quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
But so far based on this conversation, it doesn't sound like a good idea more often than not.

I'm a huge proponent of saving money. I hate to sound evangelical about it, but someone really needs to run their own numbers to determine whether solar can save money or not.

Dismissing the idea out of turn can be a disservice to those who can save real money.

My break even point is 5.5 years at the latest. 4.6 years based on more recent numbers. 3.0 years based on Tesla's most recent projections using my real-time data and time-of-use billing. The numbers will become more accurate as I build up more months of data to work with.

3.0 years for break even, then free power for as many years as the system can physically produce power, seems straightforward enough. The panels are warranted for 25 years to produce 80% of their rated power.

^^^ plus, people seem to be using panel costs which are years out of date.

People may disagree with the amount of research and development money that went into solar, but that money has changed the industry, and like I mentioned you can't use numbers from the past.

Technology / manufacturing methods / yields / efficiency / reliability have all changed.

There’s a bit of hyperbole in the video. Make me want to ask who funded the research.

Based on these last couple posts, it seems solar may be better than I thought based on the posts before it. Investing in capability vs break even point. Good point !

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
There’s a bit of hyperbole in the video. Make me want to ask who funded the research.

I know. His "Laws of Physics" claims in the first 45 seconds of the video have already been disproven. A simple web search shows that.

Like I said before, money went into solar R&D, improvements were made, and the old rules of thumb from a decade ago no longer apply.

That said, solar isn't perfect in all situations, and I don't claim that it is.