Bank of America owns the solar equipment and sells power to the district through its Banc of America Public Capital Corp Energy Services team. The district will purchase electricity under a service contract at set rates below market utility rates. This arrangement provides the district with general fund savings and budget predictability.
I did the math, 10k panels generating 5.5MW each panel generates 550w. Cost $23,000,000 or $2,300 per panel. So 550 watts for $2,300 for 20 years. So if I did the math right it costs you $9.50 a month (2300/20/12) to run 10 60watt light bulbs 24x7. Now at 12 cents per KWhr these same light bulbs would cost you (.12 x 24 x30) or 86 but we are only using 550 so 86 x .55=$47.52 Wow $9.50 beats the heck out of $47.50, I must be doing something wrong here, cause I did not think the payback on solar beat 12 cents a kilowatt hour yet. HELP!
You’ll get no help from me with that.
Bottom line must be subsidy. Someone gets taxpayer money to make this look workable.
Solar panels price has droped below $2 per watt, so payback on 12 cents per kilowatt hour is somewhere between 5-7 years, I am told by my electrical engineer friend who installed some big solar projects for the military. We use a lot of solar panels for work in remote locations with low power needs. In that type of situation, you cannot beat them. They have proven every bit as reliable as grid power here in southern Arizona, and much, much cheaper, because you cannot extend grid power for 100 yards for the price of installing a solar panel. These panels are a lot more expensive than that at about $4.18 per watt installed, so that makes the payback period that they are saying about reasonable for Southern California. We have a bit more sunshine than they do.
B) the 550w is PEAK at optimal angles and fully rated efficiency; MAYBE 20% of the 12 hours gives peak output
C) other equipment costs not factored in: inverters, battery banks, switching gear, battery chargers, battery & equipment rooms
D) other costs not factored in: maintenance & replacement of batteries over the 16-20 years; labor costs cleaning the panels; replacement of damaged panels (hail; vandalism; accident—on stilts in parking lot; etc.)
E) natural and inevitable drops in panel efficiency over time
It was mainly C-E, though B also played a role, that dissuaded me from installing some for (mainly) lighting an unpowered barn vs running a line to it from the existing meter, which would allow not only lighting, but tool & equipment usage as well.
Salesmen and advocates (and bureaucrats) are great at using cherry picked figures & glossings over of details to effectively lie; but real figures for a real situation don't lie.
marktwain in post #30 has it right: more effective & cheaper than extending grid; and for critical & remote low power equipment. For most, to replace extant grid power, not so much...and we're at 9 cents/KWH, which makes them compare even worse.