Low-emissions sources are set to cover almost all the growth in global electricity demand in the next three years

Scotland Green Recovery Strategy centers on renewable energy, onshore wind, energy efficiency, battery storage, hydrogen, and electric vehicles, alongside public transport and digital infrastructure, local manufacturing, and grid flexibility to decarbonize industry and communities.

Key Points

A plan to cut emissions by scaling renewables, efficiency, storage, and infrastructure for resilient, low-carbon growth.

✅ Prioritize energy efficiency retrofits in homes and workplaces

✅ Invest in battery storage, hydrogen, and EV charging networks

✅ Support local manufacturing and circular economy supply chains

THE “green recovery” joins the growing list of Covid-era political maxims, while green energy investment could drive recovery, suggesting a bright and environmentally sustainable post-pandemic future lies ahead.

The Prime Minister once again alluded to it recently when he expressed his ambition to see the UK become the “world leader in clean wind energy”. In his typically bombastic style, Boris Johnson declared that everything from our kettles to electric vehicles, with offshore wind energy central to that vision, will be powered by “breezes that blow around these islands” by the next decade.

These comments create a misleading impression about how we can achieve a green recovery, particularly as Covid-19 hit renewables and exposed systemic challenges. While wind turbines have a key role to play, they are just one part of a comprehensive solution requiring a far more in-depth focus on how and why we use energy. We must concentrate our efforts and resources on reducing our overall consumption and increasing energy capture.

This includes making significant energy efficiency improvements to the buildings where we live and work and grasping the lessons of lockdown, including proposals for a fossil fuel lockdown to accelerate climate action, to ensure we operate in a more effective and less environmentally-damaging fashion. Do we really want to return to a world where people commute daily half way across the country for work or fly to New York for a two-hour meeting?

Businesses will need to adapt to new ways of operating outwith the traditional nine-to-five working week to reduce congestion and pollution levels. To make this possible requires Government investment in critical areas such as public transport and digital infrastructure, alongside more pylons to strengthen the grid, across all parts of Scotland to decentralise the economy and enable more people to live and work outside the main cities.

A Government-supported green recovery must rest on making it financially viable for businesses to manufacture here to reduce our reliance on imported goods. This includes processing recycleable materials here rather than shipping them abroad. It also means using locally generated energy to support local jobs and industry. We miss a trick if Scotland simply becomes a power generator for the rest of the UK.

MOVING transport from fossil fuels to renewable fuels will require a step-change that also requires support across all levels. The increased use of electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells are all encouraging developments, but these will rely on investment in infrastructure throughout the country if we’re to achieve significant benefits to our environment and our economy.

This brings us to the role of onshore wind power; still the cheapest form of renewable energy, and a sector marked by wind growth despite Covid-19 around the world today. Repowering existing sites with newer and more efficient turbines will certainly increase capacity rapidly, but we must also invest into development projects that will further enhance the capacity and efficiency of existing equipment. This includes improving on the current practice of the National Grid paying operators to switch off wind turbines when excess electricity is produced and instead developing new and innovative means to capture this energy. Government-primed investment into battery storage could help ensure we achieve and further reduce our reliance on traditional, non-sustainable sources.

We need a level playing field so that all forms of energy are judged on their lifetime cost in terms of emissions as well as construction and decommissioning costs to ensure fiscal incentives are applied on a fairer basis.

Turning the maxim of a green recovery into reality will require more than extra wind turbines, and the UK's wind lessons underscore the importance of policy and scale. We need a significant investment and commitment from business and government to limit existing emissions and ensure we capture and use energy more efficiently.

Andy Drane is projects partner and head of renewables at law firm Davidson Chalmers Stewart.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EV Battery Manufacturing Emissions debunk viral claims with lifecycle analysis, showing lithium-ion production CO2 depends on grid mix and is offset by zero tailpipe emissions and renewable-energy charging over typical vehicle miles.

Key Points

EV lithium-ion pack production varies by grid mix; ~1-2 years of driving, then offset by zero tailpipe emissions.

✅ Battery CO2 depends on electricity mix and factory efficiency.

✅ 75 kWh pack ~4.5-7.5 t CO2; not equal to 8 years of driving.

✅ Lifecycle analysis: EVs cut GHG vs gas, especially with renewables.

Electric vehicles are touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline powered cars, but one Facebook post claims that the benefits are overblown, despite fact-checks of charging math to the contrary, and the vehicles are much more harmful to the planet than people assume.

A cartoon posted to Facebook on April 29, amid signs the EV era is arriving in many markets, shows a car in one panel with "diesel" written on the side and the driver thinking "I feel so dirty." In another panel, a car has "electric" written on its side with the driver thinking "I feel so clean."

However, the electric vehicle is shown connected to what appears to be a factory that’s blowing dark smoke into the air.

Below the cartoon is a caption that claims "manufacturing the battery for one electric car produces the same amount of CO2 as running a petrol car for eight years."

This isn’t a new line of criticism against electric vehicles, and reflects ongoing opinion on the EV revolution in the media. Similar Facebook posts have taken aim at the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacturing of electric cars — specifically the batteries — to make the case that zero emissions vehicles aren’t necessarily clean.

Full electric vehicles require a large lithium-ion battery to store energy and power the motor that propels the car, according to Insider. The lithium-ion battery packs in an electric car are chemically similar to the ones found in cell phones and laptops.

Because they require a mix of metals that need to be extracted and refined, lithium-ion batteries take more energy to produce than the common lead-acid batteries used in gasoline cars to help start the engine.

How much CO2 is emitted in the production depends on where the lithium-ion battery is made — or specifically, how the electricity powering the factory is generated, and national electricity profiles such as Canada's 2019 mix help illustrate regional differences — according to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research think tank.

Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla's battery factory in Nevada. That’s the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles, Hausfather said.

If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years — but still nowhere near the eight years claimed in the Facebook post. Hausfather said the larger emission amount in Asia can be attributed to its "higher carbon electricity mix." The continent relies more on coal for energy production, while Tesla’s Nevada factory uses some solar energy. 

"More than half the emissions associated with manufacturing the battery are associated with electricity use," Hausfather said in an email to PolitiFact. "So, as the electricity grid decarbonizes, emissions associated with battery production will decline. The same is not true for sedan tailpipe emissions."

The Facebook post does not mention the electricity needs and CO2 impact of factories that build gasoline or diesel cars and their components. 

Another thing the Facebook post omits is that the CO2 emitted in the production of the battery can be offset over a short time in an electric car by the lack of tailpipe emissions when it’s in operation. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists found in a 2015 report that taking into account electricity sources for charging, which have become greener in all states since then, an electric vehicle ends up reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 50% compared with a similar size gas-powered car.

A midsize vehicle completely negates the carbon dioxide its production emits by the time it travels 4,900 miles, according to the report. For full size cars, it takes 19,000 miles of driving.

The U.S. Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy also looked at the life cycle of electric vehicles — which includes a car’s production, use and disposal — and concluded they produce less greenhouse gases and smog than gasoline-powered vehicles, a conclusion consistent with independent analyses from consumer and energy groups.

The agency also found drivers could further lower CO2 emissions by charging with power generated by a renewable energy source, and drivers can also save money in the long run with EV ownership. 

Our ruling
A cartoon shared on Facebook claims the carbon dioxide emitted from the production of one electric car battery is the equivalent to driving a gas-powered vehicle for eight years.

The production of lithium-ion batteries for electric cars emits a significant amount of carbon dioxide, but nowhere near the level claimed in the cartoon. The emissions from battery production are equivalent to driving a gasoline car for one or two years, depending on where it’s produced, and those emissions are effectively offset over time by the lack of tailpipe emissions when the car is on the road. 

We rate this claim Mostly False.    

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Newfoundland EV Fast-Charging Network enables DC fast charging along the Trans-Canada Highway, from Port aux Basques to St. John's, with Level 3 stations, reducing range anxiety and accelerating electric vehicle adoption.

Key Points

A DC fast charging corridor with Level 3 stations every 70 km, enabling EV road trips and easing range anxiety.

✅ 14 Level 3 DC fast chargers across the Trans-Canada Highway

✅ Charges most EVs to 80% in under an hour, $15/hr prorated

✅ Expansion planned into Labrador with 19 additional fast chargers

The first electric vehicle fast-charging network is now up and running across Newfoundland, which the province's main energy provider hopes will make road trips easier for electric car owners and encourage more drivers to go electric in the future.

With the last of the 14 charging stations coming online in Corner Brook earlier this month, drivers now have a place to charge up about every 70 kilometres along the Trans-Canada Highway, where 10 new fast-charging stations in N.B. are being planned, from Port aux Basques to St. John's, along with one in Gros Morne National Park.

Jennifer Williams, president & CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, says many potential electric vehicle owners have been hesitant to give up on gasoline without fast chargers available across the island.

"The majority of people who were interested in EVs said one of the major barriers to them was indeed not having a fast-charging network that they could access," she said.

"We really believe that this is going to help people cross over and become an EV owner."

The charging network was first announced in October 2019, with an eye to having all 14 chargers up and running by the end of 2020. When work began, Newfoundland and Labrador was the only province in Canada without any publicly available Level 3 chargers, even as NB Power's public charging network was expanding elsewhere.

After some COVID-19 pandemic-related delays, the stations are now up and running and can charge most EVs to 80 per cent in less than an hour at a prorated cost of $15 an hour

"The pandemic did have some effect, but we're there now and we're really happy and this is just the beginning," said Williams.

Public charging becoming 'a non-issue'
That's encouraging for Jon Seary, an electric car owner and a co-founder of advocacy group Drive Electric N.L. He says the lack of fast chargers has been the "deal breaker" for many people looking to buy electric vehicles.

"Now you can drive right across the province. You can choose to stop at any of these to top up," Seary said.

Joe Butler, who is also a co-founder of the group, says the fast chargers have already made trips easier as they've come online across the island.

"In the past, it was a major impediment, really, to get anywhere, but now it's changed dramatically," said Butler.

"I just came back from Gros Morne and I had two stops and I was home, so the convenience factor if you just travel occasionally outside of town makes all the difference."

Jon Seary and Joe Butler stand with a slower level-two charging station on Kenmount Road in St. John's. 'We are at the cusp now of seeing a huge upswing in electric vehicle adoption,' Seary said. (Gavin Simms/CBC)
Seary said according to numbers from provincial motor vehicle registration, there were 195 electric cars on the road at the end of 2020, but he estimates that there are now closer to 300 vehicles in use in the province — with the potential for many more.

"We are at the cusp now of seeing a huge upswing in electric vehicle adoption," he said, even though Atlantic Canadians have been less inclined to buy EVs so far. 

"The cost of the cars is coming way down, and has come down. More places are selling them and the availability of public charging is becoming a non-issue as we put more and more charging stations out there."

The future is electric but the province's infrastructure is lagging behind, says non-profit
But Seary said there is still more work to be done to improve the province's charging infrastructure to catch up with other parts of the country. 

"We are lagging the rest of the country," Seary said, even as the N.W.T. encourages more residents to drive EVs through new initiatives.

"We have opportunities for federal funding for our charging infrastructure and it needs to be moving now. We have the surplus from Muskrat Falls to use and we have a climate that's not going to wait … this is the time to get going with this now."

Williams said together with Newfoundland Power, N.L. Hydro is now working on 19 more fast chargers to be placed elsewhere in the province and into Labrador, where the N.L. government has promoted EV adoption but infrastructure has lagged in some areas.

"We've heard very loudly and very clearly from the folks in Labrador, as well as other parts of the province, that they want to have charging stations in their neck of the woods too," she said.

"Putting them in Labrador, we believe that we'll help people get over that concern and that fear. There are EV owners in Labrador … so we believe it can work there as well."

With more chargers and electric vehicles comes less reliance on burning fossil fuels, and utilities like Nova Scotia Power are piloting vehicle-to-grid integration to amplify benefits, and Williams said 21 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions have already been offset with the chargers as they've come online over the past few months.

"It actually does equate to as if you had powered a whole house all year, but the important part to remember [is that] these are an enabler. Putting these in place is enabling people to purchase electric vehicles," she said.

"You do 90 per cent of your charging at home, so if we're seeing about 20 tonnes has been offset in the short period of time they've been in service, for the vehicles that are charging at home, imagine how much they're actually offsetting. We figure it's well in excess of 200 tons."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Manitoba ZEV Roadblocks highlight EV charging station gaps, rural infrastructure limits, dealership supply shortages, and ZEV mandate timelines, pushing mode shift to transit, cycling, and walking while hampering zero-emission vehicle adoption across the province.

Key Points

EV charging gaps, rural access limits, and supply constraints slow Manitoba's progress toward ZEV targets.

✅ Sparse Level 3 fast chargers outside Winnipeg

✅ Rural infrastructure limits long-distance confidence

✅ Dealership supply lags; long pre-order wait times

The federal government’s push toward zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including forthcoming EV sales regulations, is hitting some roadblocks in Manitoba.

Earlier this year, Ottawa set a sales target to encourage Canadians to choose ZEVs. By 2026, their goal is to have ZEVs make up 20 per cent of new vehicle purchases. By 2035, they want all new vehicles sold to be ZEVs, a target that has sparked 2035 EV mandate debate among industry observers.

READ MORE: Ottawa sets 2026 target for mandating electric vehicle sales

Connie Blixhavn with the Manitoba Electric Vehicle Association (MEVA) doesn’t think Manitoba is on track.

“We’re not, not at all,” she said.

Blixhavn lives in Killarney, Man., and bought an electric vehicle last year. She plans her trips to Brandon and Winkler around the life of her car’s battery, but finds the charging infrastructure to be lacking and unreliable, a challenge echoed by Labrador's lagging infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Brandon is my closest place to get a level three charge, and when they’re not working, it limits where you can go,” she said.

Level three is the fastest type of EV charger, taking about 15-45 minutes to fully charge a vehicle’s batteries.

According to CAA, 68 of the province’s 94 EV charging stations are in Winnipeg. Blixhavn says it limits options for rural people to confidently adopt EVs, even as jurisdictions like the N.W.T. encourage EV adoption through targeted programs.

“I know we’re a big area, but they need to strategically plan where they put these so we all have access,” she said.

ZEVs are often not found on dealership lots – they have to be pre-ordered. One dealership employee told Global News demand far outweighs supply, amid EV shortages and wait times reported nationally, with some customers waiting one to two years for their new vehicle to arrive.

Mel Marginet with the Green Action Centre’s Sustainable Transporation Team is also wary of Manitoba’s ability to meet the 2026 goal, noting that even as experts question Quebec's EV push there are broader challenges. She believes the only way to come close is to change how much Manitobans use personal vehicles altogether.

“If we’re really concerned about the environment, we need to double and triple down on just reducing personal vehicle trips by and large,” she said.

Marginet points to transit, walking and cycling as ways to reduce reliance on driving.

“We depend on personal vehicles a lot in this province, and far more than we should have to,” she said. “My biggest worry is that we’ll take resources away from what we need to build to get people to use personal vehicles less.”

For Blixhavn, the lack of charging stations in her area has caused her to reduce her vehicle use. While she says she’s fine with the extra planning it takes to travel, she believes the lack of infrastructure is preventing Manitobans, especially those in rural areas, from catching up with other provinces, as Atlantic Canada EV interest lags the rest of the country, when it comes to choosing electric vehicles.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Hydrogen Innovation Fund accelerates clean electricity integration, hydrogen storage, grid balancing, and electrolyzer pilot projects, supporting EV production, green steelmaking, and clean manufacturing under Ontario's Low-Carbon Hydrogen Strategy via IESO-administered funding.

Key Points

A $15M program funding hydrogen storage, grid pilots to integrate low-carbon hydrogen into Ontario's power system.

✅ Administered by IESO; applications opened April 2023.

✅ Supports existing, new, and research hydrogen projects.

✅ Backs grid storage, capacity, demand management pilots.

The Ontario government is establishing a Hydrogen Innovation Fund that will invest $15 million over the next three years to kickstart and develop opportunities for hydrogen to be integrated into Ontario’s clean electricity system, including hydrogen electricity storage. This launch marks another milestone in the implementation of the province’s Low-Carbon Hydrogen Strategy, supporting a growing hydrogen economy across the province, positioning Ontario as a clean manufacturing hub.

“When energy is reliable, affordable and clean our whole province wins,” said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. “The Hydrogen Innovation Fund will help to lay the groundwork for hydrogen to contribute to our diverse energy supply, supporting game-changing investments in electric vehicle production and charging infrastructure across the province, green steelmaking and clean manufacturing that will create good paying jobs, grow our economy and reduce emissions.”

Hydrogen Innovation Fund projects would support electricity supply, capacity, battery storage and demand management, and support growth in Ontario’s hydrogen economy. The Fund will support projects across three streams:

Existing facilities already built or operational and ready to evaluate how hydrogen can support Ontario’s clean grid amid an energy storage crunch in Ontario.
New hydrogen facilities not yet constructed but could be in-service by a specified date to demonstrate how hydrogen can support Ontario’s clean grid.
Research studies investigating the feasibility of novel applications of hydrogen or support future hydrogen project decision making.

The Hydrogen Innovation Fund will be administered by the Independent Electricity System Operator, which is opening applications for the fund in April 2023. Natural Resources Canada modelling shows that hydrogen could make up about 30 per cent of the country's fuels and feedstock by 2050, as provinces advance initiatives like a British Columbia hydrogen project demonstrating scale and ambition, and create 100,000 jobs in Ontario. By making investments early to explore applications for hydrogen in our clean electricity sector we are paving the way for the growth of our own hydrogen economy.

“As a fuel that can be produced and used with little to no greenhouse gas emissions, hydrogen has tremendous potential to help us meet our long-term economic and environmental goals,” said David Piccini, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. “Our government will continue to support innovation and investment in clean technologies that will position Ontario as the clean manufacturing and transportation hub of the future while leading Canada in greenhouse gas emission reductions.”

The province is also advancing work to develop the Niagara Hydrogen Centre, led by Atura Power, which would increase the amount of low-carbon hydrogen produced in Ontario by eight-fold. This innovative project would help balance the electricity grid while using previously unutilized water at the Sir Adam Beck generating station to produce electricity for a hydrogen electrolyzer, reflecting broader electrolyzer investment trends in Canada. To support the implementation of the project, the IESO entered into a contract for grid regulation services at the Sir Adam Beck station starting in 2024, which will support low-carbon hydrogen production at the Niagara Hydrogen Centre.

These investments build on Ontario’s clean energy advantage, which also includes the largest battery storage project planned in southwestern Ontario, as our government makes progress on the Low-Carbon Hydrogen Strategy that laid out eight concrete actions to make Ontario a leader in the latest frontier of energy innovation – the hydrogen economy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Home Solar Cost vs Utility Bills compares electricity rates, ROI, incentives, and battery storage, explaining payback, financing, and grid fees while highlighting long-term savings, rate volatility, and backup power resilience for homeowners.

Key Points

Compares home solar pricing and financing to utility rates, outlining savings, incentives, ROI, and backup power value.

✅ Average retail rates rose 59% in 20 years; volatility persists

✅ Typical 7.15 kW system costs $18,950 before incentives

✅ Federal ITC and state rebates improve ROI and payback

When shopping for a home solar system, sometimes the quoted price can leave you wondering why someone would move forward with something that seems so expensive. 

When compared with the status quo, electricity delivered from the utility, the price may not seem so high after all. First, pv magazine will examine the status quo, and how much you can expect to pay for power if you don’t get solar panels. Then, we will examine the average cost of solar arrays today and introduce incentives that boost home solar value.

The cost of doing nothing

Generally, early adopters have financially benefited from going solar by securing price certainty and stemming the impact of steadily increasing utility-bill costs, particularly for energy-insecure households who pay more for electricity.

End-use residential electric customers pay an average of $0.138/kWh in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). In California, that rate is $0.256/kWh, it averages $0.246/kWh across New England, $0.126/kWh in the South Atlantic region, and $0.124/kWh in the Mountain West region.

EIA reports that the average home uses 893 kWh per month, so based on the average retail rate of $0.138/kWh, that’s an electric bill of about $123 monthly, or $229 monthly in California.

Over the last 20 years, EIA data show that retail electricity prices have increased 59% across the United States, with evidence indicating that renewables are not making electricity more expensive, suggesting other factors have driven costs higher, or 2.95% each year.

This means based on historical rates, the average US homeowner can expect to pay $39,460 over the next 20 years on electricity bills. On average, Californians could pay $73,465 over 20 years.

Recent global events show just how unstable prices can be for commodities, and energy is no exception here, with solar panel sales doubling in the UK as homeowners look to cut soaring bills. What will your utility bill cost in 20 years?

These estimated bills also assume that energy use in the home is constant over 20 years, but as the United States electrifies its homes, adds more devices, and adopts electric vehicles, it is fair to expect that many homeowners will use more electricity going forward.

Another factor that may exacerbate rate raising is the upgrade of the national transmission grid. The infrastructure that delivers power to our homes is aging and in need of critical upgrades, and it is estimated that a staggering $500 billion will be spent on transmission buildout by 2035. This half-trillion-dollar cost gets passed down to homeowners in the form of raised utility bill rates.

The benefit of backup power may increase as time goes on as well. Power outages are on the rise across the United States, and recent assessments of the risk of power outages underscore that outages related to severe weather events have doubled in the last 20 years. Climate change-fueled storms are expected to continue to rise, so the role of battery backup in providing reliable energy may increase significantly.

The truth is, we don’t know how much power will cost in 20 years. Though it has increased 59% across the nation in the last 20 years, there is no way to be certain what it will cost going forward. That is where solar has a benefit over the status quo. By purchasing solar, you are securing price certainty going forward, making it easier to budget and plan for the future.

So how do these costs compare to going solar?

Cost of solar

As a general trend, prices for solar have fallen. In 2010, it cost about $40,000 to install a residential solar system, and since then, prices have fallen by as much as 70%, and about 37% in the last five years. However, prices have increased slightly in 2022 due to shipping costs, materials costs, and possible tariffs being placed on imported solar goods, and these pressures aren’t expected to be alleviated in the near-term.

When comparing quotes, the best metric for an apples-to-apples comparison is the cost per watt. Price benchmarking by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows the average cost per watt for the nation was $2.65/W DC in 2021, and the average system size was 7.15 kW. So, an average system would cost about $18,950. With 12.5 kWh of battery energy storage, the average cost was $4.26/W, representing an average price tag of $30,460 with batteries included.

The prices above do not include any incentives. Currently, the federal government applies a 26% investment tax credit to the system, bringing down system costs for those who qualify to $14,023 without batteries, and $22,540 with batteries. Compared to the potential $39,460 in utility bills, buying a solar system outright in cash appears to show a clear financial benefit.

Many homeowners will need financing to buy a solar system. Shorter terms can achieve rates as low as 2.99% or less, but financing for a 20-year solar loan typically lands between 5% to 8% or more. Based on 20-year, 7% annual percentage rate terms, a $14,000 system would total about $26,000 in loan payments over 20 years, and the system with batteries included would total about $42,000 in loan payments.

Often when you adopt solar, the utility will still charge you a grid access fee even if your system produces 100% of your needs. These vary from utility to utility but are often around $10 a month. Over 20 years, that equates to about $2,400 that you’ll still need to pay to the utility, plus any costs for energy you use beyond what your system provides.

Based on these average figures, a homeowner could expect to see as much as $12,000 in savings with a 20-year financed system. Homeowners in regions whose retail energy price exceeds the national average could see savings in multiples of that figure.

Though in this example batteries appear to be marginally more expensive than the status quo over a 20-year term, they improve the home by adding the crucial service of backup power, and as battery costs continue to fall they are increasingly being approved to participate in grid services, potentially unlocking additional revenue streams for homeowners.

Another thing to note is most solar systems are warranted for 25 years rather than the 20 used in the status quo example. A panel can last a good 35 years, and though it will begin to produce less in old age, any power produced by a panel you own is money back in your pocket.

Incentives and home value

Many states have additional incentives to boost the value of solar, too, and federal proposals to increase solar generation tenfold could remake the U.S. electricity system. Checking the Database of State Incentives for Renewables (DSIRE) will show the incentives available in your state, and a solar representative should be able to walk you through these benefits when you receive a quote. State incentives change frequently and vary widely, and in some cases are quite rich, offering thousands of dollars in additional benefits.

Another factor to consider is home value. A study by Zillow found that solar arrays increase a home value by 4.1% on average. For a $375,000 home, that’s an increase of $15,375 in value. In most states home solar is exempt from property taxes, making it a great way to boost value without paying taxes for it.

Bottom line

We’ve shared a lot of data on national averages and the potential cost of power going forward, but is solar for you? In the past, early adopters have been rewarded for going solar, and celebrate when they see $0 electric bills paid to the utility company.

Each home is different, each utility is different, and each homeowner has different needs, so evaluating whether solar is right for your home will take a little time and analysis. Representatives from solar companies will walk you through this analysis, and it’s generally a good rule of thumb to get at least three quotes for comparison.

A great resource for starting your research is the Solar Calculator developed by informational site SolarReviews. The calculator offers a quote and savings estimate based on local rates and incentives available to your area. The website also features reviews of installers, equipment, and more.

Some people will save tens of thousands of dollars in the long run with solar, while others may witness more modest savings. Solar will also provide the home clean, local energy, and U.S. solar generation is projected to reach 20% by 2050 as capacity expands, making an impact both on mitigating climate change and in supporting local jobs.

One indisputable benefit of solar is that it will offer greater clarity into what your electricity bills will cost over the next couple of decades, rather than leaving you exposed to whatever rates the utility company decides to charge in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News