running battery powered boats is significantly lower than diesel,
and still competitive in the extreme example of Italy
The second graph shows diesel as much more expensive to run compared to its cost per kWhe, which is due to the inherent inefficiency of combustion engines as well as market forces.


Engine Efficiency (Or lack-thereof)
Combustion engines are inherently inefficient,
theoretically losing around 60% of their energy
to heat, combustion, pumping, and friction[5].
These operating costs are interestingly at odds with the price per kWhe for electric vs diesel (diesel produces about 10kWh per liter). Operating a diesel boat fleet is generally more expensive, especially in the extreme example of Kazakhstan, where the price of electricity is one of the lowest in the world. Even taking the opposite extreme example of Italy, a country with some of the highest electricity prices in the world and comparatively low diesel costs, battery powered vehicles are still price competitive.

Internal combustion engines have the added inefficiency of moving parts and waste from excess heat, whereas lithium batteries have no moving parts and expel much less heat. The energy in batteries are transfered more directly into work powering the boat propellers in this case, or turning crank shafts in the case of electric cars[6].


Cost Comparison – Return on Investment


Costing $250,000USD*, the “Solar” Love Boat comes in at about 1.5 times the price of a comparatively sized diesel craft. For personal use, this is a significant and prohibitive cost difference, with the lower cost of daily use paying off the difference, albeit very slowly. However, with commercial application such as in the case of the love boat, this cost can be quickly offset by ticket sales.

The difference in operating costs may be significant to consumers, but for operations such as this that factor almost completely disappears. To put it in perspective, the difference in cost between the cheaper $1.59 USD battery-powered ride and the more expensive $4.05 diesel-powered ride can be covered by the sale of just one passenger ticket. You can see from the graph below that although operating costs add up, they are almost negligible over the time it takes to regain the cost of the boat compared to the initial investment.

With hardly any fixed costs compared to the investment, a battery-
powered fleet will take about 1.5 times as long to pay off.
Slower, but still a manageable time frame.
Because of the insignificance of daily use in the cost, an investment into a 10-boat battery powered fleet will be paid off in 3 years, whereas it will take 2 years for diesel; a noteworthy gap, but hardly an insurmountable difference. This shows that although from a purely cost-saving perspective diesel will still win out, battery-powered vehicles are well within the range of being a reasonable investment that can yield financial gain.


Cost Comparison – Repairs and Replacement


Lithium Ion batteries have long been known as unstable and needing frequent replacement, but the technology has come a long way in recent years. Current EV batteries are generally stated to need replacement in about 8 years with normal use (A.K.A. daily charging). When applied to these electric boats, this leaves about 5 years of profit after they are paid off before a replacement battery is needed. In an industry such as this, most companies would replace their vehicles after about this much time anyway just to maintain a clean, professional look. The Kaohsiung City government provides a good example of this, currently retiring the old diesel boats after about 9 years of use.

Lithium ion batteries are rated to last about 8 years, giving the Love Boats
plenty of time to make a profit.
Intangibles
All of these figures don’t take into account the quiet ride, sleek look, and environmentally conscious attitude of the new fleet. In essence, you're paying a premium for a superior product, which could also be an argument for other electric vehicles.

A Note on Tourism in Asia
In Asia, tour groups with set routes minimizes the effect
new attractions have on the market.
Although this may seem like it would be a bigger draw than the ugly diesel boats and attract new customers, being a tourist attraction in Asia precludes this for reasons that may not apply in The West. Although many more people ride the fancy new boats for their aesthetically pleasing qualities, their total ticket sales didn’t change a bit because their ridership mainly relies on tour groups with long-established itineraries.

For those of you familiar with Taipei, this inelasticity is also happening in Shilin Night Market, although in the opposite direction. The entire food court area was supplanted underground, creating a smoky, stinky, miserable environment. Unfortunately the market will not react by locals shunning this abomination because it is still visited by huge crowds of Taiwanese and mainland Chinese on their packaged tours of the island.

Green technology applied to commercial tourism in The West may have a completely different and much stronger reaction because of the lack of these set routes.


Love River Boats' Future


Despite their current manifestation as more of an advertisement for Kaohsiung than as a practical application of solar power, the Kaohsiung City government has already shown that this fleet of solar boats is not going to be the end of this process. With the current fleet’s seeming success as a marketing tool, the city government is using it as a jump-off point by investing in a new fleet with a higher solar yield of 7% (instead of the current boats' 4%) of the boats’ total operating power. Hopefully, with continual upgrades these boats will eventually live up to their moniker as "solar boats" and actually run on solar power.


Conclusion - What it all means for electric vehicles



An early electric vehicle supplanted
in favor of gasoline
The battery-driven solar boats are a great tourist attraction and sell better than the diesel boats, but that is not enough to validate electric vehicles as a competent and economical alternative to fuel in all markets. Putting along at 2 miles per hour and selling tickets help mitigate problems that vehicles like electric cars are facing in their infancy, such as limited driving range and initial cost. The main issue that will affect the consumer more than a tourist boat operation is cost per mile, which is drastically reduced when feeding off the grid instead of the pump (by almost half in many places, such as the US and Taiwan).

What this does show, however, is an implementation of a clean vehicle in a commercial capacity that pays itself off in 3 years to become a profitable enterprise. Although mass adoption of electric vehicles is still some time away, this is an excellent indication that more may follow suit. Answering how this technology can be applied to other fuel-dependent industries is still a work in progress, and will be very interesting to watch unfold.

The Nissan Leaf is the first major
release of a pure EV for mass
consumption
Smith Electric Vehicles' new trucks were picked up by
FedEx in the US[7]





References

[1] http://205.254.135.7/emeu/international/elecprii.html
[2] http://www.eia.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.html
[3] http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html
[4] http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2012/03/19/335085/CPC-Formosa.htm
[5] http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html
[6] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
[7] http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/08/smith-electric-vehicles-delivers-new-electric-truck-to-fedex/
*According to Kaohsiung City Shipping Co.

Sprawling from Grace: The Consequences of Suburbanization - 2008 - Movie Review

6/14/2012


"What you've got with the suburban living arrangement and all of its accessories, can be described as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world." -Author James Howard Kunstler, bold, but believable.



Suburbia and Me

The idea of suburban sprawl has captivated me for some time. Besides the cultural oddity that it is and the negative and positive aspects associated with it, it constantly comes up in conversation when I tell people where I'm from.
"Let me put it this way. If America could harness the energy
that it would get from blowing smoke up its own ass we 
would solve the energy problem."
-Author James Howard Kunstler. Well said, sir!
Me: Rochester, NY. It's a small city right by Lake Ontario.
Expat: I've been to Westchester before.
Me: It's about 6 hours from NYC. Not nearly as exciting either.
Expat: Oh, is it a big city?
Me: About a million.
Expat: O wow, sounds like a vibrant metropolis.

I loved Taipei and I love Kaohsiung for all the reasons that I didn't love Rochester. The vibrant metropolis that 1,000,000 people should provide disappears with most people living in the suburbs, the absence of walkable areas (minus the wonderful and cheap park ave area for all you Rochesterians), and nearly nonexistent public transportation. As unappealing as it all sounds to me, this is the life that millions of Americans are living, just as many dream about, and many countries worldwide strive to emulate.


Misses, but Hits

Sprawling from Grace explores this phenomenon to a limited extent and makes a few very interesting points that I haven't heard before, but, contrary to its misnomer, is better suited as a promotional tool for urban living and public transportation. Although it does a good job explaining the issues associated with oil dependence and how our way of life perpetuates this very serious problem, many other documentaries also do this very well or better and I was hoping for a more in-depth look at the process of suburbanization.

The documentary does have a wide selection of interviews of knowledgeable policymakers and experts that provide a strong narrative throughout, such as Michael Dukakis and the ever-entertaining James Howard Kunstler. They offer a lot of interesting statistics and a good historical perspective on our oil dependency from the '70's oil embargo to the iraq war to the impending housing crisis (this doc came out just before the crash). The convincing case they make is that our lifestyle is unsustainable because of our dependence on the car and suburban living.


"And why did we do this? We didn't understand the impact of what we were doing at the time...You could buy a house for 8, 9, 10 thousand bucks. And who would blame people at the time, who wanted to move out of cold water flats and urban slums and get their piece of the American Dream. Unfortunately, we forgot about how we were going to get back from home to work and back again." - Michael Dukakis



Sprawling argues that the American Dream of suburban
living is central to our dependence on oil


Frank, Candid, Forthright Reality

The idea that change will only happen after peak oil is
echoed by Sprawling
One thing I really liked about Sprawling's perspective on this problem was its realism. Where many documentaries extoll the belief that people will come around and we can beat this problem with good will and lots of love, this doc comes right out and says we will change when peak oil hits, and not before. As disheartening as this is, they make a strong point that the social rut we find ourselves in as complete car dependents, the completely unfeasible economic cost that the necessary infrastructure changes require, and the ferver with which we hold onto the American dream all show that we are very unlikely to respond without a heavy financial push. They also speak frankly about renewables as a replacement for oil. When discussing the replacement of oil with renewable sources of energy, James Kustler comes out with another great and sobering point that we rarely hear:

"We're gonna use all of these things in one way or another, and I'm not saying i'm against the idea of using alternative fuels. But we're gonna be very disappointed in what they can actually do for us and we're probably gonna be disappointed in the level and quality of innovation that comes along. There's not gonna be a rescue remedy for this."


Ethanol is a perfect example of an alternative fuel failing
to deliver on our expectations


A Culture in Decay

The other side of this documentary brings us back to the difference between cities like Rochester, Detroit, and Buffalo and cities like DC, New York, and Taipei. Cities that have experience large amounts of growth in the suburbs have generally also experienced large amounts of urban decay. Cities like DC and New York are exceptions to the rule, one because of the focus around a fixed center of jobs, the federal government, and one presumably because of the physical limitations of manhattan being an island and a subway system predating the automobile. The Sprawling identifies many negative lifestyle impacts of suburbanization here, including separation of societies such as with gated communities, the stress induced by long commutes and traffic, and a lack of community togetherness. Mark Falcone, the CEO of Continuum Partners, made an interesting point on this: "[We are trying to] give a suburban city a center...I had just moved to Colorodo when Columbine High School happened, and it was remarkable to me nobody seemed to know where to go to gather...there was no place to mourn..."

The solution for all of these problems is basically given as public transportation and creating walkable cities. It seems a weak conclusion because it still relies on peak oil to drive the price up and create a catastrophe before it will really happen, but it may not be far from the truth. They also show that this is beginning to happen in various cities, but the process is far too slow to have a serious effect on oil consumption or suburban sprawl.


A Good One: Transportation Gentrification

Sprawling mentions that with suburban living, heavy
traffic will be created by the poor after peak oil,
with the wealthy moving closer to public transport 
One very interesting issue mentioned was the possibility of gentrification of public transportation centers, such as areas surrounding subway stations, after peak oil hits and urbanization again becomes very attractive. Rich people will drive up the price of areas with good access to public transportation and there will still be a massive population of middle class and poor with no choice but to drive everywhere; simply a redistribution of socioeconomic classes with the same result. The solution to this is providing public transportation to ALL as an alternative to driving, bringing up the problem of the inefficiency of providing public transportation to low density suburban housing. Their ideal "city" put forward is one with small pockets of high density housing with walkable access to all necessities, such as schools, employment, grocery stores, and entertainment, and public transportation access to the other small pockets of civilization. I think it's a novel idea and maybe even very effective and pleasant as a living environment, but still on the other side of peak oil from where we stand.


Outro


One excellent quote to go out on is from Randy Udall, founding member of Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas:

"How are you going to get that civilization to 2100? Nobody in the United States has a clue."



SOLAR IN THE AMERICAN HOME

Achieving Energy Independence at a Financial Gain
6/8/2012

Solar panels can be a serious investment and a serious addition to your home. While talk around the water cooler tells us that these are out of reach for the 99% and wildly unprofitable, dropping costs and government subsidies have been tilting the scales in the other direction. Let's take a look.

