Grid-tied solar

[Loren49]

I suppose it is if you are basing that off of a 5% fixed for 25 years.

I think you missed the point. Whether you have the money because you borrowed at 5% for 25 years or 10% for whatever years does not change that investing in solar is better projected return than the stock market.

Whether it is true is not related to cost of the funds.

Now whether it is a good investment to do solar is greatly influenced by the cost of the money.

Loren

 

[SirReal63]

It is fuzzy math that is irrelevant. You can't go to the bank and borrow 15k for the stock market. The vast majority of the people in those 50 cities don't have that money up front, if they did it might pay off to go solar, if they could meet all of their needs and then some with solar. If they do not have the space or long enough solar insolation, which the majority of city dwellers will not have, then they will only have a reduced electrical bill. While it may be a wise investment for some, it will not be for the majority and simply out of reach for the majority.

15k at 8% for 10 years is a payment about 180 a month, then you figure you paid over 6500 in interest. That means you paid over 23k for your solar at the end of 10 years. That same 15k at 5% for 10 years is about 175 a month with the total interest and principle at almost 21k. You could easily lose everything in the stock market, but even if you made a 1% return on the that 15k you are better off than paying that interest. All of that still assumes you are capable of paying no electric bill, and your typical bill is more than the loan payment each month.

All of it is still irrelevant, the vast majority of people in those 50 cities simply cannot swing the solar bill. I certainly wish that were not the case, but reality is reality. That article is not reality based.

 

[Loren49]

It is fuzzy math that is irrelevant. You can't go to the bank and borrow 15k for the stock market. The vast majority of the people in those 50 cities don't have that money up front, if they did it might pay off to go solar, if they could meet all of their needs and then some with solar. If they do not have the space or long enough solar insolation, which the majority of city dwellers will not have, then they will only have a reduced electrical bill. While it may be a wise investment for some, it will not be for the majority and simply out of reach for the majority.

15k at 8% for 10 years is a payment about 180 a month, then you figure you paid over 6500 in interest. That means you paid over 23k for your solar at the end of 10 years. That same 15k at 5% for 10 years is about 175 a month with the total interest and principle at almost 21k. You could easily lose everything in the stock market, but even if you made a 1% return on the that 15k you are better off than paying that interest. All of that still assumes you are capable of paying no electric bill, and your typical bill is more than the loan payment each month.

All of it is still irrelevant, the vast majority of people in those 50 cities simply cannot swing the solar bill. I certainly wish that were not the case, but reality is reality. That article is not reality based.

In your example you seemed to omit the fact that you will then have prepaid your electric for another 15 years. Also 8 percent is well above current rate.

Thousands of homeowners in the vacinity of those cities could benefit with current incentives. For many the monthly repayment cost will be very similar to avoided electric bill. Have you run the numbers? Many have and that's why they're buying. Why not get input fromthose who have thsessystems. Dave and others can show it does work. I have spoken with people who are paying amounts similar to previous electric bill. I

Remember we have two claims 1) Its a better investment than stocks, 2) At stated finance costs it makes fina cial sense in many States. It does not claim that all can do it, just that with those rates it would work.

Loren

 

[SirReal63]

In your example you seemed to omit the fact that you will then have prepaid your electric for another 15 years. Also 8 percent is well above current rate.
You are assuming that the monthly payments will be lower than their current electrical bill. You are assuming that they have enough hours of sun and enough space to fit the panels to erase their electrical bill. People who live in a city usually do not have that amount of space, most do not own the place they live in, nor are they financially able to get a loan with a low enough interest rate, which also assumes they will qualify for a loan. Renters do not qualify for equity loans and typically do not have the assets to secure a loan and if they could would the property owner allow the installation? Way too many assumptions.


Thousands of homeowners in the vacinity of those cities could benefit with current incentives. For many the monthly repayment cost will be very similar to avoided electric bill. Have you run the numbers? Many have and that's www. hy they're buying.

Those in the vicinity of large popilations may be able to justify and afford it and should look into it if they can. In densely populated areas this is not the case, that population density negates the validity of the article. A multi story building has a small footprint and a small solar panel availability yet it can house hundreds of people, none of which will be able to take advantage of solar power. The article did not speak of people on the outskirts of the 50 largest cities, it is about the 50 largest cities and is an irrelevant article intended for an unclear purpose because it is not based in reality.

Loren

I am all for a realistic solution and would love to see solar with a massive presence.

 

[Loren49]

I am all for a realistic solution and would love to see solar with a massive presence.

Your statement "Those in the vicinity of large popilations may be able to justify and afford it and should look into it if they can. In densely populated areas this is not the case, that population density negates the validity of the article. A multi story building has a small footprint and a small solar panel availability yet it can house hundreds of people, none of which will be able to take advantage of solar power. The article did not speak of people on the outskirts of the 50 largest cities, it is about the 50 largest cities and is an irrelevant article intended for an unclear purpose because it is not based in reality. "

Report: Solar Is Cheaper Than the Grid in 42 of the 50 Largest US Cities : Greentech Media
Quote from the article:
Among single-family homeowners in those 50 cities, the Center estimates that 9.1 million live in a place where solar would be cheaper than their utility bill if they bought the system outright. Nearly 21 million would be better off going solar if low-cost financing is available.

They were focusing on single family home owners......not multistory buildings.


Loren

 

[SirReal63]

Yes I did, and even taking out multi family dwellings (which in most of the large cities i have been in are mixed in with single family dwellings) it is still fuzzy math making way too many assumptions. Most people cannot swing the loan from the wreck our economy is in and the lack of insolation is still valid, older established neighborhoods have large trees and shade, the things we want but solar doesn't play nice with. I suppose we could lay waste to whole neighborhoods of large established trees. The distance between houses is closer and that guy with a single story in between two story homes isn't going to get much sun, whole neighborhoods will have a poor orientation to the sun depleting actual solar gains. It isn't a perfect world and that article makes way too many assumptions.

Places with less of a large downtown presence and more sprawled out will certainly take advantage of the available sun, but it is not realistic for the many of those cities. Even if people were able to either buy outright or finance the gains would not be perfect scenario like that article indicates. It is pie in the sky wishing, not reality.

 

[MossRoad]

One more thing about my location is the housing market. Investing in $20K of solar will bring $0 in resale of my home. We have a 40% housing vacancy rate. The city of South Bend, IN is trying to tear down 1000 houses in 1000 days. While our home appraises for X dollars, we'd be lucky to 1/2 of that value if we tried to sell it. There are just too many houses on the market for less money. So those things have to be considered, too. If you're planning on moving before its paid off, will you get back what you invested? Other markets, I'm sure you might. Here... no way.

 

[Loren49]

Yes I did, and even taking out multi family dwellings (which in most of the large cities i have been in are mixed in with single family dwellings) it is still fuzzy math making way too many assumptions. Most people cannot swing the loan from the wreck our economy is in and the lack of insolation is still valid, older established neighborhoods have large trees and shade, the things we want but solar doesn't play nice with. I suppose we could lay waste to whole neighborhoods of large established trees. The distance between houses is closer and that guy with a single story in between two story homes isn't going to get much sun, whole neighborhoods will have a poor orientation to the sun depleting actual solar gains. It isn't a perfect world and that article makes way too many assumptions.

Places with less of a large downtown presence and more sprawled out will certainly take advantage of the available sun, but it is not realistic for the many of those cities. Even if people were able to either buy outright or finance the gains would not be perfect scenario like that article indicates. It is pie in the sky wishing, not reality.

Look at these roofs:
Albuquerque, NM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/A...2!3m1!1s0x87220addd309837b:0xc0d3f8ceb8d9f6fd

El Paso Tx
https://www.google.com/maps/place/E...2!3m1!1s0x86e73f8bc5fe3b69:0xe39184e3ab9d0222

New York NY
https://www.google.com/maps/place/N...2!3m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62

Austin, Tx
https://www.google.com/maps/place/A...2!3m1!1s0x8644b599a0cc032f:0x5d9b464bd469d57a

Google these cities and go to google earth and look at the roofs. What is the reality? It appears many have plenty of solar exposure.

I will let it go now but I don't feel you are looking at this objectively. The article said it could be a viable possibility for many home owners with the current conditions.

Loren

 

[houstonscott]

I can't believe new build isn't all in with PV solar. Solar hot water too. HS

 

[Jim Nelson]

I can't believe new build isn't all in with PV solar. Solar hot water too. HS

Around here it is ,I think it was 2 years ago San Diego county as well as several neighboring counties started requiring it in new home construction. Our home was built in '97 and was ready for both heat and PV in the panel,though not required at that time it saved us quite a bit when we had our systems installed.