GE pushing into the solar industry.

[Darwin333]

Not even close. With only the $30,000 and a modest 3% annual inflation, its cost is closer to $170/month.

At $45,000 you're over $250 per month.

If you are looking at it as a financial decision, it fails every time.

20-25% year over year return on investment in my state. If that is "fail" then find me a "win".

BTW, why would you not include inflation in the cost of energy which has been, and is projected to be, higher than the modest 3% you include? Best case scenario for your argument is that they offset each other.

Unless of course you think our costs of energy are going to go down anytime soon, if so I would really like to hear your theory on that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Is there some kind of figure, statistics, or research on household solar panel use?
I'm pretty sure the majority of households aren't breaking even on their investment(even after you include subsidization).

Solar panels also seems to have the "flash memory" depreciating effect.
Efficiency is improving very fast(but it's still not at a good enough level yet)...It would be stupid for me to put $30k cash down and a year later there's a 20% efficiency improvement over previous models. Leasing seems stupid because at the end of the day, you won't own the panels.

In San Francisco the payback time is about 5 years for a 3.5 KW system.

 

[Moonbeam]

And?

I don't disagree with subsidies, I disagree with subsidies that do nothing or fail to produce something. Those subsidies that you brought up fulfill our energy needs. Solar can't do this, yet. Someday it will and solar subsidies will be productive then.

What the hell is the matter with you? As soon as Solar can compete with subsidized energy we should subsidize it. Hehehehehehe

 

[Moonbeam]

If the costs of solar could not come down then you would have a point. Part of the problem has been supply and demand. If the production were to increase combined with lower cost production technologies already possible then the costs shoot downwards. As far as batteries go, yes if you are completely off the grid then you are going to have to deal with them, however we have possible alternatives even there. It's a matter of bring them to market and if that's substantial then it's far more likely come sooner and cheaper.

Big advance recently in membrane charge storage, better than liquid batteries and better than capacitance batteries and way way way cheeper. Found the link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110929074021.htm

Somebody else came up with a new solar cell that gets almost the efficiency of silicon wafer but uses amorphous silicon also with a big savings in cost.

 

[charrison]

The longer the cells are in use the lower the output will become. It is a fact of the technology and nothing found so far can change that. You may think that 80% after year 25 is great but that also means you have to overbuild your original install or add more capacity as the panels age.

The problem with solar panels is the materials they are made from was in strong demand before solar panels became an industry. Now that the green crowd thinks it is free energy the cost for those materials is even more because panel manufacturers increased demand for the materials.

Anyone considering solar , go to the site for planning a solar system and let it calculate what it cost to equal what you use now.http://www.solar-estimate.org/

For me it is:
564 square feet of roof space
5.64KW /hour capacity in panels
$45,000 to install
normal cost of my util is $125 per month.

The only way they can make it appear reasonable is by tossing in government rebates of $25K.

without that is $45,000 /125 = 30 Years


I have been into alternative energy for 20+ years. I was here when they started the whole solar water heating craze, what a disaster that was. Hot water for 10 minutes unless you live in the hottest places on earth.

The only viable, low cost means for green power is water, wind, geothermal.

For wind I can do my home for $25K with no government funds needed.

This is what I dont understand about govt subsidy. What is the goal of these energy subsiidies? Are the to increase power production or decrease pollution?

If it is decrease pollution it is not money well spent. I just replaced my aging heat pump for $4500 and it should cut my kilowatt usage by 1/2 if my math is correct. If the goat is to cut emission it seems there are far better ways to do it spending 30k to make one house go solar.

ANd for solar residential is also a waste of money. The solar subsidies would get more punch in the commercial areas where some economies of scale can be built into the process.

Of course is there anything out govt does that makes any sense what so ever?