Energy Independence and So Can You

One of the main tenets of alternative energy is energy independence. As one of the major reasons governments worldwide are setting up programs to encourage growth in renewables, reliance on self-produced energy is also very attractive for the rest of us without the geopolitical advantage. In the past, fighting through the initial investment of installing solar panels in your home hasn't payed off, but increasing economies of scale and government subsidies have steadily pulled prices down. One additional reason that heavily subsidized solar panels coming out of China are sold at prices below production costs. These controversial practices have been putting American producers in a corner (such as in the case of Solyndra's infamous demise) while causing an explosion of residential installations and a boom in the domestic solar installation industry.

The feasibility of solar electric power, or photovoltaic energy, in residential installations today, thought to be a myth to rival bigfoot and evolution by some, is actually heavily dependent on region. The real truth is that without subsidies solar would be a reasonable investment only in a handful of places. However, with current subsidies it has become a very good investment in many parts of the US. Higher local electricity prices, having the good luck to live in an area with more sunlight, as well as subsidies and production incentives can all contribute to making up the cost quickly. Once you earn back the initial investment, you can just quit your job (not recommended) and enjoy big checks or low bills from your power company every month. Knowing you're cutting your carbon doesn't hurt either.


Solar Panel Degradation

from [2] 
Another half-truth floating around is the idea that panels lose efficiency over time. This is true. It is also true that it degrades by about 0.7% of its original rated efficiency per year on average[1], which is slow enough that it has little impact on the time it takes to reacquire your investment.

As you can see from the chart, degradation can lengthen your payback period by only a very short time in most circumstances, even over 15 years. If you need further assurance, most panel providers offer warrantees guaranteeing 80% of the original efficiency after 25 years.

Degradation has very little effect on payback periods.


Solar Panels and Snow

Snow can put a big dent in your earnings as a solar producer. In many parts of the US, this can be a serious consideration when installing a photovoltaic system. Snow can cause up to a 10% decrease in your yearly production[5], possibly more depending on your location and your fastidiousness towards your panels. When there is accumulation, it is necessary to get the snow off the solar panels so they can continue pumping sweet energy into the grid or your home. With only one or two inches of snow some decreased production will continue, but even then you are losing money with each minute.

Installed at steeper inclines like 40° (very likely in northern areas as solar panels are generally installed at or near the degree of your latitude), solar panels can sometimes shed the snow themselves by being heated by the sun, creating a layer of slick water under the snow, having a glass surface, and letting gravity do the rest. With little or no sun, which is often the case in these types of regions, clearing your solar panels can become an additional chore like mowing the lawn or cleaning out your gutters, or you can even jump for some costly installations. There are some companies developing self-heating solar panels that can sense if they are covered in snow to get a layer of water under the snow to let it slide off.


Some solutions I've found for removing snow
-Cheap
24' Telescoping Roof Rake - Possible for lower roofs, adds an additional chore to your life.
Deicing Cabling - Runs only about $1/foot of cable, but may require self installation if your solar installer won't do it. Will waste electricity to melt snow, but can be turned on only briefly to melt snow or prevent accumulation during larger storms.
The Venturi System - Uses air currents to blow snow away from panels, may be useful for very specific setups.
-Medium Range
Heating Mats (video below) - For installation underneath the solar panels, run about $50/sq meter. Like deicing cabling will use a bit of electricity.
-Pricey
Built-in automatic sprayer/wiper (video below) - Looks very cool and effective, but the cost and energy use may be strong deterrents. Also, with this many moving parts maintenance is an additional consideration.
-Useless
Throwing nerf footballs at the roof - Seriously, I've seen this on a lot of forums!
Wait it out - You lose up to 10% of your yield!


How Much Juice?

The average American household in 2010 used 958kW of electricity per month[3]. This means that to go fully solar the average home's solar system needs to provide 31.5kW per day. One major problem with solar as a blanket solution for all of our energy needs is its intermittent nature, but by being able to pump energy into a grid during low-use times and pull electricity from the grid backed by our friends coal and petroleum at other times, this only applies to those off the grid completely.

When choosing a solar system in your home, consider your average monthly electricity use and the sunniness of your locale. Most people opt for 3500w-7000w systems because of cost and the additional hardware needed past 7600w.






























