Going Solar Is Now Affordable
Our Experienced Solar Consultants Help You Design The Perfect Solution
From examining your current eletrical usage and costs to assisting with the correct financing plan, you will receive a custom designed solar energy plan which suits you and your family.
What Our Customers are Saying
Ready To Go Solar?
- Fully licensed & insured installers
- Custom tailored solutions
- Free in home consultations
- Easy financing options
- 20 year warranty
- Transparent contracts
- State and federal incentives
- Roof repair if damaged during installation
- Customer service is our top priority
About Solar Energy
Solar power is energy from the sun that is transformed into thermal or electrical energy.
Solar energy is the cleanest and most abundant renewable resource source available, and the United States has some of the richest solar resources worldwide. Modern innovation can harness this energy for a variety of usages, consisting of producing electricity, supplying light or a comfortable interior environment, and heating water for domestic, commercial, or industrial usage.
Solar power makes it possible for homeowner to use the sun to power daily life: running your a/c unit, cleaning clothing, viewing TELEVISION, cooking dinner. All while minimizing your carbon footprint, and without burning fossil fuels or putting a stress on the electrical grid. And while the environmental benefits of solar power are considerable, numerous property owners discover that the convenience, distinct features, and expense savings of owning a solar power system are even more attractive.
Top Ten Advantages of Solar Energy
#1 Considerably minimize and even eliminate your electrical bills
Whether you're a property owner, business, or not-for-profit, electrical energy expenses can comprise a large part of your monthly costs. With a solar panel system, you'll generate complimentary power for your system's entire 25+ year lifecycle. Even if you don't produce 100 percent of the energy you take in, solar will decrease your utility expenses and you'll still conserve a lot of loan.
#2 Make a great return on your financial investment
Photovoltaic panels aren't an expense-- they are among the best methods to invest, with returns matching those of more standard investments like stocks and bonds. Thanks to considerable electricity bill savings, the average American house owner settles their solar panel system in seven to eight years and sees an ROI of 20 percent or more.
#3 Secure versus rising energy costs
Among the most clear cut advantages of solar panels is the ability to hedge utility rates. In the past 10 years, property electricity costs have increased by approximately 3 percent yearly. By buying a solar energy system now, you can repair your electrical energy rate and secure versus unpredictable boosts in electricity costs. If you're an organisation or house owner with fluctuating money circulation, going solar likewise assists you better forecast and manage your expenditures.
#4 Boost your residential or commercial property worth
Several research studies have found that homes equipped with solar energy systems have greater property values and sell faster than non-solar homes. Appraisers are progressively taking solar setups into factor to consider as they value homes at the time of a sale, and as property buyers end up being more educated about solar, demand for homes geared up with solar panel systems will continue to grow.
#5 Boost U.S. energy self-reliance
The sun is a near-infinite source of energy and a key component of accomplishing energy independence in the United States. By increasing our capability to generate electrical power from the sun, we can also insulate our nation from cost variations in international energy markets.
#6 Create jobs and assist your regional economy
According to The Solar Foundation, the solar market included jobs at a rate almost 12 times faster than the overall U.S. economy in 2015, representing 1.2 percent of all jobs in the nation. This development is anticipated to continue. Since solar-related jobs have the tendency to be higher paying and can not be outsourced, they are a significant factor to the U.S. economy.
#7 Protect the environment
Solar is a terrific way to minimize your carbon footprint. Structures are accountable for 38 percent of all carbon emissions in the United States, and going solar can significantly reduce that number. A common domestic photovoltaic panel system will eliminate three to four lots of carbon emissions each year-- the equivalent of planting over 100 trees yearly.
#8 Show your commitment to sustainability
Sustainability and corporate social obligation are crucial parts of an organization's culture and worths. They also produce bottom line results. Significantly, consumers and neighborhoods are recognizing and rewarding organisations that choose to operate properly. Organisations are finding that "green" qualifications are a powerful chauffeur of customer buying choices, creating goodwill and improving company results.
#9 Start Conserving from Day 1
Solar purchase power agreements (PPAs) and solar leasing has made it possible for property owners to go solar for little or no cash down.
Lots of homeowners pick to fund their solar panels with one of the "pay-as-you-go" funding choices. This suggests that a third-party business-- the solar supplier-- owns the solar system and looks after installation, upkeep, monitoring and repairs. You merely pay the solar service provider for electrical energy-- less than you would've paid the utility business.
As of June 2013, 75% of all American houses have access to pay-as-you-go solar.
#10. Solar is a Secure Financial investment
The energy companies are notorious for their changing and unreliable electricity costs. There is plainly an upward pattern.
With solar panels and easy math, we can determine how much electrical energy will be generated, and most importantly, at what cost, for a minimum of the next Twenty Years (repaired energy costs).
What are the various payment options?
We have many flexible purchasing agreements for customers who would like to install a new home solar system. There are three different payment options, making them a viable choice for customers of all budgets. The payment options include Lease, PPA, and Purchase.
- Low, fixed payments each month
- System insurance for 20 years, including maintenance
- Flexible end-of-term options, including system upgrade, lease extension, and free panel removal
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)
- We own the solar panel system
- $0 down for installation
- Customers only pay for the solar energy that they use
- Customer pays for the system upfront and owns the system
- System monitoring and maintenance for 20 years
- Receive 30% federal tax credit
- See a return on investment within 7-10 years
What happens when the contract for my lease is finished?
We provide our customers with a few different options for when their lease contract is up. Customers can upgrade their equipment to the newest solar technology available, extend the agreement, or have the panels removed at no cost.
What is the warranty?
The Lease and PPA include a 20-year warranty during the lifetime of the system. This warranty exceeds that of most other solar installers’ warranties.
Frequently Asked Questions
How Is Solar Energy Transformed Into Electricity?
Heyy, In School Like Right Now And I Need The Answer To This Question!!!!!!!!!!Our Teacher Is Evil So Im Keeping This Short And Sweet!!!
They use what's called a photodiode. It's a semiconductor made mostly from silicon. photons from the sun strike the material and excite the electrons in it.
the electron is moved from a valence energy level, (where it takes part in bonding the material together) to a level where it breaks free of the valence and is allowed to flow freely.
The electron flows through the material, and the hole it left behind is filled with an electron form the atom next to it, thus the hole flows in the opposite direction and is filled in at the outer most extremity by a free roaming electron from space.
In this way an electrical current flows through the material.
Can Science Help Answer Questions About How Or If We Should Be Using Non-Renewable Energy Resources?
Can Science Help Answer Questions About How Or If We Should Be Using Non-Renewable Energy Resources?
Unfortunately at current rates of consumption we cannot rely on renewable energy sources alone. This leaves us with having to use "non-renewable" energy. What we can do however is increase and improve our ability to extract usable energy from the limited supply and therefore in effect increasing the pool of available energy available again. I'm a firm believer that if we were to put our collective efforts into fossil fuels, we may be able to find alternate chemical reactions (other than plain old burning) which may be more environmentally friendly. They say gasoline contains more hydrogen atoms than liquid hydrogen has per volume. Just have to find a better way to extract it. In reality renewable energy involves high capital, and when you look at say wind or solar, the power you get out vs what energy / costs were put in, solar panels require batteries, which contain heavy metals, cannot be recycled, etc. Are they really that renewable when you look at all the other minerals mined to produce however many watts of power? I'd say it's calculable. Look at costs to build a station, unit power and lifetime. that should get you $/kWhr.
Can A House Light Give Solar Energy?
Yes and no.
Yes, a house light can generate the photons necessary to make a photovoltaic panel (aka solar cell) generate a trace amount of electricity. But no, this would not be enough to run the house light or much else.
You may be able to use halogen work lights to run solar photovoltaic and solar thermal demonstrations if you do not have sunlight.
What Are The Costs And Benefits Of Replacing Coal-Produced Electricity With Alternative Forms Of Energy?
(Ex. Hydroelectric Power, Solar Power, Wind Power)
The best is to use less electricity efficiently and avoid the necessity to build new coal (and other fossils) burning.
Even though alternative energy power plants are more expensive to build, they are less expensive to operate, their operation is clean, and smaller plants can be built in a closer proximity to the consumers.
Any Thoughts On What To Do When Environmental Interests Collide?
Virtually Everything We Do Has Some Environmental Cost. Hydroelectric Dams Flood Valleys And Make Things Hard For Certain Fish, Especially The Ones That Spawn In Freshwater But Live In Salt Water (Like Salmon). Solar Panels, Windmills, And The Like Can Damage Wildlife And/Or Natural Areas. Land Devoted To Growing Biofuel Crops Is Generally Land That Can No Longer Be A Functional Nature Preserve. And So On. Everything Has A Cost.
Now, There Are Some Relative No-Brainers. I Don'T Think Anyone Would Dispute That Natural Gas Power Plants Do Less Damage (In Pretty Much Every Respect) Than Coal-Fired Ones. Tapping Landfills For Methane, Or Running Manure Through Methane Digesters, Does Not Disturb Any Virgin Land, And Obviously Reduces Agw. There Are A Few Other Cases Where The Benefits Of An Action, In Virtually Every Respect And From Virtually Every Angle, Clearly And Unambiguously Outweigh The Harms. But, In General, What Should We Do When One Form Of Environmental Damage Is Being Pitted Against Another? When We Have To Chose Between Replacing A Coal Plant With A Hydroelectric Power Plant And Preserving The Habitat Of An Endangered Species? When We'Re Deciding Between Installing Solar Panels In Virgin Desert, Or The Risk Of Possible Contamination From A New Nuclear Power Plant? Obviously, To Some Extent, This Kind Of Thing Has To Be Handled On A Case-By-Case Basis, But What Are Your Thoughts On How We Should Do The Weighing? How Do We Get The Most Benefit With The Least Harm?
This is where environmental risk assessment comes in. Most developed countries would have established frameworks to assess them, based on the International framework which was based on the original model developed by the US EPA. There are various steps where stakeholder involvement is considered. Trading off one hazard against another is where this is important as it allows the community (represented among the stakeholders) access to info regarding the various risks and benefits. Where this process falls on its **** is when there is corruption or too much emphasis placed on specific stakeholders (eg proponents) which is common.
One of the most significant outcomes of ERA is in environmental monitoring. Environmental Imapct Assessments make up part of the initial ERA consultation process. In my country at least, once a project is approved there are standards which must be upheld. Again this comes from the US where the San Diego nuclear power facility built in the 1970's was the first project which required the proponents to fund independent monitoring of the impacts. The issue related to offshore outflow and the potential impact on seagrass beds which were vital habitat to many marine species in the region. After the project got going monitors found that the seagrasses were dying, so the proponents were forced to pay for the establishment of artifical reefs outside of the affected area which allowed seagrasses to recruit and made the difference between disturbance and local extinction.
Anyway this process has allowed corporations to continue to make money, people to get the energy and other products they need, and in some cases environmental preservation to occur. Very few people want to see al such projects stop altogether rather sustainability is the answer. In my mind the greater risk should be outweighed by the best chance at protecting or ameliorating the remaining habitat, so if I were a stakeholder I would be arguing for very strong monitoring standards and possibly consideration of different locations if the risks were too great. Given the huge profits made by the mining industries in my country, I see no problem with getting them to improve more area than they disturb in the mining processes to offset the additional impacts their products make (which is beyond their control but still depends heavily on their supply). In a case where a new hydro plant would destroy critical habitat beyond an acceptable risk for a number of species, I would prefer to see a single coal plant remain rather and the emissions offset by improving habitat elsewhere. It is not possible to offset all emissions from all fossil fuels in this way, but for the od coal plant where replacement may be as bad or worse than leaving it alone. The deciding factor in such a case would be the increased costs due to carbon offsetting versus potentially cheaper energy from the new project, but many people are willing to pay small amounts to protect habitat (as shown by various studies using travel costs methods etc).