Intersolar Europe restart 2021: solar power is becoming increasingly popular in Poland

A boiler owned by Nova Scotia Power on the grounds of the Port Hawkesbury paper plant is burning 35% more woody biomass this year than last. 

The year-to-date figures show 126,810 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity was generated over the first nine months of 2021 compared to 93,934 MWh for the same period in 2020 and 65,891 MWh in 2019. 

The information is contained in monthly fuel cost reports Nova Scotia Power must make to the Utility and Review Board, which regulates how much consumers ultimately pay for electricity.

Burning biomass  — which includes everything from low-grade pulpwood to bark, shavings, and wood chip waste from sawmills — for the purpose of generating electricity is only about 22% efficient. Nova Scotia Power’s boiler at Port Hawkesbury supplies about 3% of the total electricity used in the province. 

Citizens concerned about climate change have for years opposed the government classifying biomass as “renewable energy” because clearcutting, which releases carbon from the ground, remains the dominant form of harvesting on Crown and private land. That’s despite ongoing work to begin implementing 2018 recommendations from Professor Bill Lahey to move toward a more ecological approach. 

In May 2020, after it became obvious renewable hydroelectricity from Muskrat Falls was going to be delayed yet again, the McNeil government passed an Order-in-Council extending until December 2022 the deadline to generate 40% of electricity from renewable sources. 

To help with the shortfall, Nova Scotia Power was told to “maximize” its use of biomass at both the facility it owns in Port Hawkesbury and another one in Brooklyn owned by its parent company, Emera.

In a letter to Nova Scotia Power dated May 15, then-Energy Minister Derek Mombourquette added: “Nova Scotia Power shall also maximize the use of dispatchable renewable electricity from its own facilities, as well as those of renewable electricity power producers in Nova Scotia (excluding COMFIT generation sources).” 

By definition, “dispatchable” excludes wind and hydro sources, which are not available 24/7. Nova Scotia Power claims the only “dispatchable renewable electricity power producer” in the province is Brooklyn Energy, the 35 MW biomass plant near Liverpool. 

The government capped at $7 million a year how much electricity Nova Scotia Power could buy from its affiliate company. Critics of the deal — such as auditors hired by the regulator and the province’s consumer advocate — say electricity generated by Brooklyn is the most expensive power and question why the province would burden ratepayers with its purchase.

The answer became apparent in September 2020 when then-Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Kelliann Dean appeared before the legislature’s standing committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development to praise the Order-in-Council for helping rescue the forestry industry four months after the closure of the Northern Pulp mill. 

“The change to Renewable Energy Standards (May,2020) is enabling Nova Scotia Power to generate more electricity from wood chips and sawmill residuals by operating two biomass plants at capacity until electricity from Muskrat Falls comes onstream,” she said. “We are using all the policy levers at our disposal to support the sector.”

Nova Scotia Power is not required to report to the UARB how much electricity is being produced or how much biomass is being burned at Brooklyn Energy. The company pleads “commercial confidentiality” when asked by The Halifax Examiner. 

Nova Scotia Power does report how much it spends each month to buy power from independent producers — a small group which includes Brooklyn but excludes all wind farms. That dollar amount has also increased over the past year — from $15.9 million for 10 months ending October 2020 compared to $23.3 million for 10 months ending October 2021. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency makes it impossible to know exactly how much of that increase is attributable to purchasing more biomass.

Radio silence
The current Minister of Natural Resources and Renewable Energy ,Tory Rushton, has the authority to reduce the amount of biomass being burned to generate electricity and by extension, the rate of clearcutting.

With a stroke of the pen, the PC government of Tim Houston could issue another Order-in-Council capping the amount of metric tonnes that could be used in the boilers, or, direct Nova Scotia Power to use biomass only when it is the most economical fuel choice. 

But so far, Rushton has not responded to the Halifax Examiner’s question about whether he intends to make any change to stop “maximizing” the use of biomass to produce electricity.

 The Examiner isn’t the only one pushing the Minister for answers to difficult issues. At noon today, Citizens opposed to a controversial clearcut on Crown land near Rocky Point Lake in Digby County will stage a demonstration outside the Department of Natural Resources and Renewable Energy on Hollis Street. The protest led by members of Extinction Rebellion and the Healthy Forest Coalition is to pressure the government to take action to protect the habitat of the mainland moose, an endangered species that ranges overs the Crown land currently being cut by the Westfor consortium. 

The governments of Canada and British Columbia are investing in infrastructure to get projects under way that meet people's needs, address the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and help communities restart their economies.  

Strategic investments in green infrastructure are key to creating clean healthy communities, making life more affordable, and building a sustainable future.

Today, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Member of Parliament for North Vancouver, on behalf of the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, and the Honourable George Heyman, B.C. Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, announced funding for 11 projects to help B.C. communities save energy and reduce pollution.  

In Vancouver, the Sewage Heat Recovery Expansion Project will increase the capacity of the Neighbourhood Energy Utility (NEU) to provide buildings in the False Creek area with low-carbon heat and hot water. The NEU recycles waste heat and uses a mix of renewable and conventional natural gas to reduce harmful emissions.

Funding is also going towards expanding the network of Level-2 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations across the province. More than 80 new stations will be installed in communities across mid-Vancouver Island, as well as northern and central B.C., making clean transportation options more viable for more people.

These, along with the other projects announced today, will create jobs and strengthen local economies now while promoting sustainable growth and residents' long-term health and well-being.

The Government of Canada is investing more than $28.5 million in these projects through the Green Infrastructure Stream (GIS) of the Investing in Canada plan, and local and Indigenous communities are contributing more than $13 million. The Government of British Columbia is contributing nearly $18 million through the CleanBC Communities Fund, part of the federal Investing in Canada plan's Green Infrastructure Stream.

Quotes

"Expanding electric vehicle charging stations across Vancouver Island will make clean transportation more viable for more people. Encouraging green energy solutions like this is essential to building strong resilient communities. Canada's Infrastructure plan invests in thousands of projects, creates jobs across the country, and builds stronger communities."

The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Member of Parliament for North Vancouver, on behalf of the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities

"This investment through the Green Infrastructure Stream is a great example of how federal partnerships with all levels of government can ensure a sustainable future for generations. Amidst COVID-19, we can rebuild better with a green recovery."

Hedy Fry, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre

"People deserve access to clean air, clean energy and clean economic opportunities and by investing in new clean infrastructure projects, we will reduce pollution, build better buildings, improve transportation options and make life more affordable for people. By working together with the City of Vancouver and other B.C. communities, along with the federal government, we're helping build back a stronger, better B.C. for everyone following the impacts of COVID-19 through our CleanBC plan."

The Honourable George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy Government

"This is an important investment when it comes to addressing the climate emergency our city is facing. Nearly 60 per cent of carbon pollution created in Vancouver comes from burning natural gas to heat our buildings and provide hot water. This investment from our provincial and federal partners will help us greatly expand the Neighbourhood Energy Utility to reduce our carbon footprint even further."

His Worship, Kennedy Stewart, Mayor of Vancouver

Quick facts

Through the Investing in Canada Plan, the Government of Canada is investing more than $180 billion over 12 years in public transit projects, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation routes, and Canada's rural and northern communities.
The Government of Canada has invested $4.2 billion in 525 infrastructure projects across British Columbia under the Investing in Canada plan.
To support Canadians and communities during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new stream has been added to the over $33-billion Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program to help fund pandemic-resilient infrastructure. Existing program streams have also been adapted to include more eligible project categories.
The new Canada Healthy Communities Initiative will provide up to $31 million in existing federal funding to support communities as they deploy innovative ways to adapt spaces and services to respond to immediate and ongoing needs arising from COVID-19 over the next two years.
The 11 projects are part of the first intake of the CleanBC Communities Fund, which committed more than $63 million in joint federal-provincial funding. Additional projects from the first intake will be announced soon.
The second intake for the CleanBC Communities Fund is now open for applications from local governments, Indigenous groups, not-for-profits and for-profit organizations in B.C.

Europe's energy landscape is undergoing a dramatic transformation, fueled by a surge in renewable energy and a corresponding decline in fossil fuel dependence. This shift, documented in both a report from the energy think tank Ember and the European Commission's State of the Energy Union report, paints a picture of progress, but also highlights the challenges that lie ahead on the path to a sustainable future.

Fossil Fuels Facing an Unprecedented Decline:

Fossil fuels dipped to their lowest point in recorded history, making up only 29% of EU electricity generation in 2023. This represents a significant 19% decrease in both fossil fuel generation and carbon emissions compared to 2022, exceeding even the reductions witnessed during the pandemic. Coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, saw the steepest decline, dropping by 26%, while gas generation fell by 15%. This decline is attributed to a combination of factors, including:

Increased deployment of renewables: As renewable energy sources like wind and solar become more affordable and efficient, they are increasingly displacing fossil fuels in the energy mix.

Carbon pricing: The EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS) puts a price on carbon emissions, incentivizing generators to switch to cleaner sources of energy.

Geopolitical tensions: The war in Ukraine and subsequent sanctions on Russia have accelerated Europe's efforts to diversify its energy sources away from Russian fossil fuels.

Renewables Ascending to New Heights:

Renewable energy is now the dominant force in the EU, contributing a record-breaking 44% of the electricity mix. Wind energy leads the charge, generating 18% of electricity – the equivalent of France's entire demand – and surpassing gas for the first time. Solar power also continues to grow, reaching a 9% share, and hydropower recovered from its 2022 dry spell. This remarkable growth is driven by factors such as:

Favorable policy frameworks: The EU has set ambitious renewable energy targets and implemented supportive policies, including feed-in tariffs and auctions.

Technological advancements: Advancements in wind turbine and solar panel technologies have made them more efficient and cost-effective.
Public support: There is growing public support for renewable energy, driven by concerns about climate change and energy security.

Beyond generation, energy efficiency is playing a critical role in reducing overall energy demand. Electricity demand in the EU fell by 3.4% in 2023, thanks to factors such as improved building insulation and more efficient appliances.

EU on Track to Quit Russian Fossil Fuels:

The report underscores Europe's progress in reducing dependence on Russian fossil fuels. Imports of Russian gas have plummeted to 40-45 billion cubic metres, compared to a staggering 155 bcm in 2021. This represents a remarkable 70% reduction in just one year. This shift has been achieved through a combination of increased LNG imports, diversification of gas suppliers, and accelerated deployment of renewable energy sources.

Overall greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 3% in 2022, putting the EU on track to achieve its ambitious 55% reduction target by 2030. These achievements demonstrate the EU's commitment to climate action and its ability to respond decisively to geopolitical challenges.

Success, But Not Complacency:

Despite the positive developments, the Commission warns against complacency. Energy markets remain volatile, fossil fuel subsidies are rising in some countries, and critical infrastructure vulnerabilities persist. The bloc needs to accelerate renewable energy expansion to reach the legally binding 42.5% target by 2030. Additionally, ensuring affordability and security of energy supply will be crucial to maintaining public support for the transition.

Challenges and Opportunities:

While some countries like Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands fall short of EU climate and energy goals, others like Spain, Portugal, and Belgium showcase success with renewables. The Commission is taking action with a plan to support the wind industry, which is facing challenges from high inflation and increasing competition from China. Additionally, ensuring timely updates to national energy and climate plans is crucial for achieving the EU's overall objectives.

NGOs Urge Faster Action:

NGOs like the Climate Action Network (CAN) express concern about the adequacy of national plans, highlighting the gap between ambition and concrete action. They urge member states to accelerate efforts to meet the 2030 targets and avoid a "lost decade" in climate action. CAN emphasizes the need for more ambitious national energy and climate plans, increased investment in renewables, and accelerated energy efficiency measures.

Europe's energy transition is progressing rapidly, with renewables taking center stage and emissions declining. However, significant challenges remain, necessitating continued commitment, national-level action, and a focus on affordability, security, and sustainability. As 2030 approaches, Europe's green surge must translate into concrete results to secure a climate-neutral future.

Looking ahead, several key areas will define the success of Europe's energy transition:

• Accelerating renewable energy deployment: The EU needs to maintain its momentum in building wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. This requires continued investment, streamlined permitting processes, and addressing grid integration challenges.
• Ensuring affordability and security of supply: The energy transition must be just and inclusive, ensuring that energy remains affordable for all citizens and businesses. Additionally, diversifying energy sources and enhancing grid resilience are crucial to guarantee energy security.
• Enhancing energy efficiency: Reducing energy demand remains crucial to achieving climate goals and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. This requires continued investments in building energy efficiency, promoting energy-efficient appliances and technologies, and encouraging behavioral changes.
• International cooperation: Climate change and energy security are global challenges. The EU must continue to lead by example and collaborate with other countries on technological advancements, policy innovations, and financial support for developing nations undergoing their own energy transitions.

Europe's green surge is a testament to its ambition and collective action. By addressing the remaining challenges and seizing the opportunities ahead, the EU can pave the way for a sustainable and secure energy future for itself and the world.

Wind, solar, and batteries make up 82% of 2023’s expected new utility-scale power capacity in the US, according to the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) “Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory.”

As of January 2023, the US was operating 73.5 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale solar capacity – about 6% of the country’s total.

But solar makes up just over half of new US generating capacity expected to come online in 2023. And if it all goes as expected, it will be the most solar capacity added in a single year in the US. It will also be the first year that more than half of US capacity additions are solar.

As of January 2023, 141.3 GW of wind capacity was operating in the US – about 12% of the US total. Another 7.1 GW are planned for 2023. Tax incentives, lower wind turbine construction costs, and new renewable energy targets are spurring the growth. 

And developers also plan to add 8.6 GW of battery storage power capacity to the grid this year, and that’s going to double total US battery power capacity.

However, differences in the amount of electricity that different types of power plants can produce mean that wind and solar made up about 17% of the US’s utility-scale capacity in 2021, but produced 12% of electricity. Solutions such as energy storage, smart grids, and infrastructure development will help bridge that gap.

The true measure of President Biden’s climate ambition may be the clean electricity standard he tucked into his massive $2.2 trillion infrastructure spending plan.

Its goal is striking: 80% clean power in the United States by 2030.

The details, however, are vague. And so is Biden’s plan B if it fails—an uncertainty that’s worrisome to both activists and academics. The lack of a clear backup plan underscores the importance of passing a clean electricity standard, they say.

If the clean electricity standard doesn’t survive Congress, it will put pressure on the need to drive climate policy through targeted spending, said John Larsen, a power system analyst with the Rhodium Group, an economic consulting firm.

“I don’t think the game is lost at all if a clean electricity standard doesn’t get through in this round,” Larsen said. “But there’s a difference between not passing a clean electricity standard and passing the right spending package.”

In his few months in office, Biden has outlined plans to bring the United States back into the international Paris climate accord, pause oil and gas leasing on public lands, boost the electric vehicle market, and target clean energy investments in vulnerable communities most affected by climate change.

But those are largely executive orders and spending proposals—and unlikely to last beyond his administration if the next president favors fossil fuel usage over climate policy. The clean electricity standard, which would decarbonize 80% of the electrical grid by 2030, is different.

It transforms Biden’s climate vision from a goal into a mandate. Passing it through Congress makes it that much harder for a future administration to undo. If Biden is in office for two terms, the United States would see a rate of decarbonization unparalleled in its history that would set a new bar for most of the world’s biggest economies.

But for now, the clean electricity standard faces an uncertain path through Congress and steep odds to getting enacted. That means there’s a good chance the administration will need a plan B, observers said.

Exactly what kind of climate spending can pass Congress is the very question the White House and congressional Democrats will be working on in the next few months as the infrastructure bill proceeds through Congress.

Negotiations are fraught already. Congress is almost evenly split between a party that wants to curtail the use of fossil fuels and another that wants to grow them.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that “100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration.” He made similar comments at the start of the Obama administration and blocked climate policy from getting through Congress. He also said last week that no Republican senators would vote for Biden’s infrastructure spending plan.