Most people install systems to ameliorate their electricity bill headaches at the end of each month, but some go all the way to installing enough solar to cover everything they do and more. Of course monthly production is seasonal and this works much better if you're miserly with your usage, but depending on what area you're in this may be possible. In a place like Arizona, it is not too difficult to install enough panels to power your household, but in the Northeast or Northwest you'd have to install up to 11,000 watts to get most families through the year.
Even with the capital to invest in a larger system, one interesting and unfortunate fact about the US is that AC breaker boxes nationwide are rated to deal with only up to about 7600 watts of power. To go above this, your power company has to install additional expensive equipment to handle the higher wattage, so for this article we are going to stick with 3500w and 7000w installations that fit most people's needs.


Selling Power Back to the Grid

The advantage of creating more power than you use is that your local power company will buy the extra power from you. In some states power companies will pay full retail price up to a very large amount of production (more than a residential installation has to think about) and some states pay only the reduced "avoidance cost" price for anything over your own usage. Check your own state's policy here and see the "Net Metering Explained" section below for more details.

Solar radiation intensities across the world.

Most of the US's solar potential is in the southwest, but electricity
prices and subsidies play a big role in determining viability.
Looking at the kWh/m2/day values (equivalent to hours of noontime sunlight per day) on NREL's map, you can see that there is quite a large range between the desert southwest and the frozen north, so we'll analyze the two extremes along with cozy middling North Carolina.




Breaking Even: How long until solar pays for itself


Unsubsidized Solar: 50+ year paybacks...REALLY!


I've chosen Arizona, North Carolina, Washington, and New York as points of analysis because they represent average electricity prices in high and medium sunlight areas and extreme low and high electricity prices in low sunlight areas. They also show a wide range of subsidy policies affecting incentives for both initial investments and electricity production.


When people say that renewable energy is a pipe dream and the costs are out of this world, they're mostly talking about solar. Without any help from the government, panels ARE out of the reach of the average person in some places and end up in the arena of wealthy activists and bad investors. High electricity prices, like in NY, and good sunlight exposure, like in Arizona, can help offset costs just enough to keep an investment within reason.

Getting a solar system for your house without subsidies would be an exercise in futility. Paying off solar panels for 20+ years is a serious investment of time and energy, especially when the economy and housing market have been so volatile and unpredictable. In regions like Washington State with low electricity prices and poor sun exposure, it would take so long to reclaim your initial costs that degradation becomes a serious barrier, not to mention it will probably be your grandchildren reaping the rewards of your investment.
Here you can see that without subsidies, residential solar is impossible
in most places. It takes so long in Seattle that you can actually see the
curve cause by loss from solar panel degradation.
Looks very similar to the chart above because payback periods aren't
usually affected by installation size after about 3000 watts because the
per-watt cost hits the industry bottom

One item of note is that once you reach systems of about 3000 watts in size, the per watt hardware cost of panels remains fixed at the industry low of about $1.30/watt and per watt installation costs run about $3 per watt, even for much larger residential systems. This means that there is no advantage of buying a larger system as far as payback period is concerned; the differences are the initial cost and the amount you save after your panels pay themselves off. There is also the issue of producing more than your average monthly usage; in some states your reimbursement is at the lower "avoided cost" rate, as opposed to standard retail rates. See the "Net Metering Explained" section below for more details.

The good news for everyone is that there ARE subsidies everywhere nationwide, so nobody has to deal with these rates.


Subsidized Solar: Big Gov' at Work 


I've chosen Arizona, North Carolina, Washington, and New York as points of analysis because they represent average electricity prices in high and medium sunlight areas and extreme low and high electricity prices in low sunlight areas. They also show a wide range of subsidy policies affecting incentives for both initial investments and electricity production.


When installing solar in your home, it is important to know what subsidies and incentives apply to you to judge correctly how much the system will cost and how fast it will pay itself off. Incentives can effect both the initial investment (usually in the form of tax breaks or per watt one-time price cuts) and the value of the electricity produced (usually as increased payment per kilowatt for each kilowatt of electricity you feed into the grid).

In 2006 the federal government created a tax incentive for solar worth 30% of the installed cost, "installed cost" referring to the entire system including parts and installation[4]. Many states have their own incentives that work in conjunction with the federal tax break. Each state is very different, creating a wide range of prices and production incentives. Find information on your state's renewable energy incentives at dsireusa.org.

Federal Incentives


-Tax credit worth 30% of the total installed cost (this includes all initial hardware and installation costs)

State Incentives


Washington: Low sunlight, low priced electricity

Seattle, WACost of Installation (3.5kW)Yearly SavingsPayback Period
Without Subsidies1755038054 years
With Subsidies12285108912 years
Chelan County1228521296 years

-Sales tax exemption
-Additional 15¢ per kW produced on top of retail electricity price

Special Case: Chelan County
-Additional 22¢ per kW produced on top of Washington State incentive and retail electricity price up to $5000/year


New York: Low sunlight, high priced electricity

Buffalo, NYCost of Installation (3.5kW)Yearly SavingsPayback Period
Without Subsidies1755098219 years
With Subsidies52769826 years

-Sales tax exemption
-$1500 per kilowatt installed up to 7kW or 40% of total installed cost, whichever is lower
-25% of net cost (price after other incentives applied) up to $5000


North Carolina: Average sunlight, average priced electricity

Charlotte, NCCost of Installation (3.5kW)Yearly SavingsPayback Period
Without Subsidies1755064630 years
With Subsidies614212855 years

-Sales tax exemption
-An additional 10¢ per kW produced on top of retail electricity price for installations smaller than 5kW
-35% of total installed cost up to $10,500


Arizona: High sunlight, average priced electricity

Tucson, AZCost of Installation (3.5kW)Yearly SavingsPayback Period
Without Subsidies1755091121 years
With Subsidies866091110 years
Cochise County42859115 years

-Sales tax exemption
-25% of total installed cost up to $1000
-$750 per kilowatt installed up to 30kW (with Tucson Electric Power, but similar deals are commonly offered by local power companies throughout AZ)

Special Case: Cochise County
-$2000 per kilowatt installed up to 30kW or 40% of total installed cost, whichever is lower (with Chelan County PUD, instead of the $750/kW offered by Tucson Electric Power)


The Full Breakdown


I've chosen Arizona, North Carolina, Washington, and New York as points of analysis because they represent average electricity prices in high and medium sunlight areas and extreme low and high electricity prices in low sunlight areas. They also show a wide range of subsidy policies affecting incentives for both initial investments and electricity production.


Subsidies make solar affordable in the US. As you can see from the graphs, they can affect both the initial price of installation (the dotted lines) and the savings each year. Like I mentioned in the previous section, other than the nationwide federal tax credit letting you get back 30% of the total installed cost, each state has very different incentives for a variety of possible reasons.

Here, I've compared 3500 watt solar installations in 4 regions including 2 examples of unusually high subsidies
in rural areas. With subsidies, the payback period is very reasonable even when taking low sunlight exposure and low electricity prices into consideration.


Larger installations have almost exactly the same cost per watt, so payback periods will be similar. The
exception is in North Carolina where the 10¢ per watt production incentive only applies to systems smaller than 5kW.


Seattle, WA: Low sunlight, low priced electricity
The iconic Seattle skyline on a good day for solar! If only
there were more...

Along with having poor sunlight, electricity costs (and therefore the amount you save) in Washington state are some of the lowest in the country at about 8¢ per kWh, which is why the payback period without subsidies is over 50 years. To encourage solar installations, the state offers solar producers 15¢ per kWh produced, getting 23¢ per kWh total to the producer and helping pay off your system in a fraction of the time.

In the extreme case of rural Chelan County well outside of Seattle, the local power company offers an additional incentive for production on top of the already generous state subsidy, bringing the total up to a ludicrous 45¢ per kilowatt! This is an exception to the rule, but a good example of how some small areas will have surprising benefits for solar. The only subsidy on the initial investment is the federal 30% reduction (definitely nothing to sneeze at).


Buffalo, NY - Low sunlight, high priced electricity

Even with its wintery climate, Buffalo can be a great place
for solar. At least cleaning snow off your roof-mounted
panels will be easy!
As a native of nearby Rochester, I can attest to the fact that upstate NY has some of the worst sunlight conditions in the country. The reason I chose to look at this area when Seattle is a perfectly good example of low sunlight exposure is that New York State (like much of the northeast) has some of the highest electricity prices in the country as well at about 19¢ per kWh. High local electricity prices means high savings when you install a solar setup in your home, letting you repay your investment as fast as in Arizona despite the poor light conditions. Add to that New York's generous subsidies and New York State becomes one of the best places to go solar in the country.

Along with the federal subsidy covering 30% of the total installed cost, New York State gives you $1500 for each installed kilowatt up to 7 kW or 40% of the total installed cost. After these are taken out of the total installed cost (this point being known as Net Cost), New York covers 25% of what is left up to $5,000.

Snow can create problems in this part of the world, cutting up to 10% of your yearly production if not dealt with. See the above section "Solar Panels and Snow" for more information and a number of possible solutions.


Charlotte, NC - Average sunlight, average priced electricity

NC State's Solar Center promotes solar installations in
North Carolina's relatively solar-friendly environment.
North Carolina jumps in as the most normal of the examples with sunlight levels right in the middle and electricity costs at almost exactly the national average. The subsidies are also adequate, but not extraordinary, making it a good basis for general comparison.

Like Washington and unlike New York, North Carolina has production incentives to encourage solar by increasing your monthly electricity earnings (A.K.A. savings). Doubling the 10¢ per kWh electricity price given by your local power company, the state pays producers with installations smaller than 5kW an additional 10¢ for each kWh produced. This makes it much more worthwhile to install a smaller system because, as you can see in the graphs above, the payback period doubles with systems not covered by the production incentive.

North Carolina also subsidizes the initial cost of your solar electric system, with a generous tax break of 35% in addition to the 30% provided by the federal government, adding up to 65% of the total installed cost being covered by the government.


Tucson, AZ - High sunlight, average priced electricity

Arizona's high levels of sunlight attracts many large solar installations.
The 10MW Black Mountain Solar Project is currently under construction
near Kingman, AZ.
Arizona, and especially Tucson, has the best sun in the US and average electricity prices at 11¢ per kWh. As one might expect, this is coupled with limited incentives for residential solar installations from the state. There are no production incentives, likely because solar production in this region is very efficient, and only limited initial cost cutting measures. Unlike the other states mentioned, Arizona's state government subsidies mostly work through power companies by providing them incentives to chip in for your solar panels, making these incentives very region specific. There is also the minimal $1000 subsidy provided by the state.

Tucson is a good example of what can be expected in Arizona, with the local power company paying $750 per kW installed up to 30kW. Compared to New York's $1500 per kW installed up to 7kW (among NY's other subsidies) this is a miserly motivator, but it does encourage much larger home systems. The federal tax credit covering 30% of the total installed cost applies here as well of course.

The nearby Cochise County has a much more generous incentive to reduce installation costs immensely by offering $2000 per kW installed up to 10kW, cutting the payback time nearly in half. Like Chelan County, this is a good example of local regions offering deals that completely change the value of a solar investment.


Note that these are an average of electricity prices for all sectors. For prices divided by residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors for each state through 2010, look at the EIA's State Electricity Profile



A Few More Things

A Word About Thin-film Solar and Other New Tech

In a perfect vision of the future of solar, every man-made object on earth would be covered in thin-film solar material and every window coated with transparent solar absorption technology. With only a slight tint to the window (already standard on most office buildings), the entire surface of the building becomes a giant photovoltaic panel. It is an excellent use of already existing surfaces and would prevent us from wasting arable land on solar electric farms. There are even developments going towards spray-on thin-film solar to coat nearly any surface[6]. Solar technology like this would bring production and material costs down dramatically and make installation easy enough that your local car garage could install solar tints in your car.

This technology is still very far behind in a couple of areas. The efficiency is too low and the materials degrade too fast. Good thing for us, these technologies are making leaps and bounds, such as GM's new pre-market thin-film solar panel that demonstrated 12.8% efficiency in the field and New Energy Technologies' SolarWindow.

Hopefully, we'll soon see some big steps towards bringing this technology to a useful point and introducing it to the market in an effective way. A low-cost, efficient, and invisible solution like one of these would push solar that much closer to replacing fossil fuels.


