Janesville residents going solar for big savings
If you go
What: 2009 Wisconsin Solar Tour, sponsored by the Midwest Renewable Energy Association.
When: Businesses on the tour are open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Friday, Oct. 2, and homes on the tour are open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 3.
Where: Six sites in Rock County, including several in Janesville, one in Milton and one in Edgerton.
Cost: Free.
Information: For more information, including a map and listing of tour sites, go to www.the-mrea.org, or call (715) 592-6595.
Photo
Photo
Philip Schuman has a 2.8 kilowatt pole-mounted solar panel in his Janesville backyard.
Photo
Philip A. Schuman
JANESVILLE — Philip and Sharon Schuman are harnessing the power of the sun right in their own backyard.
The couple recently installed a pole-mounted solar panel about 21 feet tall and 225 square feet in area at their home at 1036 Sentinel Drive. The panel rotates and tilts with the sun. It is rated at 2.8 kilowatt hours, which means if the panel is working for an hour on a sunny day, it will produce 2.8 kilowatt hours of electricity.
The Schumans received a variance from the city in February to install the panel. The city has no ordinance regulating solar devices, and until such an ordinance is created, city staff decided it would be best for the couple to get a variance because the panel is considered a detached structure that is taller than city code allows.
The Schumans buy electricity from Alliant Energy for 11 cents a kilowatt, but the utility company pays them 25 cents a kilowatt for the green energy they produce, Philip Schuman said.
Their average electricity cost is 14 cents a kilowatt, because at least 25 percent of their electricity must be green energy, he said.
The panel would have cost about $35,000, but tax rebates and incentives reduced the cost to $20,000, Schuman said. The panel should pay for itself in about 15 years, he said.
The Schumans’ home and the panel are part of the 2009 Wisconsin Solar Tour on Friday and Saturday.
The tour, which is sponsored by the Midwest Renewable Energy Association, includes more than 150 sites throughout the state that are open to the public for free. Sites will showcase advances in energy efficient construction, renewable energy technologies and sustainable landscaping, according to a news release.
Businesses will be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Friday. Homes will be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday. A map is available online at www.the-mrea.org. Guided bus tours will be available in Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay and Stevens Point.
Philip Schuman said he is excited to educate people who might be interested in getting solar systems at their own homes.
“We want to show everybody how easy it is to have it installed by a professional and step back and reap the rewards,” he said.
The tour includes six sites in Rock County.
Dennis Fugate, a certified master electrician at AgSun in Janesville, said the local homes and businesses feature a variety of solar systems from pole-mounted panels to ground-mounted panels to roof-mounted panels. Each system is priced different and looks different and might appeal to people for different reasons, he said.
“We want to show the potential,” Fugate said.
“It’s so new that most people don’t realize all the different options they have.”
The tour will allow people to talk to those who have first-hand experience in choosing, installing and using a number of solar systems, he said.
Each site should be handing out information about Focus on Energy, the state energy-efficiency program, as well as steps people must take to install a solar system that would qualify for rebates and incentives, Fugate said.
2009 WISCONSIN SOLAR TOUR SITES IN ROCK COUNTY.
Janesville
--AgSun Corp., 1321 S. Jackson St., features roof-mounted solar panels that are rated at 10.2 kilowatt hours. The business also is a demonstration site for the Focus on Energy program and is open year-round for tours during normal business hours.
--The Schuman home, 1036 Sentinel Drive, features a pole-mounted solar panel that rotates and tilts with the sun. It is rated at 2.8 kilowatt hours.
--The Ackerman home, 4312 Pheasant Run, features roof-mounted solar panels that is rated at 4.6 kilowatt hours. The home also is a demonstration site for the Focus on Energy program and is open year-round for tours by appointment.
--“Oak Hill,” the Brown home, 6313 N. River Road, features roof-mounted solar panels that are rated at 3.5 kilowatt hours. It also features a geothermal heating and cooling system and an outdoor wood furnace.
Milton
--The Martin home, 10651 N. Charley Bluff Road, features ground-mounted solar panels that are rated at 10.2 kilowatt hours. The home also is a demonstration site for the Focus on Energy program and is open year-round for tours by appointment.
Edgerton
--The Dypold home, 1127 County A, features solar space heating and hot-water heating systems.
Oct 3, 2009 at 10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Proposals, proposals, proposals. If the economic environment allows you to afford a million dollar house you SHOULD pay more taxes!
Oct 2, 2009 at 4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have some questions about the Schuman's system. Wisconsin isn't considered an ideal location for solar energy. Is that 15 year ROI estimate based on your specific geographic location and current utility rates? What sort of ROI would result if that same system were somewhere in Arizona or Nevada, for example?
Oct 2, 2009 at 4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm helping subsidize this by being a part of the Second Nature program. I pay more for "clean" electricity so people with solar panels can get paid more. Don't have a good spot for a solar panel at my house, so I'm doing my part to support clean energy. :)
Oct 2, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Opps, didn't realize we lived in SAN DIEGO....
Oct 2, 2009 at 3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
While I agree that we need to explore alternative energy production, let's not lose our minds in the process. Breaking even in 15 years on even a $20K investment does not in any way, shape, or form qualify as big savings.
Oct 2, 2009 at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think utilizing solar power is a great way to reduce our dependancy on other limited fuel sources. Good for the Schuman's.
I looked into getting solar panels on my roof and simply couldn't afford it. Government rebates or not, a 15 year payback is simply not a good investment. You may move, the equipment may break and need repair, the electric company may reduce the amount it pays for the energy you generate. Until the payback is 5 year or less, you won't see many of these systems. Even then, the NIMBY group is likely to try and keep you from doing the right thing.
Oct 2, 2009 at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Pete- Hate to burst your bubble, but the 111th Congress convened today at 10am, said the pledge of allegiance, said a prayer, and promptly adjourned at 10:04 am. They won't be back in session until Oct.6th.
Oct 2, 2009 at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Pete, where is your proof that a solar panel is going to "adversely effect your property value"?
Oct 2, 2009 at 1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Pete, "you are a liar". Either that or you heard that propaganda today from Rush Limbaugh. I double checked and there is no bill even pending in congress that pertains to eliminating mortage interest tax deductions.
Oct 2, 2009 at noon
Suggest removal
Pete- I'm a bit saddened by the fact you're so concerned with your property value that you'd throw away something as useful as solar energy.
Do you think generating your own electricity and getting a break on your power bill is running a business? As far as I'm concerned...Everyone should build a panel, just promotes lower electricty costs as well as competition-which also keep prices low. As long as that doesnt convert into carelessness with "dirty" energy, it's all for the greater good. Theres a big picture here, one that goes beyond your selfish views of your property value.
You're basically slapping mother nature-and your kids...hell EVERYONE in the face. I hope, for everyones sake(including my children, and their children) you're not reproducing, and passing on ignorance.
Oct 2, 2009 at 11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Forgot to mention a huge two thumbs up and high five for the Schumans for a bit of self-substantiation, and hats off to the gazette for printing an article that is a bit informative,has real-world applications and a topic that affects everyone!
Cheers
Oct 2, 2009 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
I say we use hemp fuel, and use solar energy to make hemp into usable products, such as a closed cycle fuel source.Closed cycle means the amount of oxygen exchanged, or produced during it's growth cycle is the same, or nearly the same as the amount of carbon monoxide released when used as a fuel. Bio-fuels can be readily available, and with a plant such as hemp, would be incredibly cost efficient if grown here in the US. Right now(among many other things) we are shipping crude oil, as well as hemp and hemp products thousands of miles by sea. I'm not trying to tie a pot discussion into this, because hemp is not the same. It does not get you high, however it is one of, if not THE most useful and versatile crops on the planet. We can't grow it here, but we can import it from other countries, and from there we are free to use it for clothes, oils, beauty and health products....an amazing amount of products!Popular mechanics has suggested over 15,000 products can be made, or made more durable AND cost efficient by including or exchanging other materials with hemp.Isn't it complete hypocrisy to be able to import it to do whatever we want with it, but we can't actually grow it here? And it grows....Like a weed! The potential for the harmless hemp plant is amazing. It's a shame a close-minded public and government propoganda against marijuana has lumped this hemp incredibly useful and harmless plant(hemp) with marijuana. It's a travesty an entire industry has been written off and sidelined because of Marijuana scare-tactics!! Get informed-knowledge is free!
Oct 1, 2009 at 9:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fifteen year payback looks about right if the power company continues to pay 25 cents per kW. I didn't realize how much they paid. I thought it was a fraction of what they charged. Solar cell prices have plummeted recently, too. If I bought one, I wonder if the city would let me put a cell phone antenna up on the pole while I'm at it?
Oct 1, 2009 at 9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
As far as alternatives. Biomass. Every road you drive down has a ditch with energy just waiting to be utilized. Rock County easily has enough biomass ability to power the potential Biomass powered Charter Street power plant in Madison. Farmers could work Switchgrass and other deep rooted perennial grasses into their portfolio. Highly erodible areas, and vulnerable water runoff locations would be a start. These grasses not only would power our lights, but they would return carbon to the soil. This is economically and environmentally sound science. There are alternatives, in the world of alternative energy.
Oct 1, 2009 at 9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Pete is just a negative nelly, alas, not an entertaining one.
.
The rotating panel structures are disruptive for residential neighborhoods and I wouldn't like to see them proliferate. They're also quite expensive and have a long return on investment, so don't put the money in unless you'll be in your house for 15 years or more. Fortunately there are many other ways to get solar such as the solar roof tile.
http://www.premierpower.com/solar_energy...
.
The bottom line is that you want to do something like this when you build or perform a major renovation, because often it's too expensive otherwise.
Oct 1, 2009 at 9:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
I don't know why the city of Janesville or the Gazette for that matter is not aware of:
1. Wisconsin Stat. § 66.0401(1) provides:
(1) AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT SYSTEMS LIMITED. No county, city, town or village may place any restriction, either directly or in effect, on the installation or use of a solar energy system, as defined in s. 13.48(2)(h)1.g., or a wind energy system, as defined in . . . [66.0403(1)(m)], unless the restriction satisfies one of the following conditions:
(a) Serves to preserve or protect the public health or safety.
(b) Does not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency.
(c) Allows for an alternative system of comparable cost and efficiency.
2. This basically reads, if you want to put up a solar panel, go to it. It doesn't matter if your neighbor doesn't like it. It can block your neighbors view. Good luck to anyone who tries to fight this statute. My advice to the city of Janesville, smile and wave.
3. I don't care if people want to spend their own money on a solar panel. My question is, if they are so great, why do we need to subsidize almost 50% of the cost, and then buy it back for 2.5 times its retail value?
4. If you take that $35,000 investment and invest it conservatively, what would that net you in 15 years. What is the service life of this unit, and what are the annual maintenance costs?
5. I don't mean to be a stick in the mud, but these have always been lingering questions I have had. I think it is honorable what The Schuman's are doing, but I truly wonder if this is even a realistic part of the energy solution.
Oct 1, 2009 at 8:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wood burning stoves create smoke and other pollutants. Solar panels create clean energy. Why would you want to prohibit solar panels, Pete?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.