A clean electricity standard has been referred to as the “backbone” of Biden’s climate policy—a way to ensure his policies to decarbonize the economy outlast a future president who would seek to roll back his climate work. Advocates say hitting that benchmark is an essential milestone in getting to a carbon-free grid by 2035. Much of President Obama’s climate policy, crafted largely through regulations and executive orders, proved vulnerable to President Trump’s rollbacks.

Biden appears to have learned from those lessons and wants to chart a new course to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. He’s using his majority in the House and Senate to lock in whatever he can before the 2022 midterms, when Democrats are expected to lose the House.

To pass a clean electricity standard, virtually every Democrat must be on board, and even then, the only chance of success is to pass a bill through the budget reconciliation process. Some Senate Democrats have recently hinted that they were willing to split the bill into pieces to get it through, while others are concerned that although this approach might win some GOP support on traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, it would isolate the climate provisions that make up more than half of the bill.

The most durable scenario for rapid electricity-sector decarbonization is to lock in a bipartisan clean electricity standard into legislation with 60 votes in the Senate, said Mike O’Boyle, the director of electricity policy for Energy Innovation. Because that’s highly unlikely—if not impossible—there are other paths that could get the United States to the 80% goal within the next decade.

“The next best approach is to either, or in combination, pursue EPA regulation of air pollution from existing and new power plants as well as to take a reconciliation-based approach to a clean electricity standard where you’re basically spending federal dollars to provide incentives to drive clean electricity deployment as opposed to a mandate per se,” he said.

Either way, O’Boyle said the introduction of the clean electricity standard sets a new bar for the federal government that likely would drive industry response even if it doesn’t get enacted. He compared it to the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s initiative to limit power plant emissions. Even though the plan never came to fruition, because Trump rolled it back, it left a legacy that continues years later and wasn’t negated by a president who prioritized fossil fuels over the climate, he said.

“It never got enacted, but it still created a titanic shift in the way utilities plan their systems and proactively reposition themselves for future carbon regulation of their electricity systems,” O’Boyle said. “I think any action by the Biden administration or by Congress through reconciliation would have a similar catalytic function over the next couple years.”

Some don’t think a clean electricity standard has a doomed future. Right now, its provisions are vague. But they can be filled in in a way that doesn’t alienate Republicans or states more hesitant toward climate policy, said Sally Benson, an engineering professor at Stanford University and an expert on low-carbon energy systems. The United States is overdue for a federal mandate that lasts through multiple administrations. The only way to ensure that happens is to get Republican support.

She said that might be possible by making the clean electricity standard more flexible. Mandate the goals, she said, not how states get there. Going 100% renewable is not going to sell in some states or with some lawmakers, she added. For some regions, flexibility will mean keeping nuclear plants open. For others, it would mean using natural gas with carbon capture, Benson said.

While it might not meet the standards some progressives seek to end all fossil fuel usage, it would have a better chance of getting enacted and remaining in place through multiple presidents, she said. In fact, a clean electricity standard would provide a chance for carbon capture, which has been at the center of Republican climate policy proposals. Benson said carbon capture is not economical now, but the mandate of a standard could encourage investments that would drive the sector forward more rapidly.

“If it’s a plan that people see as shutting the door to nuclear or to natural gas plus carbon capture, I think we will face a lot of pushback,” she said. “Make it an inclusive plan with a specific goal of getting to zero emissions and there’s not one way to do it, meaning all renewables—I think that’s the thing that could garner a lot of industrial support to make progress.”

In addition to industry, Biden’s proposed clean electricity standard would drive states to do more, said Larsen of the Rhodium Group. Several states already have their own version of a clean energy standard and have driven much of the national progress on carbon emissions reduction in the last four years, he said. Biden has set a new benchmark that some states, including those with some of the biggest economies in the United States, would now likely exceed, he said.

“It is rare for the federal government to get out in front of leading states in clean energy policy,” he said. “This is not usually how climate policy diffusion works from the state level to the federal level; usually it’s states go ahead and the federal government adopts something that’s less ambitious.”

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.

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, or 2.95% each year. That means in 20 years, the average monthly bill across the US would increase to $213 a month, and in California monthly bills would be $398 on average.

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. 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 analysis of EIA data by the Associated Press shows 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 increasingly are 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. 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, 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.