Increasing Future Energy Costs Improves Payback Period


Many groups worldwide, spanning from oil insiders to renewable advocacy groups, such as the Exxon Mobile[7], the Edison Electric Institute[8], and the International Energy Institute[9], are predicting huge increases in energy demand and price. These increases will come steadily as population increases in the developed world, and much faster in developing countries that have to deal with faster population growth as well as adoption of modern technology and more consumption-based lifestyles. Another trend to consider is the decreasing prices of solar panels and installation costs, which came down considerably in just the past two years.[10]

An investment in solar now may be more difficult in regions like Washington State, but in the 12 years it takes to pay off the investment it seems likely that we may see oil and electricity prices continue to increase. If these likely predictions prove true, an investment in solar is one way to ensure price stability for yourself in a market of quickly increasing demand and a supply that will not be able to keep up.


Net Metering Explained


Although it can be quite complicated when you get up into much larger capacities, for residential installations net metering is actually quite simple with little variation between states. In general, local power companies are required by law to install a meter that measures your power used and power generated (thus "net" electric power metering). The value of the power generated by your renewable energy system (solar, wind, etc) will then be calculated based on retail rates and taken out of your next month's electric bill.

When you are creating more power than you are using, some states will calculate the additional value at the "avoided cost" rate. Although theoretically they should be nearly the same as retail prices[11], the avoided costs are generally much lower than retail prices[12][13], sometimes by as much as 50%, this can be a big problem for reclaiming your investment in residential solar and wind. This also encourages people to only produce as much as they use, because any incentive to go past that is severely reduced. This is different state-by-state. For example New York and Arizona calculate excess produced electricity with the avoided cost rates, whereas North Carolina and Washington use the higher retail prices to compensate energy produced that exceeds your household consumption.[14]

For detailed information on individual state net metering policies, look here.

Useful Vocabulary

Retail Rates: The price that YOU pay for electricity. This includes the actual fuel and maintenance costs for the power plant as well as taxes.

Avoided Cost: The cost that the power plant avoided because you created additional energy. This includes fuel and maintenance costs that were avoided as well as avoided capacity costs. Avoided capacity is the value to the power company of not building more power plants to meet increasing demand for electricity. In the simplest terms possible, if the demand for power increases by 1000 kw, but people with solar panels are producing 1000 kw of additional energy, the power company doesn't have to spend money building a 1000 kw power plant.[15]


Resources

A few calculators to figure out the cost of a solar installation in your state based on your needs:
Solar Estimate Calculator
Altestore On-grid Calculator

An off-grid calculator:
Altestore Off-grid Calculator

References

[1]http://solarpanel-direct.com/decrease-solar-panel-efficiency
[2]http://ijuancarlo.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/22/
[3]http://205.254.135.7/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3
[4]http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US37F&re=1&ee=1
[5]http://www.snow-and-spray-away.de/side/index.php/english
[6]http://www.newenergytechnologiesinc.com/technology/solarwindow
[7]http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/news_pub_eo.pdf
[8]http://205.254.135.7/conference/2008/conf_pdfs/Monday/owens.pdf
[9]http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5936
[10]http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/09/15/tracking-the-sun-iv/
[11]http://efc.umd.edu/pdf/Canney_AvoidedCostMethodology.pdf
[12]http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/category/avoided-cost/
[13]http://ratecrimes.blogspot.com/2009/05/avoided-cost.html
[14]http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?EE=1&RE=1&SPV=0&ST=0&searchtype=Net&sh=1
[15]http://energync.org/assets/files/AvoidedCosts.pdf

Solar panel, additional hardware, and installation cost information are estimates and were found at http://www.altestore.com/ and through phone conversations with sales representatives.

State electricity costs are from 2010 and were found at http://205.254.135.7/electricity/state/pdf/sep2010.pdf

State incentive information was found at http://www.dsireusa.org/
-http://www.ncgreenpower.org/resources/index.html#expedited
-http://www.azdor.gov/Portals/0/Brochure/543.pdf
-https://www.tep.com/Renewable/Home/PV/