ke4pymPremium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Broadban..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Northland Cable ..
| reply to ke4pym
Re: I've gone and done it ... solar install Oh, I can assure you, if I had to foot 100% of the tab, I'd never consider this project.
I think my rate is 0.11kW/hr. But every year, Duke is going to the state requesting 12, 14, 18% rate increases. And since they bought Progress and in bad faith, at that, they've got a lot of incentive to raise our rates even more.
One of the customers I called sent my his link to his web site recording his usage. Since last October he's produced 5mW. This guy has to sell his RECs on his own. He's getting 0.11c/kWhr. He gets RFPs all the time ranging from .07 to 0.18/kWhr.
I'm glad I don't have to worry about that. |
|
 dogmaXYZPremium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1 | reply to itguy05
said by itguy05:Really? The only way it makes any sort of sense is because You and I are footing the bill for the tax credits.
I concur, You and I are also footing the bill for someones mortgage interest tax deduction as well, among countless other tax based incentives. (note to nunya  , does this mean that purchasing a home mortgage with it's associated tax incentives does not bode well for the home ownership?). It is what it is.
Even if there were no tax credits/rebates, there would still be an ROI, just much further down the road.
I further agree that everyone's financial calculations with respect to an investment such as this will be unique. If the OP (as I guesstimated - OP correct me if I am wrong) has a electricity cost of about $144/Month on average, your model [$13,000 / 300 = $43.33 per month in cost] saves him about $100/Month, or [$100 x 300] $30,000.
My point is that a good investment will accrue value over time, but in order to take advantage of the opportunity, we must often allow our money to be oustide of our direct control for a significant period of time. In this case, the OP probably gets an instant rebate from the State, and very important: he must have a Federal tax liability in order to take advantage of the Federal tax credit for Solar. Plus, his out of pocket money up front/cost to borrow.
But lets look at this in pure investment terms:
Assumptions-
The OP invest $13,000 up front.
The OP has an average electricity expense of $140/Month.
The OP's Solar system zero's out his monthly electricity bill.
So his $13,000 up front investment produces a net $140/Month or ($140 x 12) $1680/Year he otherwise would have had to spend. Additionally, the OP would have had to earn about $175/Month in order to pay the $140 as that is a post-tax expense.
That's a 13% IRR (Internal Rate of Return).
If anyone can present any *extremely low risk* investment that kicks off 13% per year, effectively guaranteed for the next 25 years, please let me know. |
|
| reply to nunya
said by nunya:Since the OP mentioned it, I'll hit on it. This is the tax payers footing the bill (You and I). This wouldn't be economically viable otherwise. That does not bode well for the technology. Sure, resi solar has it's place - and it's usually the South West portion of the country.
I've rarely seen a situation where solar made "sense" for residential use elsewhere.
Instead of wasting tax money by giving it to individuals, I'd much rather see it go to something that could benefit everyone. Perhaps the equivalent of a solar "X Prize" to companies who build viable solar farms in the SW and feed the national grid (lower prices for all).
I'm glad you're also against the home mortgage deduction, child tax credit and business tax credits.
As dogma said, it is what it is. Until we can get a flat tax rate with no deductions, no credits, you'll be "footing the bill" for someone else's "stuff."
As for solar working - solar actually works pretty well for us up here. We don't get full sun all year but coupled with small residential wind it works quite well. The only thing spoiling it are NIMBYs who want to dictate what you can do with your own property. |
|
 tobyTroy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA
 ·OlyPen, Inc.
·CenturyLink
| said by fifty nine:said by nunya:Since the OP mentioned it, I'll hit on it. This is the tax payers footing the bill (You and I). This wouldn't be economically viable otherwise. That does not bode well for the technology. Sure, resi solar has it's place - and it's usually the South West portion of the country.
I've rarely seen a situation where solar made "sense" for residential use elsewhere.
Instead of wasting tax money by giving it to individuals, I'd much rather see it go to something that could benefit everyone. Perhaps the equivalent of a solar "X Prize" to companies who build viable solar farms in the SW and feed the national grid (lower prices for all).
