5 ms·
How long ago did you hear that it would take 15-20 years to break even? When I had solar installed on my house in Seattle back in 2013, they estimated it would
by marssaxman 2y ago
How long ago did you hear that it would take 15-20 years to break even? When I had solar installed on my house in Seattle back in 2013, they estimated it would take seven years, but it was actually closer to six. Equipment is only cheaper and better now.
- xbmcuser 2y agoSolar + battery not just solar
- marssaxman 2y agoAh! Yes, that would be a whole different equation.
- zonkerdonker 2y agoI'm looking at getting a few panels installed as well, as my roof needs re-shingled and the bundled price seems like a good deal. What company did you go with? Are they still operating? Ive heard thats an issue with some of the smaller/local installers
- marssaxman 2y agoI used A&R Solar (https://www.a-rsolar.com/ https://www.a-rsolar.com/), and had such a good experience I recommended them to all of my friends. The company seemed to have some growth issues - friends who hired them two years later were less impressed - but that was a good while ago now and they're certainly still in business.
- zonkerdonker 2y agoAwesome! Thanks for the lead, I'll check em out. Seems likely to be a rush next year to reap the federal incentives before the upcoming admiistration likely guts them
- blitzar 2y agoEquipment is cheaper and better now + the price of electricity / gas is higher.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoHeavily depends on labor market, costs, and subsidies. I dont think I can make the numbers work out in the Bay Area. Panels are cheap but maybe 10% of the total price.
- SoftTalker 2y agoYep panel costs are falling, maybe close to bottom by now, but everything else (labor and supplies) is going up. Panels are no longer the driver of a solar project cost.
- slavik81 2y agoThe payback period is something like 20 years to break even for the 10 kW worth of panels I am installing on my home this spring in Alberta.
- opo 2y agoWhen utilities are required to do net metering (i.e. buy power whenever it is produced at essentially the retail rate rather than buy what they need at the wholesale rate) it is a huge unsustainable subsidy to wealthier homeowners paid for by the less wealthy. It's free riding on the reliability provided by the grid, putting large costs on the less well off. As these costs grew, that has also provided an incentive for consumer solar installations to increase. As the statista.com report says >...Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 117 and 282 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour. https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz... Looks like that report is a year old, but I doubt the installation costs have really gone down much since then. (Panel prices come down, but labor costs, etc don't.) Providing the infrastructure and reliability of the grid is very expensive, so there is a huge difference between the wholesale costs and retail rates for delivered electricity. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much further than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar.