 dogmaXYZPremium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1 | reply to fifty nine
Re: I've gone and done it ... solar install said by fifty nine:If you have cheap electricity and do the budget billing tomfoolery, solar makes little sense for you.
However there are companies who will install solar at your home at no charge then sell you the electricity for 6c/kWh.
If one is financially short sighted, as many are, then you're correct. Solar doesn't make sense. The instant gratification crowd will always see value in a depreciating asset like the latest iPhone or tricked-out overclocked PC vs. Solar, which is a performing asset. Most don't understand asset classes nor comprehend the concept of multiple tax incentives and rebates that make a $30K investment, a $13K investment, and even that $13K is offset by the free power it provides.
The OP, based on my rough back-of-the-envelope math, which also includes a very conservative rate of inflation for electricity, will put (keep really) close to $45,000 in his pocket over the life of his panels.
With respect to these Solar leasing firms, I have yet to see the fabled "something-for-nothing" deal actually materialize. From my experience, these Solar leasing companies do not spend $30,000 (excluding some tax incentives that they can get, but not all that an end consumer can qualify for) or whatever the material and install cost will be to leave an expensive asset on someones roof and then sell the homeowner cheap power.
I have read many advertisements that imply such, but once one pulls back the curtains, it's typically a 15-20 year lease commitment with a minimum 700 FICO score required. So the homeowner is committed to the lease (Lease is French for "rental") base cost, then an additional cost for the monthly power. Moreover, after the 15 year lease term, the homeowner still doesn't own the Solar which may have 10-15 more years of useful life.
|
|
| I agree.
Problem is that many people don't have the up front cash to put up a solar installation. Many can't even borrow from the HELOC because their mortgages are underwater or the banks aren't lending.
Where I live though, we have few incentives for solar. The cooperative does not take part in the incentives offered by the state so the cost rises substantially. On the flip side we do not pay the societal benefits charge on our bills.
Also the price of SRECs is going down. There is so much solar here in this state that SRECs are going for $200-$300 instead of $600 they used to go for. |
|
| reply to dogma
said by dogma:If one is financially short sighted, as many are, then you're correct. Solar doesn't make sense. The instant gratification crowd will always see value in a depreciating asset like the latest iPhone or tricked-out overclocked PC vs. Solar, which is a performing asset. Most don't understand asset classes nor comprehend the concept of multiple tax incentives and rebates that make a $30K investment, a $13K investment, and even that $13K is offset by the free power it provides. Really? The only way it makes any sort of sense is because You and I are footing the bill for the tax credits. Assuming 25 year life for the panels and electronics, that's 300 months:
$13,000 / 300 = $43.33 per month in cost (not factoring in any interest if the $$ is borrowed or the lost opportunity cost of that $$).
So any money over that $43.33 is savings but that's assuming there is never any issue with the system, never any cost associated with warranty in the 25 years, and that the company is in business 25 years from now. That's a lot of things to assume and a lot of faith in companies that may or may not be around (Solyndra). I'd also be willing to bet none of the warranties covers labour to replace faulty parts. That's also assuming electric rates will go up by a lot (IIRC they have gone up but by small amounts) and that you will use more.
Personally, I find it not that much of a savings as our rates are $0.08/kWh and we heat with natural gas and only run the AC a few months out of the year. I think out highest electric bill has been about $130. |
|
 nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8
 ·Charter
 ·surpasshosting
| 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).
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't. |
|
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. |
|
nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8 Reviews:
·Charter
·surpasshosting
| 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. |
|
ke4pymPremium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Broadban..
·RoadRunner Cable
·Northland Cable ..
| 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. |
|
 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 |
|
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| 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. Do a calculation of how much your rate would be for the IRS to collect the same amount from everyone. You'll change your mind instantly... guaranteed... |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | reply to cowboyro
$770/yr / 12 mo = $64/mo |
|
