3 ms·
Ah, sorry. Yeah, I must have misremembered "20 years" from the first quote below. Doesn't materially change my argument, I think. Another important point, in m
by CompelTechnic 8y ago
Ah, sorry. Yeah, I must have misremembered "20 years" from the first quote below. Doesn't materially change my argument, I think.
Another important point, in my opinion, is the cost given in the second quote below is a fair cost. $6000 over 20 years is an average cost of $300 per year. If you are purchasing 2016-era installed solar, knowing that it is a less cost-effective form of electricity generation than conventional means, an amortized (predicted) cost of $300 per year is fair. Refusing to pay this and still claiming to "be willing to pay a little extra to help the planet" is hypocritical.
>I got ahold of a copy of Jug’s contract, and quickly saw how Sunrun could afford to extend such an offer. It lasted 20 years. The payments escalated annually by 2.9 percent—they’d be 72 percent higher by 2036. The tax credit was worth at least $5,000.
>If Southern California Edison's residential rates continue to rise annually by 2.2 percent, as they have on average over the last decade, Jug's total electricity outlay having gone solar would have cost about $6,000 more over 20 years.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoYou're mixing up two different sets of numbers here. $6,000 is the extra amount that Jug would have paid after being sold the solar installation as a way to save a lot of money over the next 20 years. The author, who was willing to pay a little more to save the environment, would have been paying an extra $30/month from the start, before the annual increases started widening the gap. Their bills without the solar started at $30/month, so this would start out doubling their bill and increase from there.