4 ms·

IIRC approximately 15%, which is a lower than it was a year ago. Prices range up to 3x the lowest price, with a suggested 2x to be sure of a good quality setup

IIRC approximately 15%, which is a lower than it was a year ago. Prices range up to 3x the lowest price, with a suggested 2x to be sure of a good quality setup and 10 year guarantee (which seems short). However, if you buy a system now and it's 10% cheaper in a year and you would have made say 3.5% on the investment [1] you'll be out 13.5% minus your electricity savings, and that's in 1 year. What about 4-5 years? Won't it be much cheaper then? [1] I've made about 37% this year as a fairly active trader, so every cent means a margin of safety. No solar for me because I need the cash!

roel_v 15y ago
I've made the numbers match (i.e., same cost for PV installation or using power from grid, assuming defensive increases in cost of electricity for the next 15 years - only going up as much as inflation) with a slightly higher subsidy (1000€ subsidy on an installation cost of a little under 12k€, which would only buy an installation that doesn't produce 100% of an average consumption). But when the costs converge this closely then small assumptions can tip the scale one way or the other - one % extra opportunity cost, a converter that needs replacing 5 years earlier, 10% less sunshine in one of the earlier years of the installation's lifespan, ... That said though, when you extrapolate costs of grid electricity of the last 10 years, and base your energy price scenario on that (instead of keeping up with inflation like I did), PV comes out ahead even when taking worst-case scenarios of all other variables. Many people argue that because prices are falling so fast, it doesn't make sense to buy now. But IMO it's much more nuanced than that: - As prices fall, so will subsidies. Already most subsidies are being phased out or decreased. - There is a floor on the prices - in the short term that floor is just below grid parity, in the medium and longer term it will be production limits. I don't think it's rational to assume that prices will keep falling so fast. Many words have been shed on this - I guess only time will tell. That said, like I posted elsewhere here, my parents are getting an ROI of 11% on their panels. That's mighty good for money that can be borrowed under mortgage, and 'green' == cheap mortgages for that matter. (that yield is only because of subsidies though, so it's not really a fair general case comparison).
- recampbell 15y ago
  Why is grid parity the floor? Won't pv suppliers still have to compete with each other?
  - roel_v 15y ago
    In the short term it is - when grid parity is reached, there will be more demand than suppliers will be able to fulfill, and there will be no reason to go lower than just below the cost of traditional electricity. Additionally, it's quite likely that for the first couple of years only a limited number of players will have the tech to produce/deploy at the lowest prices, and as such will effectively (for a while) have a monopoly with no incentives to compete on price. Of course after a few years these situations will change and as more players enter the market (lured in by the high profits of the existing ones...), the downward trend will continue, without the anchoring to 'grid parity' that exists today.

roel_v 15y ago

I've made the numbers match (i.e., same cost for PV installation or using power from grid, assuming defensive increases in cost of electricity for the next 15 years - only going up as much as inflation) with a slightly higher subsidy (1000€ subsidy on an installation cost of a little under 12k€, which would only buy an installation that doesn't produce 100% of an average consumption). But when the costs converge this closely then small assumptions can tip the scale one way or the other - one % extra opportunity cost, a converter that needs replacing 5 years earlier, 10% less sunshine in one of the earlier years of the installation's lifespan, ... That said though, when you extrapolate costs of grid electricity of the last 10 years, and base your energy price scenario on that (instead of keeping up with inflation like I did), PV comes out ahead even when taking worst-case scenarios of all other variables. Many people argue that because prices are falling so fast, it doesn't make sense to buy now. But IMO it's much more nuanced than that: - As prices fall, so will subsidies. Already most subsidies are being phased out or decreased. - There is a floor on the prices - in the short term that floor is just below grid parity, in the medium and longer term it will be production limits. I don't think it's rational to assume that prices will keep falling so fast. Many words have been shed on this - I guess only time will tell. That said, like I posted elsewhere here, my parents are getting an ROI of 11% on their panels. That's mighty good for money that can be borrowed under mortgage, and 'green' == cheap mortgages for that matter. (that yield is only because of subsidies though, so it's not really a fair general case comparison).

recampbell 15y ago
Why is grid parity the floor? Won't pv suppliers still have to compete with each other?
- roel_v 15y ago
  In the short term it is - when grid parity is reached, there will be more demand than suppliers will be able to fulfill, and there will be no reason to go lower than just below the cost of traditional electricity. Additionally, it's quite likely that for the first couple of years only a limited number of players will have the tech to produce/deploy at the lowest prices, and as such will effectively (for a while) have a monopoly with no incentives to compete on price. Of course after a few years these situations will change and as more players enter the market (lured in by the high profits of the existing ones...), the downward trend will continue, without the anchoring to 'grid parity' that exists today.