I have a very close friend (Peter Vogel) who is in the solar business. He runs business development for a company called Otter Energy. And by volume, I believe they are the largest in Ontario. Since 2009, they have installed over 350,000 panels.
So when Peter and I hang out, I get the benefit of learning about solar. And he is great at reminding me that installing panels on the roof of buildings in Ontario makes a ton of sense from both an environmental and financial standpoint.
Generally speaking, the amount of benefit you will see depends on the building's ratio of roof area to overall building area. Low-rise buildings with a lot of roof area (think industrial assets), are absolute no brainers. But it can also work very well on many other asset classes, including mid-rise multi-family.
Here are some high-level figures that he recently walked me through:
As a rule of thumb, solar in Ontario typically generates between 12-14 kWh's per year per square foot of roof area (usable flat roof).
The average payback period for an install is usually somewhere between 4.5 to 7 years.
However, on income producing properties, the permanent decrease in operating expenses and the corresponding increase in net operating income (NOI) will increase your asset value on day one.
I have a very close friend (Peter Vogel) who is in the solar business. He runs business development for a company called Otter Energy. And by volume, I believe they are the largest in Ontario. Since 2009, they have installed over 350,000 panels.
So when Peter and I hang out, I get the benefit of learning about solar. And he is great at reminding me that installing panels on the roof of buildings in Ontario makes a ton of sense from both an environmental and financial standpoint.
Generally speaking, the amount of benefit you will see depends on the building's ratio of roof area to overall building area. Low-rise buildings with a lot of roof area (think industrial assets), are absolute no brainers. But it can also work very well on many other asset classes, including mid-rise multi-family.
Here are some high-level figures that he recently walked me through:
As a rule of thumb, solar in Ontario typically generates between 12-14 kWh's per year per square foot of roof area (usable flat roof).
The average payback period for an install is usually somewhere between 4.5 to 7 years.
However, on income producing properties, the permanent decrease in operating expenses and the corresponding increase in net operating income (NOI) will increase your asset value on day one.
Consider spending $100k on solar panels to increase your NOI -- through lower electricity costs -- by $10k. If you were to then capitalize this increase in NOI by 5%, it would mean your asset value has right away increased by $200k. If the cap rate for this asset is even lower, say 4%, the increase goes up to $250k.
These multiples can get even better with larger installs. Here are some numbers from a real-world 100,000 sf commercial building in Ontario. In this case, the solar system cost about $800k (net) and resulted in annual operating cost savings of about $140k. This means, that at a 5% cap rate, the owner spent $800k to increase the value of their asset by $2.8 million on day one.
Of course, in addition to all of this, you get long-term energy cost certainty. That's worth something too.
The business case is compelling. So I think more building owners should be looking at solar. We are certainly looking at it from a development perspective. If you're interested in learning more, feel free to reach out to my friend. There are a lot of details that help strengthen the case for solar, including depreciation allowances and tax credits.
First, I read Bloomberg Green's daily newsletter (Nathaniel Bullard) and came across the following statistic. In 2001, the world installed 290 megawatts of solar generating capacity. This year, the world is likely to install more than 100 gigawatts of solar -- that's 350x more per year than we were installing 19 years ago. You can also see how things have changed by looking at the above chart showing wind and solar asset financing per year.
Consider spending $100k on solar panels to increase your NOI -- through lower electricity costs -- by $10k. If you were to then capitalize this increase in NOI by 5%, it would mean your asset value has right away increased by $200k. If the cap rate for this asset is even lower, say 4%, the increase goes up to $250k.
These multiples can get even better with larger installs. Here are some numbers from a real-world 100,000 sf commercial building in Ontario. In this case, the solar system cost about $800k (net) and resulted in annual operating cost savings of about $140k. This means, that at a 5% cap rate, the owner spent $800k to increase the value of their asset by $2.8 million on day one.
Of course, in addition to all of this, you get long-term energy cost certainty. That's worth something too.
The business case is compelling. So I think more building owners should be looking at solar. We are certainly looking at it from a development perspective. If you're interested in learning more, feel free to reach out to my friend. There are a lot of details that help strengthen the case for solar, including depreciation allowances and tax credits.
First, I read Bloomberg Green's daily newsletter (Nathaniel Bullard) and came across the following statistic. In 2001, the world installed 290 megawatts of solar generating capacity. This year, the world is likely to install more than 100 gigawatts of solar -- that's 350x more per year than we were installing 19 years ago. You can also see how things have changed by looking at the above chart showing wind and solar asset financing per year.
Second, I read about Fred Wilson's SunPower Solar system and how, since May, he has been able to satisfy 91.5% of his home's electrical needs via solar (this includes an electric vehicle). In fact, during the month of May when temperatures were a bit cooler, he had a surplus. He was producing more than he was consuming, and so he was selling that excess production back into the grid. It wasn't until the summer months and higher AC usage that he started having a shortfall.
Now I don't know where his house is located or what its roof looks like, but it is interesting to consider both the macro and micro scale. 91.5% signals to me that it shouldn't be much longer before many people and many homes no longer need to draw any power from the grid. That's going to be a game changer.
How does urban morphology affect the solar potential of cities?
If you assume that transparent photovoltaic cells are on the way and that building facades are soon going to become a place where we generate solar energy, then this is actually a pretty interesting question. Are some built environments naturally better suited than others?
To answer this question, they looked at the "urban surfaces" of ten cities, including New York, Singapore, Toronto (pictured above), Hong Kong, Paris, as well as others. These surfaces included roofs, facades, and ground planes.
What they, not surprisingly, discovered is that you need a lot of exposed facades to get the numbers up. And so the cities that come out on top in terms of annual solar irradiation are cities like New York and Singapore. They have a lot of tall buildings, but they also fluctuate in height, giving greater exposure to the facades.
All of this is potentially relevant because -- if building facades become a big deal for solar -- it could start to inform how we plan our cities. In fact, I would go so far as to bet that, over the long-term, solar energy will have a greater impact on urban morphologies than this current pandemic.
Second, I read about Fred Wilson's SunPower Solar system and how, since May, he has been able to satisfy 91.5% of his home's electrical needs via solar (this includes an electric vehicle). In fact, during the month of May when temperatures were a bit cooler, he had a surplus. He was producing more than he was consuming, and so he was selling that excess production back into the grid. It wasn't until the summer months and higher AC usage that he started having a shortfall.
Now I don't know where his house is located or what its roof looks like, but it is interesting to consider both the macro and micro scale. 91.5% signals to me that it shouldn't be much longer before many people and many homes no longer need to draw any power from the grid. That's going to be a game changer.
How does urban morphology affect the solar potential of cities?
If you assume that transparent photovoltaic cells are on the way and that building facades are soon going to become a place where we generate solar energy, then this is actually a pretty interesting question. Are some built environments naturally better suited than others?
To answer this question, they looked at the "urban surfaces" of ten cities, including New York, Singapore, Toronto (pictured above), Hong Kong, Paris, as well as others. These surfaces included roofs, facades, and ground planes.
What they, not surprisingly, discovered is that you need a lot of exposed facades to get the numbers up. And so the cities that come out on top in terms of annual solar irradiation are cities like New York and Singapore. They have a lot of tall buildings, but they also fluctuate in height, giving greater exposure to the facades.
All of this is potentially relevant because -- if building facades become a big deal for solar -- it could start to inform how we plan our cities. In fact, I would go so far as to bet that, over the long-term, solar energy will have a greater impact on urban morphologies than this current pandemic.
