I saw this on Consumerist a while back. Basically, you get a solar system installed in your house for free. The solar company gets all of the rebates and credits for installing the system. The system belongs to them for like 18 years, during which time they charge you for the electricity that it generates (at a lower rate than what your utility company charges, so your electric bill is reduced, but not by as much as if you bought the solar system yourself). The solar company still owns the system, and since the amount of money that they collect is based on how much electricity it generates, it is in their best interest to keep it maintained. After the lease period is up, you own the system (albeit an 18 year old and outdated system) free and clear.

So you don't pay any money out of pocket, and you get reduced electric bills for 18 years.

longwood8 said:

the life of the panels is more than 12 years, but a reasonable lifespan on the inverter is 10 years and warranties rarely go beyond seven. that extends the break even point. But these figures only exist due to massive subsidies that would be better spent on nuclear or other large scale projects as opposed to small, "feel good" projects. Economically, which is what he should care about on FWF, it is a loser.

Where do you come up with a 10-year metric for the lifespan of an inverter?
Also - consider that an inverter isn't nearly as expensive as the panels (although it's cost is related to how much power it's handling).

I agree that PV is subsidized. However, without some adoption, the technology won't move forward as fast as it could. You really should encourage evaluation and applications in the situations where it makes sense.

The fact also remains that for people who can get significant subsidies/rebates/incentives PV CAN be cost effective within a 12-year boundary... Sure, I could have bought a standard $300 tanked water heater, but I plan on living in my home for 10 years and the $4000 (before incentives) system will pay back within well within that timeline.

longwood8 said:nycll said:As to breakeven of hybrids, do you still remember I used $4 per gallon? And there are models with far shorter break even points than the number you cherry picked.
So why not pick $10 a gallon and make your numbers sound amazing? The numbers I used were the numbers in the Edmonds article you linked for a prius compared to a similar car. They are based on $2.91 a gallon, which is 50 cents more than I paid this morning. If you compare a prius to a camry it works out better but that is another fake comparison since the camry is so much larger.Good question. I do believe as soon as we are out of the recession, same forces that drove oil to $145 will be back to quickly drive it to produce a $4+ per gallon gas. But it is just my crystal ball vs yours.

delzy said:nycll said: The only way to cut waste is to make wasting more expensive. See, I am all about the economics. I don't care how the hybrid drivers feel, nor how you feel about how they actually feel.Energy already is a significant portion of everyone's budget and adding a tax for Al Gore's "carbon credit company" and another for his friends at the world bank is hardly a strategy to conserve. If you valued free markets, you would understand this. This post and many of your past posts indicate you either do not understand relatively free markets or are covertly shilling for the monopoly capitalists who are currently in control of our government. Are you naive, deceptive or simply suckered?Wait a minute.

I thought you disagree with raising gasoline tax was because you believe 9/11 was the work of US government. And many of your posts are based on conspiracy theories of one form or another. And everyone who try to make things better are naive, deceptive or simply suckered.

I don't see how debating about Priuses, discussing whether "being green" is an attitude problem or a worthy cause, ascribing personal motives to those who choose solar PV systems is helpful or even pertinent to this thread. Conspiracy theories don't belong here either, IMO.

OTOH, specific questions and answers about solar PV systems, discussion of payback periods with specific examples and calculation methods all seem relevant -- at least to me. However, using this thread in order to make generalized statements to promote one's beliefs just takes this thread OT. I'm guessing that the OP is more interested in posts that are actually relevant to the topic.

Please stop with the OT stuff burying the good stuff. Thanks.

Cheapoking said:"The eternal question of price/performance always crops up. Clearly, I'm saving money, but I also sank around $38,000 into the system. At $3,000 per year in savings (which assumes a constant rate for power cost and the same power usage pattern), that's a 12.5 year payback."
Bad math. This ignores the time value of money. At an interest rate of 4%, this is actually slightly more than a 16 year payback. At an interest rate of 7%, this is slightly more than a 25 year payback. That's more than twice as long as how long this person thinks it will take to make back the money he invested. Lesson: DO NOT IGNORE the time value of money.

delzy said:I think you are missing the point regarding the financial imprudence of people jumping on the green fads while failing to understand exactly how "ungreen" as well as un-economic their buying into a false paradigm actually is. As far as the OT crap goes, I'm not the one who started it, but when people throw my heavily researched knowledge up as a red herring, I will answer with a tidbit or two that absolutely proves they are fools.
Honestly, who cares if it is a green fad or not even as green as claimed?

Several posters here have demonstrated that, between energy savings, tax credits, and retained value, these systems can be sound investments for certain people. If your area has abundant sun, high energy prices (especially tiered), and generous State tax credits, this is something a homeowner should at least run the numbers for.

We are discussing these systems because they have the potential to save people money. Individual consumers have no power over what the powers that be tax and don't tax, and incentivize and don't incentivize. Each of us can only be expected to choose the best option of what is available. Cash Back credit cards are expensive for merchants, and we are all paying higher prices to make up for interchange fees. However, since none of us control how merchants price their goods, we choose to use these cards because it is the most sound decision available to each of us.

There is no need to rage against a product simply because some people have made it into a green fad. I am probably the last person on this board who would pay a premium for green products, and I am here to tell you that these systems may be able to save you a lot of money, and insulate you against rising energy costs that are beyond your political control. If you want to put a patriotic spin on it, a PV system can reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil, and consequently, our funding of regimes hostile to democracy and freedom. If you want to put a survivalist spin on it, these systems can make you self-sufficient and able to withstand natural disasters and civil unrest interrupting the grid's supply. Other people who put a green spin on it and are willing to fork over big bucks to save Mother Earth have no impact on the utility of the system to you.

FYI i'm considering this only for financial reasons. The green thing does not matter to me. It also does not matter how much energy or carbon it takes to produce or dispose of the panels ect or how efficient they are. The idea is that with govt subsidies it COULD give a good ROI over the long term. I anticipate very high power bills due to AC/servers/computers/home theater and would rather pay an up front cost and not have to worry about getting hit as hard every month (as well as get a good ROI on that investment in 10+ years). It will be a few weeks before I get an estimate but if I do end up getting them I will do a step by step here.

Estimated System Cost $49,000
Federal / State Tax Credit * $11,351
State / Utility Rebate $11,162
Net Cost $26,486
Cumulative Lifetime Savings $70,732 over 25 years
Investment Return 9.4%

That seems like a good deal to me. That was pretty conservative estimates (assuming 2.5%/year increase) and a 7KW system with a $200/month bill.

It absolutely doesnt make sense.....to install solar power systems @ some 30000 after all rebates and stuff.... i live in texas and it might even make sense since its freaking hot here...and u get most out of solar cells ....if i m paying over 10K i wont do it...