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 everyday life: running your a/c, cleaning clothes, enjoying TV, cooking dinner. All while lowering your carbon footprint, and without burning fossil fuels or putting a stress on the electrical grid. And while the environmental advantages of solar power are considerable, lots of property owners discover that the convenience, unique features, and expense savings of owning a solar power system are even more enticing.
Top Ten Advantages of Solar Energy
#1 Significantly minimize and even remove your electrical bills
Whether you're a house owner, business, or nonprofit, electrical energy costs can comprise a large part of your month-to-month expenses. With a photovoltaic panel system, you'll generate free power for your system's whole 25+ year lifecycle. Even if you don't produce 100 percent of the energy you consume, solar will lower your utility expenses and you'll still save a great deal of loan.
#2 Make a great return on your financial investment
Photovoltaic panels aren't an expense-- they are among the finest ways to invest, with returns measuring up to those of more standard financial investments like stocks and bonds. Thanks to considerable electrical power costs savings, the typical American homeowner pays off their photovoltaic panel system in seven to 8 years and sees an ROI of 20 percent or more.
#3 Secure versus increasing energy expenses
Among the most clear cut benefits of solar panels is the capability to hedge energy prices. In the previous 10 years, residential electricity prices have gone up by an average of 3 percent every year. By buying a solar energy system now, you can fix your electrical energy rate and secure against unpredictable boosts in electrical energy costs. If you're a company or property owner with rising and falling capital, going solar likewise assists you much better forecast and manage your expenses.
#4 Boost your home value
Numerous studies have actually discovered that houses geared up with solar energy systems have greater residential or commercial property worths and sell quicker than non-solar homes. Appraisers are progressively taking solar installations into consideration as they value houses at the time of a sale, and as property buyers end up being more informed about solar, demand for properties 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 element of attaining energy independence in the United States. By increasing our capability to create electrical power from the sun, we can also insulate our nation from rate fluctuations in international energy markets.
#6 Create jobs and help your local economy
Inning accordance with The Solar Foundation, the solar industry added tasks 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 growth is anticipated to continue. Since solar-related jobs tend to be higher paying and can not be contracted out, they are a significant factor to the United States economy.
#7 Safeguard the environment
Solar is a terrific way to lower your carbon footprint. Structures are accountable for 38 percent of all carbon emissions in the U.S., and going solar can significantly decrease that number. A normal domestic solar panel system will eliminate 3 to four lots of carbon emissions each year-- the equivalent of planting over 100 trees annually.
#8 Demonstrate your commitment to sustainability
Sustainability and corporate social duty are very important components of a company's culture and worths. They also produce bottom line results. Significantly, customers and communities are recognizing and rewarding services that opt to run properly. Businesses are discovering that "green" credentials are an effective driver of consumer purchasing choices, developing goodwill and improving organisation outcomes.
#9 Start Conserving from Day 1
Solar purchase power contracts (PPAs) and solar leasing has made it possible for property owners to go solar for little or no money down.
Numerous house owners pick to finance their photovoltaic 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 takes care of installation, upkeep, tracking and repairs. You simply pay the solar company for electricity-- less than you would've paid the utility business.
As of June 2013, 75% of all American homes have access to pay-as-you-go solar.
#10. Solar is a Secure Investment
The utility companies are notorious for their changing and unreliable electrical power rates. There is clearly an upward trend.
With solar panels and easy math, we can compute just how much electricity will be generated, and most importantly, at exactly what price, for at least 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).