11 ms·
> The unsubsidized all-in price for buying and installing the panels was $25,525.43... after counting this $6,636.61 tax credit, the subsidized price was $18,88
by swagasaurus-rex 4y ago
> The unsubsidized all-in price for buying and installing the panels was $25,525.43... after counting this $6,636.61 tax credit, the subsidized price was $18,888.82
Looks like a 7 year return on investment after subsidies, 10 years without.
- conjecTech 4y agoSounds great to me. Especially considering you aren't paying any taxes on your returns when they come in the form of deferred costs. That's equivalent to a pre-tax return in the mid-teens. You won't find that in most asset classes these days, and definitely not with the risk profile of solar.
- jjeaff 4y agoEspecially considering most modern panels are expected to still have a good amount of life left in them after 25 years. (80% or more}
- Nathanael_M 4y agoSorry, life after 25 years? That's WAY higher than I thought. That's incredible.
- Filligree 4y agoGenerally you can find the degradation curve in their datasheet, and yes, 80% after 25 years sounds possible. IIRC they fade faster with time, so it might be 50% after 50, but ... that's still pretty good.
- jeffbee 4y agoI don't see anything in the NREL data that suggests panel degradation accelerates. Most of the panels in their data have higher initial degradation, then less in subsequent years. This LG panel seems to be getting stronger as it ages: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81172.pdf#page=28 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81172.pdf#page=28
- tekno45 4y agoyou'll need to supplement with some new panels to account for the loss, but each new panel is more efficient than the one you're "replacing"
- jeffbee 4y agoThe idea that PV panels become trash in a decade is a lie promulgated by oil companies. According to NREL, reputable panels degrade as little as 0.1% per year, which means they will still be above 90% of rated output after 100 years. The trashiest panels NREL has tested degrade at 1.1% per year which would put them at 75% rated capacity in 25 years. https://www.nrel.gov/pv/lifetime.html https://www.nrel.gov/pv/lifetime.html
- Nathanael_M 4y agoThis is very exciting. Does this mean the biggest continuing expense would be batteries if you wanted to self-sustain with solar?
- xenadu02 4y agoThis is standard now. My REC Alpha Pure Black 400 panels are warrantied for 92% at 25 years. The degradation is about 0.25%/yr. Assuming no exponential drop-off it would take >50 years to hit 80%. Essentially no one has had to replace their panels due to degradation losses as of yet (since the vast majority of panels have been installed in the past ~30 years).
- pkulak 4y agoAND considering that replacing only the panels has to be far cheaper than the initial installation, if they do drop too much in 25 years. So long as your roof is still okay, I suppose.
- matwood 4y agoJust bake new panels into the cost of a new roof. It's probably time for both after 25 years.
- lostlogin 4y agoEh? My crappy roof was installed in 1945 and has some life left. What sort of roofing lasts 25 years?
- UncleEntity 4y agoMy parents neighborhood is coming up on 25 years old and they are having to replace the layers under the roof tiles. The tiles themselves will probably last a thousand years but the under layer has a lifetime. They pull off the tiles, replace the waterproof layer and put the tiles back on — apparently takes just a couple days and they get better nails so the tiles don’t fall off during the windy monsoons.
- encoderer 4y agoAsphalt singles
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- frankfrankfrank 4y agoThat is technically true, but why is no one asking how and why his electricity bill is $223 at minimum, plied higher since the bill was only reduced by that amount. Also, “subsidies” are really just a quaint term for “made the working and lower middle class that can’t pay for such exorbitant luxuries pay for it through taxes and inflation”. I’m always a bit confused if seemingly otherwise smart people simply don’t understand something so basic, or if they simply just ignore and don’t want to acknowledge it as if that changes the fact. Guess who else gets subsidies; someone who buys goods out of the truck of a car … wow, such a great deal. Would anyone like to subsidize my next restaurant visit by paying for my entree? No? But making someone unknown working class person pay for my $25,000 solar install through inflation is ok? How about we all just pay for the things we want I stead of making others pay for it? It’s immoral and evil, whether you call it subsidies or something else.
- throwaway6734 4y agoSubsidies exist for many industries
- arrosenberg 4y ago> Would anyone like to subsidize my next restaurant visit by paying for my entree? No? But making someone unknown working class person pay for my $25,000 solar install through inflation is ok? Yes, it obviously is ok? Your next restaurant meal doesn't have a broad impact on the world we live in, whereas the deployment of solar panels does.
- unixlikeposting 4y agomaybe that poster is a vegan locavore
- kube-system 4y agoYour restaurant visit is quite subsidized. Notably, both the labor and the materials used are heavily subsidized.
- malfist 4y ago
- atonalfreerider 4y agoI'm not affiliated, but Solar Wholesale is a DIY that can be 1/4 the cost of hiring a contractor: https://www.solarwholesale.com https://www.solarwholesale.com Even the wiring is DIY. Most people think this requires a lot of skill, but you are just adding an input to your panel board on your house.
