undefined | Better HN

0 pointscom2kid1y ago0 comments

> Yes, rooftop home solar doesn't make a ton of sense at this latitude and especially not adjacent to this much hydro power.

I know people in Seattle who run their entire house off solar for 6-8 months on the year (important now that AC is increasingly needed around here...) and who don't fully deplete the credit they've saved up with the power company until January.

Also only Seattle gets the majority of their energy Hydro Power, anyone in King County but outside of Seattle is getting a mix[1] including around 46% from coal + natural gas.

https://www.pse.com/en/pages/energy-supply/electric-supply

0 comments

loeg1y ago

> I know people in Seattle who run their entire house off solar for 6-8 months on the year (important now that AC is increasingly needed around here...) and who don't fully deplete their battery bank until January.

So what? They've invested a large amount of capital in order to avoid low $0.13/kWh residential electricity rates that come from more or less entirely carbon-free sources (mostly hydro, some nuclear/wind). You can do it, it just doesn't make any sense.

com2kidOP1y ago

> So what? They've invested a large amount of capital in order to avoid low $0.13/kWh residential electricity rates that come from more or less entirely carbon-free sources

As per PSE (the power company for the Seattle Metro but outside of Seattle itself), only 23% of the energy sent to surrounding areas outside of Seattle city proper is from hydro. FWIW Nuclear is less than 1%. 46% is fossil fuels, natural gas and coal.

As for the payback period on solar installs, it made a lot of sense a few years ago when the state had incentives.

With the ability to bank credit, plenty of people around Seattle who have solar panels are only paying for electricity for 3 or so months of the year.

Is it a slam dunk? There is probably better ROI on an index fund, but it is not a money losing proposition by any means.

WalterBright1y ago

It's hard to see the ROI on rooftop solar, especially taking into account the cost of replacing the panels and the battery now and then. They're not lifetime purchases.

loeg1y ago

We're talking about Seattle residents. We get power from Seattle City Light, not PSE.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointscom2kid1y ago0 comments

> Yes, rooftop home solar doesn't make a ton of sense at this latitude and especially not adjacent to this much hydro power.

Also only Seattle gets the majority of their energy Hydro Power, anyone in King County but outside of Seattle is getting a mix[1] including around 46% from coal + natural gas.

https://www.pse.com/en/pages/energy-supply/electric-supply

0 comments

loeg1y ago

com2kidOP1y ago

> So what? They've invested a large amount of capital in order to avoid low $0.13/kWh residential electricity rates that come from more or less entirely carbon-free sources

As for the payback period on solar installs, it made a lot of sense a few years ago when the state had incentives.

With the ability to bank credit, plenty of people around Seattle who have solar panels are only paying for electricity for 3 or so months of the year.

Is it a slam dunk? There is probably better ROI on an index fund, but it is not a money losing proposition by any means.

WalterBright1y ago

It's hard to see the ROI on rooftop solar, especially taking into account the cost of replacing the panels and the battery now and then. They're not lifetime purchases.

loeg1y ago

We're talking about Seattle residents. We get power from Seattle City Light, not PSE.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse