The solar panels on the roof of the Belshe farm in Cuba, Mo. produce clean, renewable electricity at a reasonable cost.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Twelve years ago Bob and Pat Belshe bought a farm in Cuba, Mo. in order to have a place to relax in the country.
Over the years they invested in a number of conservation projects to create a more sustainable farm operation, and were named “Farmer of the Year” by the local district of USDA and Natural Resources Conservation Service for their conservation and modern farming efforts. To truly “walk his talk,” Bob knew he wanted to start using renewable energy on their farm to reduce his carbon footprint and make his operation more sustainable.
With the property sitting on a ridge that always seemed to enjoy a strong breeze, Bob thought it would be a great place to install a wind turbine. When he contacted The Energy Savings Store, a company that specializes in wind and solar energy solutions, he became convinced solar would be a better option.
In his area of Missouri wind speeds average 8-11 mph, strong enough to produce electricity, but without a very good return on the investment. However, the south-facing roof on his barn made a perfect structure to house a solar photovoltaic (PV) system.
Since the home on the farm is primarily used only on weekends, the system was designed to offset a significant portion (about 37 percent) of the power used. The Energy Savings Store designed and installed a 3.6 kilowatt (kW) system, consisting of sixteen panels mounted in two rows across the roof. The 225 watt SunPower panels, which have the highest efficiency ratings in the industry, were expected to produce a little over 5,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity per year. While solar electric systems have a power rating measured in kW, the output – which is measured in kWh – is what’s most important, because that’s how you are billed for your electric usage. The average home uses about 12,000 kWh of electricity a year. The Belshe farm uses about 13,500.
The net cost of the system was reduced by 30 percent because of the expansion of the federal tax credits available for renewable energy. In February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed, which removed the original $1,500 cap on the tax credits. With the installed cost of PV systems averaging around $8,000 per installed kilowatt, this amounts to a substantial savings. And since the farm is actually a business, the Belshes were also able to take advantage of bonus and accelerated depreciation options. “This has been an excellent investment, and strengthens our commitment to operating a sustainable farm,” said Belshe.
One great way to look at solar is that you’re essentially purchasing 30 years of electricity at a fixed cost. While most panels have a 10-year warranty against defects, they typically last 40-50 years because there are no moving parts. Solar panels do degrade slightly over time – about 1 percent a year – but most manufacturers provide a second warranty that promises the system will continue to provide at least 80 percent of the output as when they were new. The system’s inverter, which converts the electricity from its native DC power (like that used in batteries) to AC, usually needs to be replaced after about 20 years, so you have to figure that into the 30-year cost. The Belshes estimated their net fixed cost p/kWh at about 15 cents p/kWh.
This is certainly higher than the current rate they’re paying for electricity, which is about 10 cents p/kWh. However, electric rates are conservatively projected to rise 5.5 percent per year over the next 25 years, which will increase the Belshe’s rate to 16 cents in 10 years, and to over 47 cents in 30 years. By taking these cost increases into consideration, 15 cents starts to look like a very good price to lock into.
Because the Crawford County farm is served by an electric cooperative, Crawford Electric, they were not able to take advantage of the $2 per watt utility rebate that AmerenUE customers can get starting this year. Had this been available, the Belshes would have saved an additional $5,000 and the fixed cost p/kWh would have been about 11 cents. The rebate, which is based off the 3.6 kW power rating, would have been $7,200, slightly lessening the federal tax credit that is taken off the rebated price.
After the installation, the system was inspected by Crawford Electric. They were pleased with the tidy installation, and impressed to see that more than half of the electricity produced was returned to the grid since the system had been installed. This is due to net-metering, which enables the bi-directional electric meter to spin backward when more electricity is produced than consumed.
“We’re very pleased to be using the clean, renewable energy of the sun on our farm,” claimed Belshe. For a video tour with more details about the system, check out Bob’s story on YouTube.
Steve O’Rourke (www.StephenRORourke.com) is an independent consultant who advocates for efficiency and sustainability through the intelligent use of energy and information. He has actively promoted renewable energy, and in the process educates prospects about the importance of energy efficiency and conservation. You can reach him at Steve@IntelEfficient.com.
Comments
Rune04 (anonymous) says...
This is a very nice article and it shows how solar power can be used efficiently, but as the numbers show, it is truly unrealistic that this could be used to provide power for a private residence. The costs would be too high without the added benefits of a business write-off. Another factor that is never talked about, there will be issues with the roof with all of the penetrations. It would definitely need periodic maintanance. Not cheap if you are not a do-it-yourselfer.
March 8, 2010 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
davek (anonymous) says...
In response to Rune4- the cost 'factor' is correct, which is why various lease plans are being used in places like California where electrical supply 'Shocks' have changed the market (forgive the unintended pun).
also, newer systems with integrated inverters can eliminate nearly all penetrations.
March 8, 2010 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
srorourke (anonymous) says...
Thanks for the comments. You're right about the costs - at this point the payback is not there without financial incentives. However, a sharp increase in supply that coincided with the worldwide recession has caused a drop in prices, and new product efficiencies are also increasing the output of solar PV systems.
One thing I didn't include here is the Renewable Energy Certificates that accompany solar PV systems. This is still a wildcard because the Missouri Public Service Commission is still working out the rules to establish the market in Missouri. The RECs might be purchased in bulk by the utility, or by a broker who batches up the RECs and sells them. It is anticipated that the value of the RECs will likely be about the same as the utility rebate.
As for the roof penetrations, a quality installer will make sure that any roof penetrations are watertight. However, one thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that when the roof needs to be replaced, the solar panels must be uninstalled and reinstalled.
DaveK - you're also right about microinverters. This simplify installation somewhat, and enables you to easily expand your system, because each panel has its own inverter. Andalay has a nice system that uses microinverters, and this is being marketed to Do-It-Yourselfers in Lowes on the west coast. It's certainly not for lightweight DIY's though!
March 8, 2010 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )