4 ms·
To be fair, the cost of solar panels at the time you were considering them was what it was. Someone needed to pay for them. If that someone is Sunrun, they need
by macspoofing 8y ago
To be fair, the cost of solar panels at the time you were considering them was what it was. Someone needed to pay for them. If that someone is Sunrun, they need to recoup those cost and make a return. You can be as creative as you want with the financing, that reality won't change. You could have gotten a bank loan too.
- CydeWeys 8y agoNo, someone did not need to pay for them. That's not how the market works. If no one is willing to pay the listed price then the product goes unsold. Sunrun has no right to paying customers at any arbitrary price level, same as any other business.
- eecc 8y agoAnd that’s why markets end up stuck in local minima. Unless you consider government subsidies, which is a way to collectively share the burden of overcoming temporary obstacles.
- erobbins 8y agoIt doesn't go unsold, everyone pays via subsidies.
- chii 8y agoWhy can't the business suffer losses instead of everyone pay subsidies?
- j16sdiz 8y agoBecause public traded business must be greedy in America. They will be sued by share holder of they are not greedy.
- alasdair_ 8y ago>Why can't the business suffer losses instead of everyone pay subsidies? Because the old model of coal power plants makes people pay in other ways (pollution). Subsidies are reasonable if it means that the negative externalities are diminished.
- briandear 8y agoSo let’s subsidize nuclear instead. Far more efficient than millions of people buying solar panels. Properly designed nuclear is proven technology.
- passivepinetree 8y agoYou’re creating a bit of a false dichotomy here. There’s absolutely methods and reason to subsidize both forms of power. Both would be a vast improvement over coal/petroleum.
- petrocrat 8y agoLet's do both.
- briandear 8y agoBecause it’s politically popular to subsidize anointed industries.
- rrauenza 8y agoIt's not their price I'm complaining about -- it's their financial break even model they pushed claiming huge increases in public utility rates -- which didn't seem realistic given recent history. It's in line with their scare tactics and emotional push.
- jsight 8y agoYou aren't wrong, but, unfortunately a lot of consumers weren't aware of the real costs and were misled by companies offering these kinds of deals. I feel like it has done a lot of damage that is going to cost the residential solar industry a lot of money over the coming years.
- oarsinsync 8y ago> You aren't wrong, but, unfortunately a lot of consumers weren't aware of the real costs and were misled by companies offering these kinds of deals This is the same model mobile phones have operated on in many countries for many years. Up front costs are subsidised by the carrier, who then proceeds to gouge you over the 12-24 month term to recoup that cost + a return. > I feel like it has done a lot of damage that is going to cost the residential solar industry a lot of money over the coming years. Possibly, given that the term lengths and financial costs are significantly higher. Unfortunately, the basic model itself is generally appreciated unless you've got the funds to pay up front. More unfortunate is that most people do not have the funds, so accept this trade off and move on.
- jsight 8y agoA loan is a better option than a lease, IMO. The terms are generally less obfuscated with loan agreements as well.