- Dries007 4y agoUnfortunately where I live (Belgium), this kind of options result in a disqualification of any subsidy. They always require that the install is done by a pro with some certificate (even though DIYing electrics is actually legal here). I understand that there are reasons for this, but as someone with the qualifications but not the certification, I hate that I have to pay someone else to do things like this.
- jwineinger 4y agoIf the DIY discount (minus your time and risk) is greater than the subsidy, then doesn't it still makes sense to DIY?
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoIs this for 100% detachment from the grid? Otherwise you need to add cutoffs so you don't kill a lineman, right? Is that a DIY thing?
- mrguyorama 4y agoDifferent states have different rules but in some states you can just put a new breaker in your box that connects the solar output to the rest of your house and a mechanical interlock (literally a stamped piece of metal) that prevents both the main breaker and solar breaker being closed at the same time.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoAh, OK, so that would work for the "simple" systems, but not the ones where you can feed power back into the grid and get a credit.
- whycombagator 4y agoI never usually see it factored in as a cost but if a roof is replaced or a leak forms under the panels (or a panel) then the cost of removing/re-installing the panel(s) surely isn’t free. So that cost should also be included
- 1123581321 4y agoThere is typically a ten year warranty on the installation that covers leaks. An installer checks for roof age as part of qualification so you don't put panels on a roof that will age out before the panel warranty (typically 20 years, sometimes 25.) Roof leaks that are accidental are covered by insurance, and the work to remove or replace the panels is part of that. Typically you adjust your home insurance coverage by the value of the panels when you install them to make sure everything's covered. That just leaves the chance that the installer work will be good enough to make it ten years but not twenty, and the insurance won't cover the damage. I don't know the odds of that. It seems like it would be infrequent, but what numbers do you use?
- whycombagator 4y agoI don’t use any numbers. Just wanted to point out there is slightly more to it than the upfront cost. As with anything there is an associated maintenance cost that is variable depending on circumstance. To be clear I think solar panels can be a great idea, but it’s misleading to present only a single upfront cost when determining the years to break even
- 1123581321 4y agoI understand. It's not bad to keep in mind (I made a spreadsheet with anticipated expenses before I got my panels), but I think it can be more misleading to dwell on small risks than not to if it keeps someone from buying an asset with a good lifetime ROI for most people.
- manimino 4y agoCleaning panels also needs to happen periodically. That cost can be in the thousands, especially if your roof is hard to access (e.g. high off the ground). There are so many ways a rooftop solar installation investment can turn against you. If regulations change, your net metering goes away. If electricity prices drop, your ROI goes negative. Rooftop solar is a fun enthusiast project, but it's a lousy use of solar panels. Community solar or utility solar projects are far better for homeowners. And for the environment. The only reason people do it is that there are artificial incentives; it's not actually efficient in reality.
- chongli 4y ago7-10 years to break even. If the panels last 15 years you'll see a net return of $21,416 on investment of $18,888. If they last 25 years, that net return grows to $48,186. In either case it works out to an annual rate of return of 5%, assuming electricity prices stay the same (BIG ASSUMPTION) and also assuming the weather doesn't change to get cloudier or more violent (also a big assumption).
- wedn3sday 4y agoI agree its a big assumption to assume that electricity prices will stay the same, my assumption is that electricity price increases will significantly outpace inflation.
- brianbreslin 4y agoWhat's the math if we see annual electricity price increases? we've seen 2 hikes of 10-20% in the last 18 months here in Florida. Making me consider solar sooner rather than later.
- chongli 4y agoIf the savings is $2677 on year 8 (first year of profits after paying off the initial investment) and then increases 10% every year after that, the net return is $33675. This works out to an annual return of 7%, a considerable improvement! The same calculation with annual rate increases of 20% yields a net return of $53002 and an annual return of 9%.
- shostack 4y agoIs net return all that matters? Seems like with increasing heat waves, power outages etc, being able to generate and store your own electricity has value from a resiliency standpoint.
- kibwen 4y agoNote that merely having solar panels on your house doesn't automatically let you run your house off of the panels in the event that the grid goes down. Firstly, if you're connected to the grid, then a single house trying to push power into a downed grid would be like trying to refill the ocean with a super soaker. Even with lots of houses doing it, the frequency would be wildly unstable at best and cause damage to equipment. Secondly, it poses dangers for lineworkers who are probably trying to resolve the outage, by putting surprise voltage into wires. It's certainly possible to have a solar installation that does let you disconnect from the grid, but it requires extra hardware (including a battery backup).
- agilob 4y ago>Looks like a 7 year return on investment after subsidies, 10 years without. Price of electricity more than tripled in some EU countries in the last few years. Prices going up and OP reducing consumption will work towards reducing ROI period.