My parents had panels installed on their house, it is a large single story house in Austin, Texas, which is pretty ideal (more surface area for panels, less volume inside vs two story). No trees in the way either. They haven't had to pay anything for electricity yet. And that is with an EV charging in the garage.
We have panels on our roof, a two story house, also in Austin Texas, not so lucky as my parents. With the area maxed out we still have to pay for about 25% of the electricity we use.
It sounds like they have a good net energy metering plan that is crediting them for their solar being put back to the grid. (So they don't have to pay for charging the electric car in the evening when solar stops working) I wonder if Texas is working to walk that back like California is right now.
I'm in the Austin suburbs on Pedernales Electric Coop (not Austin Energy as in the city proper). In 2022 they switched away from net metering to a scheme that pays just over 50% of the cost for power returned to the grid. So I now pay $0.090337/kWh for power consumed from the grid, and am credited only $0.05377/kWh for power returned to the grid.
This has changed the payback equation quite a bit. I'm now incentivized to do everything I can to use the power I generate rather than returning it to the grid, whether running more A/C during daylight, running laundry during the day, or storing it on my Powerwalls for using off hours.
Although the payback equation doesn't really make sense anymore, we're still happy with our decision to install solar + powerwalls because we can run the A/C as much as we want without feeling guilty, and also get a solid backup in case of major storm events like the 2021 winter storms. We both work from home and have an infant so keeping the house comfortable is important.
almost certainly. Net metering is ultimately unsustainable. Realistically we should be paying homeowners wholesale electricity rates + an amount to cover transmission savings + whatever incentive we decide on for the energy they produce (along with time of use based consumption charges).
This would likely incentivize storage, and could be extremely valuable with V2G technologies that are incoming.
Agreed, incentivizing storage right now is a great idea because there are many creative ways to get it done. From used EV battery packs to EVs that can run the power both ways, and who knows what else people will think of depending on their location and skills.
In Austin I'd like to see some studies on solar vs tree coverage. My empirical evidence would suggest that great tree coverage alone keep the inside livable on 100f+ summer days. On my house without trees I could barely keep some of the rooms cool.
That makes me wonder if the installation of solar panels on a roof act as "shade" similar to partial tree coverage in some way, since in many cases they add a thin cushion of shaded air between the panel and the roof. I wonder if that provides any meaningful shade or temperature reduction.
Not making an argument either way, I just hadn't really considered if this was a factor until I read your comment.
I would certainly never cut a tree down to get more solar on my roof, even if the math worked out favorably from a cost perspective it just feels gross.
We have panels on our roof, a two story house, also in Austin Texas, not so lucky as my parents. With the area maxed out we still have to pay for about 25% of the electricity we use.