Tesla Solar Panels Price Cut

[Cares]

Plus the roi doesn?t make sense. If you ask a business to buy a machine they don?t really need and it might take 8-15 years to break even. (Factoring the battery cost, to get the true bang out of solar.)

Most likely the business won?t get the machine that they really don?t need.

Just say you want to be more green.

You keep saying that...Business love stability...solar power gives them that.  They don't have worry about power disruptions, changing rates, and have the potential to scale up whenever they like.    They can also sell the use of solar to their customers...a ton of commercial builders tout how green their buildings are...they can even offer power/energy credits to their customers.

California also has a cap and trade system...shifting to solar power helps businesses reduce their carbon footprint.

My office just installed a HUGE solar array plus got like 50x Tesla commercial version of their Powerwalls.

 

[eyephone]

Plus the roi doesn?t make sense. If you ask a business to buy a machine they don?t really need and it might take 8-15 years to break even. (Factoring the battery cost, to get the true bang out of solar.)

Most likely the business won?t get the machine that they really don?t need.

Just say you want to be more green.

You keep saying that...Business love stability...solar power gives them that.  They don't have worry about power disruptions, changing rates, and have the potential to scale up whenever they like.    They can also sell the use of solar to their customers...a ton of commercial builders tout how green their buildings are...they can even offer power/energy credits to their customers.

California also has a cap and trade system...shifting to solar power helps businesses reduce their carbon footprint.

Just use the concept of 8-15 years of break even point. Machine equipment that they don?t need.

You are stretching it again.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Plus the roi doesn?t make sense. If you ask a business to buy a machine they don?t really need and it might take 8-15 years to break even. (Factoring the battery cost, to get the true bang out of solar.)

Most likely the business won?t get the machine that they really don?t need.

Just say you want to be more green.

You keep saying that...Business love stability...solar power gives them that.  They don't have worry about power disruptions, changing rates, and have the potential to scale up whenever they like.    They can also sell the use of solar to their customers...a ton of commercial builders tout how green their buildings are...they can even offer power/energy credits to their customers.

California also has a cap and trade system...shifting to solar power helps businesses reduce their carbon footprint.

Just use the concept of 8-15 years of break even point. Machine equipment that they don?t need.

You are stretching it again.

Because there are a lot of things businesses consider beyond straight ROI.

Solar?s changing economics are already influencing business consumption and investment. In consumption, a number of companies with large physical footprints and high power costs are installing commercial-scale rooftop solar systems, often at less than the current price of buying power from a utility. For example, Wal-Mart Stores has stated that it will switch to 100 percent renewable power by 2020, up from around 20 percent today. Mining and defense companies are looking to solar in remote and demanding environments. In the hospitality sector, Starwood Hotels and Resorts has partnered with NRG Solar to begin installing solar at its hotels. Verizon is spending $100 million on solar and fuel-cell technology to power its facilities and cell-network infrastructure. Why are companies doing such things? To diversify their energy supply, save money, and appeal to consumers. These steps are preliminary, but if they work, solar initiatives could scale up fast.

As for investment, solar?s long-term contracts and relative insulation from fuel-price fluctuations are proving increasingly attractive. The cost of capital also is falling. Institutional investors, insurance companies, and major banks are becoming more comfortable with the risks (such as weather uncertainty and the reliability of components) associated with long-term ownership of solar assets. Accordingly, investors are more and more willing to underwrite long-term debt positions for solar, often at costs of capital lower than those of traditional project finance.

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-f...ights/the-disruptive-potential-of-solar-power

There is a reason why airlines lock in fuel prices for like 10 year windows...it may not be the cheapest but it provides stability.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I guess these companies don't know any better:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/28/10-massive-corporations-going-big-on-solar-power.html

Storage, not installation of panels, has always been the biggest issue for renewable energy because they are dependent on natural elements and thus you can't just turn them on whenever you like.  But that becomes less and less of an issue in recent years.

Li-ion technology has greatly improved but the future has so many potential options.
https://www.saftbatteries.com/media...three-battery-technologies-could-power-future
https://archpaper.com/2018/11/energy-vault-gravity-powered-battery-35-ton-concrete-blocks/
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries...uture-of-commercial-battery-storage-is-bright

 

[eyephone]

So let?s talk about companies going solar. They will save money. Is there break even point 8-15 years? Probably not.

 

[Cares]

So let?s talk about companies going solar. They will save money. Is there break even point 8-15 years? Probably not.

Wait why would you say there isn't a break even in 8-15 years? All solar projects will have an eventual break even point probably less than 10 years at the current cost of panels.

My personal home system being quoted is between 5-6 years.

 

[eyephone]

I think your solar threat is outrages and you won?t adress the points. Your bringing water consumption reduction and comparing it to solar. This is starting to waste my time.

 

[Kings]

companies have even more incentive to go solar and it will generally pay back quicker than residential homeowners because companies can take advantage of 100% depreciation in the first year.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

So let?s talk about companies going solar. They will save money. Is there break even point 8-15 years? Probably not.

Energy has always been a cost...so the ability to stabilize costs while there is a future for it no longer being a cost are incredibly attractive.

It would be like comparing leasing versus buying a car...yes you can pay less now but with buying, you have an end date to those payments.  Plenty of people  keep their cars beyond the 5-7 years it takes to break even.

 

[eyephone]

So let?s talk about companies going solar. They will save money. Is there break even point 8-15 years? Probably not.

Wait why would you say there isn't a break even in 8-15 years? All solar projects will have an eventual break even point probably less than 10 years at the current cost of panels.

My personal home system being quoted is between 5-6 years.

But if you add the Tesla wall battery or 2 another $7k x 2 = $14k. (Is that including installation and warranty?)

For optimal performance. That what I hear. What do I know? But it make sense that you use the energy from the day to night and that you don?t have to use the electric company during night.

 

[eyephone]

companies have even more incentive to go solar and it will generally pay back quicker than residential homeowners because companies can take advantage of 100% depreciation in the first year.

Exactly

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I think your solar threat is outrages and you won?t adress the points. Your bringing water consumption reduction and comparing it to solar. This is starting to waste my time.

There are these things call batteries.

I feel like you believe companies/people only work on a spreadsheet level, when in reality there are a lot of important factors to consider for both people and businesses when they make decisions. 

I was talking about California's mandates on those issues...in fact, the mandate to reduce water has been much more draconian.  State actually mandated that cities reduces their usage by specific percentage over the last few years...they have also imposed water restrictions on various businesses while allowing water rates and incentives to convince people to reduce water consumption.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...eduction-in-water-usage-statewide/?redirect=1
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05...anent-water-conservation-rules-with-new-laws/
https://www.kqed.org/science/1915327/drought-rules-lone-gone-yet-california-keeps-saving-water

We all seem to be doing okay.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

This was the exact same discussion that people had about car emission and fuel standards that California put into place.  It will be too expensive, too burdensome, and technologically impossible.

If the air quality arguments for tough rules today mimic those of 1967, so do the arguments for regulatory restraint. ?I was distressed to learn that the Senate Public Works Committee has voted approval of an air pollution bill that would require that 1975-model cars have a 90 per cent reduction in emissions from 1970 models,? wrote General Motors? president E.M. Cole to the Senate in September, 1970. ?As ?you may recall, in our meeting Aug. 25 I stated that General Motors does not at this time know how to get production vehicles down to the emission levels that your bill would require for 1975 models, ? he continued. ?Accomplishment of these goals, as far as we now know, simply is not technologically possible within the time frame required.?

Technically, Cole was right, in that it took a few years longer to reach the EPA?s mandate, But it was far from impossible. GM cars eventually met the emission standards of the 1970 Clean Air Act a couple of years later.

When the new federal standards were being proposed, according to a 1973 research paper by Congressional Quarterly, ?The Society of Automotive Engineers predicted that,? ? at a time when the average car cost less than $5,000 ? ?catalytic converters could add $860 to the price and operating costs of 1976 models, compared with 1970 models.? But a 2004 study done for the Air Resources Board by Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Davis found that eight cost analyses showed that, at most, the per-car price increase was half that amount. Like Cole?s prediction, the automotive engineers? warning was significantly exaggerated.

https://earth.stanford.edu/news/cal...ns-fight-continues-50-year-struggle#gs.dl9rce

That was clearly wrong by a lot.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

When new home prices go up for no reason, you don't look at ROI.

So when solar is getting added to a new home (at additional cost), why would you consider ROI?

For existing homes, and you do kitchen/bath renovation, ROI is only considered if you sell and then even at that, you have no idea if it was due to appreciation or whatever.

If you do solar, not only do you protect yourself against rising utility costs, but it also allows you to save money on gas consumption if you are also driving an EV. To me that's a better "ROI"... and you can run your AC more often.

Because solar is a reduction of utility use, I'm not sure you can apply just an ROI argument to it.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

When new home prices go up for no reason, you don't look at ROI.

So when solar is getting added to a new home (at additional cost), why would you consider ROI?

