I disagree it's a fad, this is a long term trend. The early adopters today will create a better market for tomorrow.

Big houses = fad. Green = trend.

winter said:Read this article recently, you might find it interesting: Going Solar: One Year Later

Also keep in mind that your solar system's performance will deteriorate as time progresses.

Solar water heaters are the way to go. Photovoltic cells are still pretty inefficient.

Moving out of the house isn't a problem, because the next buyers will pay for the remaining life of the equipment. The real issue is the decrease of efficiency and unknown maintenance cost. Even the drop of efficiency shouldn't be a real problem since the service life of the solar panels should be higher than 25 years, or twice as the breakeven period.

subieaggie said:nycll said:Moving out of the house isn't a problem, because the next buyers will pay for the remaining life of the equipment. The real issue is the decrease of efficiency and unknown maintenance cost. Even the drop of efficiency shouldn't be a real problem since the service life of the solar panels should be higher than 25 years, or twice as the breakeven period.

Would prospective buyers pay a premium for seller's solar system in today's market?Why not? The long term trend for energy price is up.

subieaggie said:nycll said:subieaggie said:nycll said:Moving out of the house isn't a problem, because the next buyers will pay for the remaining life of the equipment. The real issue is the decrease of efficiency and unknown maintenance cost. Even the drop of efficiency shouldn't be a real problem since the service life of the solar panels should be higher than 25 years, or twice as the breakeven period.

Would prospective buyers pay a premium for seller's solar system in today's market?Why not? The long term trend for energy price is up.

I wouldn't. Solar panels deteriorate in performance over time. I'm not sure what the exact formula is, I'm sure the firms who sell these know, but let's say at 12 years (breakeven period) the performance decreased 30% (and will progressively get worse), I probably wouldn't pay a premium for a system that is bound to deteriorate and lose efficiency.

But most buyers probably don't know how to do cost/benefit analyses.

But if your panels make it past the breakeven point, you're then playing with house money even if they've deteriorated in efficiency. I've read that panels can last 40+ years -- so even if they're working at only 50% efficiency, they're earning you money at that point.

subieaggie said:nycll said:subieaggie said:nycll said:Moving out of the house isn't a problem, because the next buyers will pay for the remaining life of the equipment. The real issue is the decrease of efficiency and unknown maintenance cost. Even the drop of efficiency shouldn't be a real problem since the service life of the solar panels should be higher than 25 years, or twice as the breakeven period.

Would prospective buyers pay a premium for seller's solar system in today's market?Why not? The long term trend for energy price is up.

I wouldn't. Solar panels deteriorate in performance over time. I'm not sure what the exact formula is, I'm sure the firms who sell these know, but let's say at 12 years (breakeven period) the performance decreased 30% (and will progressively get worse), I probably wouldn't pay a premium for a system that is bound to deteriorate and lose efficiency.

But most buyers probably don't know how to do cost/benefit analyses.So you are not willing to pay anything extra for a house with a 7 year old panel? So to you a lower electric bill doesn't mean anything? Tell me about not knowing how to do cost benefit analysis.

Mithrin said:If you install a system that has a break-even point when including interest on your installation costs, then by definition, it's a long-term investment. At the break-even point, it has netted you the same amount as a financial vehicle at the assumed interest rate to calculate the break-even. If it continues to provide energy savings past that point, it is now outperforming the assumed interest rate.

The risks in the case of solar are that you move out of the house earlier than planned, you encounter higher-than expected maintenance costs, or that energy rates fall (or grow more slowly than planned). The biggest risk is a catastrophic failure of the system (tree falling on it, lightning strike, etc) that is not covered by insurance.

For some parts of the country (like SoCal), where there is year-round sunlight, little risk of severe weather to damage a system, and high electric rates, current solar technology can be a good investment. Other parts of the country with less sun and cheaper electric might not make sense. A fully honest evaluation of solar would compare investment at a given rate of the installation and maintenance costs vs. the savings from a solar system (assuming the monthly savings were invested as well). The biggest unknown would be the amount of savings achieved due to future rate increases that are difficult to predict.

Excellent summary! Hopefully the risk of moving out will turn into an investment when in the future, buyers will want solar power and pay a fair price for the used, but installed system. That's assuming the cost of the installation doesn't change, and if that is the case, if a new installation costs the same and ROI calculations haven't changed, you may potentially recoup the full installation cost and benefit from free power generation (like buying a high residual value car). On the other hand, extreme increases in efficiency could lead to accelerated depreciation on the investment. If you expect a significant drop in price or increased efficiency in these systems in the next few years, factoring in those may alter the ROI. It's a bit like the buy versus rent equation on a home when cost is comparable, but expected to change (i.e. those who rented the last couple of years and are timing when to buy in).

Another complicating factor is the change in behavior by having paid up front for a cheap (free?) power supply. Like the more efficient lightbulbs supposedly saving 75% power usage, but assuming no change in lighting needs/wants. I'm guilty of thinking, I'm saving power with compact flourescent bulbs, so I'll get brighter bulbs (higher power, but still much less than old incandescent bulbs) and run them longer. I've also bought more lighting for the outside (automatic, dusk-dawn, path lighting, etc.) because they're inexpensive and lower cost to operate than past equivalents. If I had solar power, my air condition is probably going to be running longer "knowing" that the power is free or reduced. It's a psychological fallacy, but many people may wind up using more power and not saving as much as planned, pushing out ROI, but benefitting from the immediate increase in power usage.

PV solar is a fad and a joke. The only effective use is to charge your vehicle battery when you are out camping. Other than that, it's simply a marketing gimmick. PV is "hands down" the worst conservation investment when compared to much simpler and more effective ways of using natural daylight, ambient air heating and cooling, and insulating practices. For example, next time the temperature falls to 70 in the summer at night, walk around your neighborhood and see how many people are running their AC rather than opening their windows. This is just one simple example of hundreds.

The same people who are buying PV systems are the same people who are buying a Toyota Pious when it never, ever, ever pencils for a typical driver. They do it for status and not for the environment or their own economy. Compare the battery disposal issue of the prius to the cadmium disposal of large PV panels. It's simply a self-serving boast that damages the environment and costs more while claiming the exact opposite.

Solar energy has its place in warming water and/or living space. A better investment would be a large insulated underground heat sink where heated liquid can be pumped to store energy for when its needed (like at night in colder climates). Why is it that none of you really know about these systems? Because they are the least profitable to sell you. Any fool can read a brochure and borrow $40k to reduce their $200/month electricity bill by 90%, but very few can figure out how to turn $3000 worth of lumber, tubing rock and dirtwork into $100 per month worth of hot water and heat.

What was it that PT Barnum used to say?

Cerdo said:I disagree it's a fad, this is a long term trend. The early adopters today will create a better market for tomorrow.

Big houses = fad. Green = trend.

I would say it is both a fad and a trend.

Many "green" products are not actually very green. They take more energy to produce than they will save in their lifespan. Such products are very FAD as the sheeple believe they are green and buy them solely for that purpose.

The trend is working together for a better more efficient tomorrow. The fad is all the gimmicks sold under the disguise of being green.

Unfortunately, many aspects of going green aren't feasible unless your neighbors are helping pay for you. Now, It might be a good idea to take advantage of your neighbors while you can. There will eventually be a time when these extreme discounts disappear if going green becomes popular enough.

delzy said:A better investment would be a large insulated underground heat sink where heated liquid can be pumped to store energy for when its needed (like at night in colder climates). Why is it that none of you really know about these systems? Because they are the least profitable to sell you. Any fool can read a brochure and borrow $40k to reduce their $200/month electricity bill by 90%, but very few can figure out how to turn $3000 worth of lumber, tubing rock and dirtwork into $100 per month worth of hot water and heat.

Actually, high rises use a similar principle for cooling by freezing large vats of water in the basement at night when energy costs and temperatures are lower, then using the energy from phase change to cool the building during the day.

The unfortunate thing about this (and the method you mentioned) is that it doesn't really scale down to individual residences with the same level of efficiency that you get from commercial systems.

That said, PV at the residential level isn't really efficient at all. It only ever "breaks even" because of government subsidies.