dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA
reply to dogma

Re: I've gone and done it ... solar install

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.


nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·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.



dogma
XYZ
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1

1 recommendation

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 See Profile, 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.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
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.


toby
Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA

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.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

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.



nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·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.


ke4pym
Premium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·VOIPO
·ooma
·Verizon Broadban..
·Northland Cable ..
·Time Warner 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_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
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.

I agree nunya and what dogma doesn't account for the $17000 in tax money he got as an individual is not "Free Power" in any stretch of pushing the pencil.


boogi man

join:2001-11-13
Jacksonville, FL
kudos:1
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



disconnected

@snet.net
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_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
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 See Profile, 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_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
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.


cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT
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.


cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT
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_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
reply to cowboyro

$770/yr / 12 mo = $64/mo



djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to 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.

Meh. Even without the tax breaks, it'd still be cost effective here. My panels cost around 26k before the incentives. That'd push my ROI out to 8 years or so. Still not bad. The projected savings for my system was well over $100k over its 25 year warranted lifespan.

The panels are getting cheaper too.

»www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/busin···all&_r=0

The US is adding a 31% tariff on Chinese solar panels. As the incentives die off, the prices for the technology will come down.

I'm a lot more interested to see what creative ways the power companies use to put the screws to us solar net metering customers in the coming years.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom

You are providing absolutely no information that we can judge your system other than the $26K before incentives and projected savings over 25 years. What was your final cost? How much power were you using? What are the specs for your system?

$100K savings over 25 years? That's saving $4,000/year or $333/mo. Just how much power do you use per year? OP has a 7K/yr system and his yearly production is worth $720.



fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to cowboyro

said by cowboyro:

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...

I'm talking about a flat rate, not a flat amount.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
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.

There are incentives because the up front cost is high and most Americans prefer to pay over time instead of saving up and paying cash. This is why solar leases are becoming so popular.

As for it being "worth it" a 7kw system here in New Jersey according to PVWatts can produce $875/year worth of energy. This is taking into account seasons and weather.

The same system in Houston, TX would produce $929 worth of energy using the same rate, or less than $100 difference.

You can calculate for your location:
»gisatnrel.nrel.gov/PVWatts_Viewer/index.html

So the myth of solar being "not worth it" for more northerly places is, well, just a myth. Solar works quite well up here and they are popping up all over. In some areas there are solar panels on every electric pole.


cowboyro
Premium
join:2000-10-11
Shelton, CT
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to fifty nine

said by fifty nine:

said by cowboyro:

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...

I'm talking about a flat rate, not a flat amount.

Me too.
2009 all individual returns = ~$5,091bil, generated tax $953bil
That's 20% give or take. Half of the $953bil was generated by those with $200k+ income.
Guess who would benefit most from such a change....


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to fifty nine

said by fifty nine:

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.

There are incentives because the up front cost is high and most Americans prefer to pay over time instead of saving up and paying cash. This is why solar leases are becoming so popular.

There are incentives because it is not a viable expenditure. Whether paying up front or on time pay. The only way most people will install solar is if they can get someone else to bear at least 2/3 of the cost.

As for it being "worth it" a 7kw system here in New Jersey according to PVWatts can produce $875/year worth of energy. This is taking into account seasons and weather.

The same system in Houston, TX would produce $929 worth of energy using the same rate, or less than $100 difference.

OP's 7kW system cost $30K without incentives so in New Jersey at $875/yr break even will be in 34.29 years, in Houston in 32.29 years. Meanwhile the person with the cells actually gets no savings during the years it takes to pay off the initial investment. With a payback that long one really can't say it's worth it.

So the myth of solar being "not worth it" for more northerly places is, well, just a myth. Solar works quite well up here and they are popping up all over. In some areas there are solar panels on every electric pole.

It is not a myth. Just because it mechanically and electrically works doesn't make it viable.


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to Jack_in_VA

Click for full size
The solar company's analysis
Click for full size
SCE average rate history
said by Jack_in_VA:

You are providing absolutely no information that we can judge your system other than the $26K before incentives and projected savings over 25 years. What was your final cost? How much power were you using? What are the specs for your system?

$100K savings over 25 years? That's saving $4,000/year or $333/mo. Just how much power do you use per year? OP has a 7K/yr system and his yearly production is worth $720.

True enough, since you're interested, I provided the analysis provided by the solar company. You're forgetting to include the yearly rate hikes by the power company. Note that the final price does not include an extra $2,000 off that I was able to negotiate.

Now, I think their figure of 7.5% of yearly electricity rate increases is too aggressive, but where I live it's not unconscionable. I've posted a chart someone put together with SCE's average per-kwh rates. I live in an inland suburb, where it is nearly impossible for us to keep our usage below Tier 3 (tiers 1 & 2 are at a more reasonable 15c-ish per kWh). Our solar system neatly removes the most costly (and least cost-regulated) electricity.

That said, I use significantly more power than the data for which this projection was used. That year we had a mild summer, and the data for September was incorrect because I only lived here for a partial month. I now work from home. Because of Edison's punitive tiering, the more electricity I use, the higher the effective savings.

This year the system can save up to $300/month or so. The actual amount of savings depends on what tier the produced electricity would have been in, had I not had the solar system.

--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.


nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

Where they tricked you is the rate increases over 10 and 25 years. They are ridiculously overinflated "guesses".
Between 1980 and 2005, the average price per residential kWh in the US went from $.0536 to $.0945 - a whopping 4.09 cent increase over 25 years (76%).

Even using today's average rate of $.127 / kWh, that's only an increase of $.0734 / kWh in the last 31 years. Bear in mind that today's prices are artificially high due to government mandates.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.



djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

said by nunya:

Where they tricked you is the rate increases over 10 and 25 years. They are ridiculously overinflated "guesses".
Between 1980 and 2005, the average price per residential kWh in the US went from $.0536 to $.0945 - a whopping 4.09 cent increase over 25 years (76%).

Even using today's average rate of $.127 / kWh, that's only an increase of $.0734 / kWh in the last 31 years. Bear in mind that today's prices are artificially high due to government mandates.

They didn't trick me. I already acknowledged this if you read my post completely. In my case, there could be no increase at all, and I'd still be making money.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom

said by djrobx:

said by nunya:

Where they tricked you is the rate increases over 10 and 25 years. They are ridiculously overinflated "guesses".
Between 1980 and 2005, the average price per residential kWh in the US went from $.0536 to $.0945 - a whopping 4.09 cent increase over 25 years (76%).

Even using today's average rate of $.127 / kWh, that's only an increase of $.0734 / kWh in the last 31 years. Bear in mind that today's prices are artificially high due to government mandates.

They didn't trick me. I already acknowledged this if you read my post completely. In my case, there could be no increase at all, and I'd still be making money.

Did I overlook it or did you not include your system capacity and how much power you use now?

Unless you know some new math or I'm calculating wrong you won't make any money until you pay your upfront money. Either the $26,600 or since you're getting a "rebate" of 10K the $16,600. After that balance is "0" then you can make money.


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

3 edits

1 recommendation

Click for full size

Usage data from Edison
said by Jack_in_VA:

said by djrobx:

said by nunya:

Where they tricked you is the rate increases over 10 and 25 years. They are ridiculously overinflated "guesses".
Between 1980 and 2005, the average price per residential kWh in the US went from $.0536 to $.0945 - a whopping 4.09 cent increase over 25 years (76%).

Even using today's average rate of $.127 / kWh, that's only an increase of $.0734 / kWh in the last 31 years. Bear in mind that today's prices are artificially high due to government mandates.

They didn't trick me. I already acknowledged this if you read my post completely. In my case, there could be no increase at all, and I'd still be making money.

Did I overlook it or did you not include your system capacity and how much power you use now?

Unless you know some new math or I'm calculating wrong you won't make any money until you pay your upfront money. Either the $26,600 or since you're getting a "rebate" of 10K the $16,600. After that balance is "0" then you can make money.

$14,600. I negotiated it down further.

Obviously I'm talking about making money over the 25 year warranted lifespan of the system, not day 1 of ownership. I shouldn't need to clarify that. I'm using 25 years because that's the panel warranty and the duration of the analysis I posted. The panels themselves could last longer. The inverter will need to be replaced sometime during this lifetime, but with any luck they'll be cheaper by the time that's needed. It looks like I can buy a new one for $2500 online now.

As I already stated, the amount of savings per year is a very complicated calculation. You need to look at Edison's tiers (which vary from 15 cents up to 32 cents when you include the distribution charges), then subtract whatever total grid usage plus what the solar generated during that month from the top tiers and work your way backwards.

I have included the 1st year estimates here for illustration, but they drastically under-estimate the actual savings because I was rarely home that year (and we already got a nice rate hike in Tier 4/5, bite me Edison!). The system generates about 10% more than what was estimated (around 900kwh in August. The total output since November 17 is 8652kwh according to the inverter. It has another month and a half to go and it's already over the yearly estimate shown), and I'm using far more electricity than they used to generate these estimates.

I've also included the usage chart form Edison. It includes the YoY comparison of Septemer 2011 and September 2012. I actually used more electricity AFTER adding the solar panels than I did the previous year! That's because I work from home now, and it's been a brutally hot summer. The Aug and Sept bills would have been absolute whoppers without the solar.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
reply to nunya

said by nunya:

Where they tricked you is the rate increases over 10 and 25 years. They are ridiculously overinflated "guesses".
Between 1980 and 2005, the average price per residential kWh in the US went from $.0536 to $.0945 - a whopping 4.09 cent increase over 25 years (76%).

Even using today's average rate of $.127 / kWh, that's only an increase of $.0734 / kWh in the last 31 years. Bear in mind that today's prices are artificially high due to government mandates.

We have good reason to believe that energy prices will go up as they say. Aging power plants, coal plants going offline, the rise of China and India to compete for fossil fuel, more energy consumption including electric cars, and the fed printing more and more money are reasons to believe that rates will dramatically rise.

If you're not preparing for serious rate hikes you're either ignorant of world conditions affecting the price of energy or you're old enough that you're going to die in a few years anyway and the price of energy in 20 years won't matter to you.

I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. Our co-op recently had to raise rates. They had a 10 year lock in on their pricing of open market power which they couldn't renew for 10 years. It's more like year to year now and the prices are pretty much guaranteed to increase regularly.

Cheap energy is no more. Time to generate your own, get used to conserving or be prepared to shell out more.


dogma
XYZ
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1


10 year energy inflation chart

20 year energy inflation chart
said by fifty nine:

We have good reason to believe that energy prices will go up as they say.

Cheap energy is no more. Time to generate your own, get used to conserving or be prepared to shell out more.

You are clearly correct as evidenced in the graphs above (I understand your passion, but no need to be abrasive about it).

Anyway, it's been about [eyeball estimate] 3.4% Year-over-Year for the past 10 years. I am still working up my NPV forecast but I would now like to mention in all fairness, Solar has a low ROI when viewed as a straight investment against something similar in risk like a CD (but a better ROI non the less) primarily because the principal [the Solar panels infrastructure] depreciates to zero over time in a strict financial sense. Whereas the principal [cash] of a CD as a lesser depreciation value.

However, when viewed as a "specialized" hedge investment against inflation, the returns "should be" very good --assuming-- energy rates continue to rise based on historical trends. This is because the Solar owner has effectively fixed, or locked in his/her rates.

I will post my model based on this shortly.