For existing homes, and you do kitchen/bath renovation, ROI is only considered if you sell and then even at that, you have no idea if it was due to appreciation or whatever.

If you do solar, not only do you protect yourself against rising utility costs, but it also allows you to save money on gas consumption if you are also driving an EV. To me that's a better "ROI"... and you can run your AC more often.

Because solar is a reduction of utility use, I'm not sure you can apply just an ROI argument to it.

Yeah...I don't understand the argument.  The ROI for kitchen/bathroom remodel decreases as you go away from the remodel.  If you remodel just before you sell, you can see good ROI but you would get next to no ROI if your remodel was 5 to 7 year prior.  You may enjoy your bathroom or kitchen more but it is basically utilitarian return, not financial.

With solar panels...your ROI is immediate.  You are already paying for power so that cost is immediately eliminate...that elimination of cost is at least 10-20 years in length.  So you can actually calculate the return as you go along.

 

[eyephone]

Call it what you want ROI or break even analysis. Ask the TI members that got solar or researching solar. They know what I?m talking about.

When new home prices go up for no reason, you don't look at ROI.

So when solar is getting added to a new home (at additional cost), why would you consider ROI?

For existing homes, and you do kitchen/bath renovation, ROI is only considered if you sell and then even at that, you have no idea if it was due to appreciation or whatever.

If you do solar, not only do you protect yourself against rising utility costs, but it also allows you to save money on gas consumption if you are also driving an EV. To me that's a better "ROI"... and you can run your AC more often.

Because solar is a reduction of utility use, I'm not sure you can apply just an ROI argument to it.

 

[Cares]

I hope the smart folks here don't confuse ROI and break even analysis...

My solar will provide a 18.4% ROI with 5.2 year break even. Better than S&P500 off the bat. Considering I'm hedged against rising cost of utility too.

 

[eyephone]

I hope the smart folks here don't confuse ROI and break even analysis...

Good point you brought it up. Does it add value to your home? Can you get more rent? With your example for renting. It did not. House in Cerritos and a good school district. (Isn?t Whitney HS ranked higher than high schools in Irvine?)  I really don?t know if you can sell your house and ask for more.

Break even analysis: How many years would it take me to recover the cost of the whole system? (the amount you pay a month times 12 month) Also, inclide the cost of batrrry backup for optimal performance. (You need power windows for your car. Wink)


Fail grade to MAXROI and fail to break even on the amount of time it will take to recover the cost with the solar battery back up)

 

[Cares]

I already said that the rent I was asking was at a premium already. Like I mentioned I rented at a price that breaks even PITI with only 25% equity. In the Irvine market, I have more than 50% equity in my home and I wouldn't be able to rent break even. So my tenants "low balling" me is a misnomer. They low balled what I was asking but they are still paying high rent.

Inherently it adds value to the home. The only question is if the market is willing to pay a premium for it. Probably not. If you were comparing 2 homes that were alike though, I would easily go for the home with solar even paying a premium. Especially if I can roll the cost of it into my home financing.

A battery does very little in southern California. Grid reliability is pretty high so it takes out the value proposition for many about having redundancy. It leaves the only true benefit for load shifting. Unfortunately with new SCE TOU rates the difference between peak and off-peak is so small that load shifting has small marginal benefit. So I don't know where you got the thought that you have to have a backup battery for maximum effectiveness. Solar panels by themselves are very cost effective alone.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I already said that the rent I was asking was at a premium already. Like I mentioned I rented at a price that breaks even PITI with only 25% equity. In the Irvine market, I have more than 50% equity in my home and I wouldn't be able to rent break even. So my tenants "low balling" me is a misnomer. They low balled what I was asking but they are still paying high rent.

Inherently it adds value to the home. The only question is if the market is willing to pay a premium for it. Probably not. If you were comparing 2 homes that were alike though, I would easily go for the home with solar even paying a premium. Especially if I can roll the cost of it into my home financing.

A battery does very little in southern California. Grid reliability is pretty high so it takes out the value proposition for many about having redundancy. It leaves the only true benefit for load shifting. Unfortunately with new SCE TOU rates the difference between peak and off-peak is so small that load shifting has small marginal benefit. So I don't know where you got the thought that you have to have a backup battery for maximum effectiveness. Solar panels by themselves are very cost effective alone.

I'm doing it because my peak panel capacity may not be sufficient to meet my needs so I would like some level of hedge but if you have the roof space..adding a few more panels adds very little in the overall cost.

Also...with all the new homes having solar as a norm...having a resale with solar could make it more comparable, especially with people who already have EV cars.