I am looking at a solar installation of somewhere between 6 and 7 kW.
All vendors are proposing a roof mount.
However, my house is almost 100% un-ideally situated with a west / east orientation.
The proposals are to put it on the east side because of no trees blocking like there would be on the west side. However, I think the sun efficiency is 78% on that east side (slight tilt) as opposed to 100% if facing south.
So thinking about a ground mount on my property which would face straight south.
I'd need about 20% less panels to do the same electricity production with a ground mount than a roof mount? That could be an initial savings of 20% with a ground mount?
But then I'm reading that ground mounts are more expensive because you need to build some kind of foundation to put them on, requires more labor to do so, and you have to dig a trench at least 18" deep to get to my electrical panel?
Does all of that outweigh the initial 20% savings I reference above so that to that same 6 or 7 kW it'd cost more for a ground mount installation than the roof situation?
Let's say the cost of the roof installation before credits is going to be about $25,000.
The other factor here is that I had my entire roof done in December 2005 with 30 year shingles. Therefore at this point they could go another 13 years. However, no solar company wants to put an installation on a 17 year old roof. If I went ahead and did have them install it on the existing roof somewhere in the life of the installation I am going to have to pay to have the installation taken down and re-installed at the time when I do have to re-roof.
It pained me to no end to have to rip off a perfectly good roof and throw away somewhere between 8-13 years of remaining life. But it seemed like I should do it now so that the life of the roof matches the life of the installation and I avoid the future cost of taking down / putting back up the installation.
I decided I'd only have the east side of the roof done. Cost? $5,400. I'd not be having this cost absent the decision to go solar. Therefore I'm assigning part of that $5,400 to the cost of going solar (and not eligible for the 30% federal tax credit). I have to assign at least 1/3 - $1,800 - as an additional necessary cost to go solar. I'm looking at the rest of the cost as giving me an extended life of the roof.
So the only answer I'm looking for here is if you think it would cost me more or less for a ground mount than what I'm looking for for a roof mount.
Use $25,000 for the roof mount plus the $1,800 for the roof (not eligible for the 30% federal credit).
Could a ground mount come in at less than that taking into account the reduced panels necessary for the same production but with the other associated costs for a ground mount that you don't have with a roof mount (plus not having any additional costs related to the roof)?
All vendors are proposing a roof mount.
However, my house is almost 100% un-ideally situated with a west / east orientation.
The proposals are to put it on the east side because of no trees blocking like there would be on the west side. However, I think the sun efficiency is 78% on that east side (slight tilt) as opposed to 100% if facing south.
So thinking about a ground mount on my property which would face straight south.
I'd need about 20% less panels to do the same electricity production with a ground mount than a roof mount? That could be an initial savings of 20% with a ground mount?
But then I'm reading that ground mounts are more expensive because you need to build some kind of foundation to put them on, requires more labor to do so, and you have to dig a trench at least 18" deep to get to my electrical panel?
Does all of that outweigh the initial 20% savings I reference above so that to that same 6 or 7 kW it'd cost more for a ground mount installation than the roof situation?
Let's say the cost of the roof installation before credits is going to be about $25,000.
The other factor here is that I had my entire roof done in December 2005 with 30 year shingles. Therefore at this point they could go another 13 years. However, no solar company wants to put an installation on a 17 year old roof. If I went ahead and did have them install it on the existing roof somewhere in the life of the installation I am going to have to pay to have the installation taken down and re-installed at the time when I do have to re-roof.
It pained me to no end to have to rip off a perfectly good roof and throw away somewhere between 8-13 years of remaining life. But it seemed like I should do it now so that the life of the roof matches the life of the installation and I avoid the future cost of taking down / putting back up the installation.
I decided I'd only have the east side of the roof done. Cost? $5,400. I'd not be having this cost absent the decision to go solar. Therefore I'm assigning part of that $5,400 to the cost of going solar (and not eligible for the 30% federal tax credit). I have to assign at least 1/3 - $1,800 - as an additional necessary cost to go solar. I'm looking at the rest of the cost as giving me an extended life of the roof.
So the only answer I'm looking for here is if you think it would cost me more or less for a ground mount than what I'm looking for for a roof mount.
Use $25,000 for the roof mount plus the $1,800 for the roof (not eligible for the 30% federal credit).
Could a ground mount come in at less than that taking into account the reduced panels necessary for the same production but with the other associated costs for a ground mount that you don't have with a roof mount (plus not having any additional costs related to the roof)?
Comment