I'm glad you're also against the home mortgage deduction, child tax credit and business tax credits. As dogma said, it is what it is. Until we can get a flat tax rate with no deductions, no credits, you'll be "footing the bill" for someone else's "stuff." As for solar working - solar actually works pretty well for us up here. We don't get full sun all year but coupled with small residential wind it works quite well. The only thing spoiling it are NIMBYs who want to dictate what you can do with your own property. I'm against all tax credits, including the home mortgage deduction which has helped increased housing costs and directs the interest payments to the banks instead of paying taxes.
The largest cost in this project is labour, that is why these solar companies are shutting down, no matter how cheap the panels become, the labour will increase. The panels cost somewhere in the region of 30% of the project.
You have to be careful banking on warranties for anything more than a couple of years, the company most likely won't be around in 5 years for various reasons and if they are they will implement rules/laws where they are not viable for any costs over a few dollars. Look at the product to start with. |
|
|
|
| That's true. I'm against all tax credits/deductions too.
Make it 10% of all income for everybody, period. I'll gladly give up my home mortgage deduction and pay a slightly higher tax rate.
But while it's being offered, there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of it. |
|
 StyvasGolf Canucks GolfPremium
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON | reply to cowboyro
said by cowboyro:said by ke4pym:The panels are guaranteed to produce 100% of their rated output for 25 years. Such panels haven't been invented yet. They all lose capacity in time, with the biggest drop in the first year. Maybe they are rated for less than what they can produce  In any case I'd be interested to see the payoff and actual output vs specified output. 7000kWh/year means $900 savings... I'm selling panels right now for a company that stockpiled a bunch and the projects fell through (now they've got to liquidate them ASAP) and that's the same guarantee that we're giving potential purchasers (25 year power performance warranty). I'm certainly not aware that the panels are rated at a Wattage lower than they technically will produce.
--
"Moving your Tylenol to the low shelf in your medicine cabinet is not the way to prevent children from falling off a stool when reaching for the top shelf." (said by Savant, May 2008) |
|
 nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8
·Charter
 ·surpasshosting
·voip.ms
| reply to fifty nine
While it is OT, it's no big secret: I am, in fact, against the income tax system in general (as it stands). I believe there should be a flat tax, and a national sales tax. That way illegals and tax cheats who abuse our system have to at least pay a little fraction back. With a NST, EVERYBODY pays something. After all, we all enjoy the benefits of living here, right?
The 1040 should be 2 lines: 1) How much money did you make last year? 2) Multiply line 1 by .075 - This is your tax due.
Done.
But, back to the solar situation. I stand by my assertion that it rarely is cost effective to use solar panels in residential situations. It just isn't cost effective yet. That's why we have to *pay* people to do it. If the technology were ready for mainstream, we wouldn't have to pay people to buy a product.
Also, much pollution is produced in the manufacture of solar panels. A lot. Solar is a "dirty green" solution, much like CFL lamps.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't. |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Styvas
said by Styvas:that's the same guarantee that we're giving potential purchasers (25 year power performance warranty). I'm certainly not aware that the panels are rated at a Wattage lower than they technically will produce.
Performance warranty or 100% of the initial performance warranty? And who will take the claims in 15 years if the company is out of business? |
|
ke4pymPremium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Verizon Broadban..
·RoadRunner Cable
·Northland Cable ..
| reply to nunya
said by nunya:But, back to the solar situation. I stand by my assertion that it rarely is cost effective to use solar panels in residential situations. It just isn't cost effective yet. That's why we have to *pay* people to do it. If the technology were ready for mainstream, we wouldn't have to pay people to buy a product.
Also, much pollution is produced in the manufacture of solar panels. A lot. Solar is a "dirty green" solution, much like CFL lamps.
Well, in the time I've taken to get this project off the ground, the panel prices have dropped enough I'm getting one free! 
What isn't green? How much pollution goes into making a Prius? How many tons of rare earth metals have to go into making a Volt?
Here's the carbon footprint reduction estimation for my install:
kWh/Yr: 7,047
CO2 saved (lbs): 9,605
SO2 saved (lbs): 38
Nox saved (lbs): 15
Car mile equiv: 9,461
Trees saved 112
Coal not consumed (lbs): 5,708
I do agree, to an extent, that a project like this isn't for everyone. I think, at the end of the day, a project this size is going to have to come down to the $10k range (with out subsidies) before it can become a lot more common. Hopefully, that can one day happen.
