Economics Still Not Quite There? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-19 14:24 (#2SM0) I really, really wanted to get into solar for my home a year or two ago, until I discovered the hard facts.1. It is completely unfeasible for a typical home to go completely "off-grid" due to the humongous cost, space, and maintenance required for all the batteries to smooth the day/night load patterns.2. So the vast majority of installations are "grid-tied", meaning they pull power from the normal grid, and sometimes feed power back into it.3. Even with the generous incentives, pay-back time for an initial investment is at least 4-7 years, during which time that $20,000 might have been better spent in a mutual fund.4. I didn't really have $20,000 lying around anyway.There are leasing options that mitigate some of this, but not entirely. Do you really want to be paying Elon Musk (investor in SolarCity) every month in perpetuity instead of your electric company? Re: Economics Still Not Quite There? (Score: 2, Informative) by kwerle@pipedot.org on 2014-09-19 16:06 (#2SM4) I'm a coder for SolarCity.1. It is completely unfeasible for a typical home to go completely "off-grid" due to the humongous cost, space, and maintenance required for all the batteries to smooth the day/night load patterns.And there are rainy days. And rainy weeks. That's what the grid is for.Batteries will be cheaper when Elon finishes the GigaFactory - but that's no reason to wait for solar - just for the batteries.2. So the vast majority of installations are "grid-tied", meaning they pull power from the normal grid, and sometimes feed power back into it.Like a big battery.3. Even with the generous incentives, pay-back time for an initial investment is at least 4-7 years, during which time that $20,000 might have been better spent in a mutual fund... payback in 4-7, leaving you with more than 20 years of profit. Unless you plan on moving in the next 4-7, in which case things get a bit murky. I think the general population does not yet appropriately value panels on the roof of the house they're buying.4. I didn't really have $20,000 lying around anyway.Next point...There are leasing options that mitigate some of this, but not entirely. Do you really want to be paying Elon Musk (investor in SolarCity) every month in perpetuity instead of your electric company?So this is the bottom line: you would rather pay your electric company to continue business as usual instead of lowering your energy costs and (if you care) carbon footprint by getting panels installed for free on your roof.Seriously. WTF? Re: Economics Still Not Quite There? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-19 18:42 (#2SM5) Nothing is free. You think I, and my creditors, and my credit rating, simply won't notice that I just took on an additional $25,000 in debt to hold someone ELSE's equipment on my aging roof and garage? Equipment that, by the terms of your faux-lease, you will come and remove at the end, doing who-knows-what to my now-20-years-older shingles? What about the need to replace the roof in the interim? What ABOUT the home's resale value for all the years that there's complicated equipment, lease, and service deal attached to the house?Yes, it's a very appealing deal, but please don't pretend it's a no-brainer. If it were I'd already have the system (as would many more people steadfastly ignoring the salesshills in Home Depot and elsewhere, who represent all sorts of startups).There are other concerns (panel degradation, actually declining utility rates in some areas, questionable solar exposure in the northeast, disappearing companies and resold leases, parts supply and repair issues, etc.) that I've read about too. Oh yeah, and the electric companies starting to RAISE rates and/or eliminate discounts for grid-tied users, because they claim the usage pattern of those customers is costing them money and the sold-back power is of little value to them (supposedly).It absolutely is the future, no doubt, but frankly it still costs too much. I would prefer to see it required as part of new building codes. (I have no connection to either solar or power companies.)
Re: Economics Still Not Quite There? (Score: 2, Informative) by kwerle@pipedot.org on 2014-09-19 16:06 (#2SM4) I'm a coder for SolarCity.1. It is completely unfeasible for a typical home to go completely "off-grid" due to the humongous cost, space, and maintenance required for all the batteries to smooth the day/night load patterns.And there are rainy days. And rainy weeks. That's what the grid is for.Batteries will be cheaper when Elon finishes the GigaFactory - but that's no reason to wait for solar - just for the batteries.2. So the vast majority of installations are "grid-tied", meaning they pull power from the normal grid, and sometimes feed power back into it.Like a big battery.3. Even with the generous incentives, pay-back time for an initial investment is at least 4-7 years, during which time that $20,000 might have been better spent in a mutual fund... payback in 4-7, leaving you with more than 20 years of profit. Unless you plan on moving in the next 4-7, in which case things get a bit murky. I think the general population does not yet appropriately value panels on the roof of the house they're buying.4. I didn't really have $20,000 lying around anyway.Next point...There are leasing options that mitigate some of this, but not entirely. Do you really want to be paying Elon Musk (investor in SolarCity) every month in perpetuity instead of your electric company?So this is the bottom line: you would rather pay your electric company to continue business as usual instead of lowering your energy costs and (if you care) carbon footprint by getting panels installed for free on your roof.Seriously. WTF? Re: Economics Still Not Quite There? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-19 18:42 (#2SM5) Nothing is free. You think I, and my creditors, and my credit rating, simply won't notice that I just took on an additional $25,000 in debt to hold someone ELSE's equipment on my aging roof and garage? Equipment that, by the terms of your faux-lease, you will come and remove at the end, doing who-knows-what to my now-20-years-older shingles? What about the need to replace the roof in the interim? What ABOUT the home's resale value for all the years that there's complicated equipment, lease, and service deal attached to the house?Yes, it's a very appealing deal, but please don't pretend it's a no-brainer. If it were I'd already have the system (as would many more people steadfastly ignoring the salesshills in Home Depot and elsewhere, who represent all sorts of startups).There are other concerns (panel degradation, actually declining utility rates in some areas, questionable solar exposure in the northeast, disappearing companies and resold leases, parts supply and repair issues, etc.) that I've read about too. Oh yeah, and the electric companies starting to RAISE rates and/or eliminate discounts for grid-tied users, because they claim the usage pattern of those customers is costing them money and the sold-back power is of little value to them (supposedly).It absolutely is the future, no doubt, but frankly it still costs too much. I would prefer to see it required as part of new building codes. (I have no connection to either solar or power companies.)
Re: Economics Still Not Quite There? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-19 18:42 (#2SM5) Nothing is free. You think I, and my creditors, and my credit rating, simply won't notice that I just took on an additional $25,000 in debt to hold someone ELSE's equipment on my aging roof and garage? Equipment that, by the terms of your faux-lease, you will come and remove at the end, doing who-knows-what to my now-20-years-older shingles? What about the need to replace the roof in the interim? What ABOUT the home's resale value for all the years that there's complicated equipment, lease, and service deal attached to the house?Yes, it's a very appealing deal, but please don't pretend it's a no-brainer. If it were I'd already have the system (as would many more people steadfastly ignoring the salesshills in Home Depot and elsewhere, who represent all sorts of startups).There are other concerns (panel degradation, actually declining utility rates in some areas, questionable solar exposure in the northeast, disappearing companies and resold leases, parts supply and repair issues, etc.) that I've read about too. Oh yeah, and the electric companies starting to RAISE rates and/or eliminate discounts for grid-tied users, because they claim the usage pattern of those customers is costing them money and the sold-back power is of little value to them (supposedly).It absolutely is the future, no doubt, but frankly it still costs too much. I would prefer to see it required as part of new building codes. (I have no connection to either solar or power companies.)