And I do think, maybe not in my lifetime, but perhaps our grandchildren's lifetime that the grid, as it is, won't exist. Every home will have some sort of small generation system to supply the power needs of a home.
Here's what my installer says about sun tracking systems:
"It's not generally something that applies to roof-mounted systems, but the technology exists sure. Trackers are usually used for pole-mounted systems that are installed in a big field or something where the additional sunlight is fully available. Manufacturers claim that the tracking can increase yield up to about 30%, but there are cons as well. Moving parts = more stuff that can fail, the trackers need replacing usually after 5-10 years, definitely adds cost."
Oh yeah. All this math goes out the window (and I'm hosed) if we have a really cloudy year! So, here's to a sunny summer in 2013! |
|
JBear
join:2005-02-24
canada | reply to nunya
said by nunya:Since the OP mentioned it, I'll hit on it. This is the tax payers footing the bill (You and I). This wouldn't be economically viable otherwise. That does not bode well for the technology. Sure, resi solar has it's place - and it's usually the South West portion of the country.
I've rarely seen a situation where solar made "sense" for residential use elsewhere.
Instead of wasting tax money by giving it to individuals, I'd much rather see it go to something that could benefit everyone. Perhaps the equivalent of a solar "X Prize" to companies who build viable solar farms in the SW and feed the national grid (lower prices for all).
You would be surprised where the sun shines and makes solar feasible. Doesn't have to be the max (ie Phoenix) to make it feasible.
As for cost, yes it isn't economically viable, but I think over due time with rising energy costs, and increasing inefficiency in the grid you'll see more and more installs going on. |
|
StyvasGolf Canucks GolfPremium
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON | reply to cowboyro
said by cowboyro:said by Styvas:that's the same guarantee that we're giving potential purchasers (25 year power performance warranty). I'm certainly not aware that the panels are rated at a Wattage lower than they technically will produce.
Performance warranty or 100% of the initial performance warranty? And who will take the claims in 15 years if the company is out of business? Rather than make assumptions, I'd check with my client's engineers before I'd make any promise to a purchaser. But, my assumption is that if the panel is rated 200W, that's what the manufacturer is guaranteeing for 25 years (we're not providing the warranty -- it's direct from the manufacturer).
As far as who would back up that guarantee 15 or 20 years from now, that's obviously a risk anyone takes when buying something with a working life that long. As a salesperson, I can only communicate the promises made by my client and the manufacturer. Since we're liquidating the surplus panels at bargain prices to minimize losses (it costs too much to warehouse them indefinitely and/or ship them back to the manufacturer), that's the trade-off, I suppose, between price and iron-clad guarantees.
--
"Moving your Tylenol to the low shelf in your medicine cabinet is not the way to prevent children from falling off a stool when reaching for the top shelf." (said by Savant, May 2008) |
|
dogmaXYZPremium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1 | reply to cowboyro
said by cowboyro:Performance warranty or 100% of the initial performance warranty? And who will take the claims in 15 years if the company is out of business?
Excellent questions and concerns.
A name brand solar panel will have a 20- to 25-year warranty. This figure, however, applies to power output.
Most manufacturers guarantee at least 80% output (for the specified number of years).
The warranty for "materials and workmanship" is one or two years.
With respect to warranty support 15 years down the road, that is an inherent risk that comes with any long(er) term investment. So if one wants to minimize this risk, probably best to purchase from manufactures that have been in business a good amount of time.
Solar Manufactures/time in business
SolarPower/40+ years in Solar business
First Solar/13 years in Solar business
Sharp/53 years in Solar business
Panasonic-Sanyo/30 years in Solar business
General Electric (GE)/just getting into the Solar business, but they would likely honor warranties on their products for the long run.
...and the list goes on.
FWIW, this is not an industry in it's infancy...contrary to popular belief. |
|
 Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | reply to dogma
Dogma do you have solar panels? Just asking.... |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | reply to nunya
said by nunya:Since the OP mentioned it, I'll hit on it. This is the tax payers footing the bill (You and I). This wouldn't be economically viable otherwise. That does not bode well for the technology. Sure, resi solar has it's place - and it's usually the South West portion of the country.
I've rarely seen a situation where solar made "sense" for residential use elsewhere.
Instead of wasting tax money by giving it to individuals, I'd much rather see it go to something that could benefit everyone. Perhaps the equivalent of a solar "X Prize" to companies who build viable solar farms in the SW and feed the national grid (lower prices for all).
said by Dogmaand even that $13K is offset by the free power it provides. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to ke4pym
def a drawback on the moving parts having a much shorter lifespan. and of course the addition upfront cost as well as the maintenance/replacement costs as well.
honestly that's what i figured.
so about the other question i had/have does the degradation in performance come from the chemistry getting 'weaker' or due to the panel getting dirty or the outer 'lens' becoming damaged by exposure?
--
my site |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | reply to dogma
said by dogma:I concur, You and I are also footing the bill for someones mortgage interest tax deduction as well, among countless other tax based incentives. (note to nunya , does this mean that purchasing a home mortgage with it's associated tax incentives does not bode well for the home ownership?). It is what it is.
Even if there were no tax credits/rebates, there would still be an ROI, just much further down the road. quote:
I further agree that everyone's financial calculations with respect to an investment such as this will be unique. If the OP (as I guesstimated - OP correct me if I am wrong) has a electricity cost of about $144/Month on average, your model [$13,000 / 300 = $43.33 per month in cost] saves him about $100/Month, or [$100 x 300] $30,000.
$144/mo @ 0.11 kWh works out to be about 1300 kWh. His system is 7000 kWh/year so that's 583 kWh/mo from his solar. Not even half of his demand so 583 x 0.11 = $64.00 - $43 (cost) =$21.00/mo savings.
quote:
Assumptions-
The OP invest $13,000 up front.
The OP has an average electricity expense of $140/Month.
The OP's Solar system zero's out his monthly electricity bill.
That's a faulty assumption as the OP's system cannot zero out his monthly bill. He can only achieve 583 kWh from his solar. He will still have more than half of his present bill.
quote:
So his $13,000 up front investment produces a net $140/Month or ($140 x 12) $1680/Year he otherwise would have had to spend. Additionally, the OP would have had to earn about $175/Month in order to pay the $140 as that is a post-tax expense.
OP is not saving $140/month. He's saving $23/Month.
|
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | reply to ke4pym
said by ke4pym:Here's the carbon footprint reduction estimation for my install:
kWh/Yr: 7,047
CO2 saved (lbs): 9,605
SO2 saved (lbs): 38
Nox saved (lbs): 15
Car mile equiv: 9,461
Trees saved 112
Coal not consumed (lbs): 5,708
That's quite an assumption and may or may not be accurate even if 100 percent of your power comes from a coal fired power plant. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:That's true. I'm against all tax credits/deductions too.
Make it 10% of all income for everybody, period. I'll gladly give up my home mortgage deduction and pay a slightly higher tax rate.
But while it's being offered, there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of it.
I'll go for that as soon as they legalize home ownership and eliminate the rent (tax), which, for me, is 135% of my annual gross income and, as such, does not get paid in full. |
|
quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
South FL
kudos:2 | reply to fluffybunny
said by fluffybunny :this is why you should always buy freehold never HOA. asking permission from the HOA or anyone for trivial stuff like solar panels is something to be avoided at all costs. I'm not a big fan of HOAs either, but solar panels aren't exactly "trivial". |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to dogma
said by dogma:Assumptions-
The OP invest $13,000 up front.
The OP has an average electricity expense of $140/Month.
The OP's Solar system zero's out his monthly electricity bill.
[...] That's a 13% IRR (Internal Rate of Return).
The assumptions are wrong.
OP invests 13,000 upfront.
The system produces 7000kWh/year. Based on a $0.11/kWh current rate that's $770/year. A bit shy of 6% return rate.
Take it even further... Start with a $0.15/kWh rate. It still takes 13 years to offset the initial investment.
If you compound the returns and take into account the real life loss in capacity, it's only a 2.5% annual rate. Add the inflation and it's still roughly between the return rate of treasury bonds and the return rate of an ultra-conservative, low risk portfolio. |
|
