Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:40:16 GMT) it happened
wrote in :
ou also have to take into account
the degradation of the system capacity over time.
That would be 80% of capacity I think.
And yes, you could take the kWh price of 25 years ago,
that of today, and draw a line, it will point up,
extrapolate to + 25 years from now ,and you have a value.
The other thing that will help is the inflation, you
can roughly say that money halves in value every 10 years.
This has 2 effects, now, if you did have a loan for the solar
cells, and you pay 2% of your income, in 10 years this will be
only .5 % and in 25 years the amount you have to pay will look
ridiculously low.
From this we can see that borrowing is not a bad idea perhaps.
Also that still leaves you with all the cash you can spend on
other things now.
JP
Your figures are off, and are unrealistic. You said money
halves in value in ten years, yet you mention 2% today
and .5% ten years from now, a factor of 4, not 2.
And using the numbers: 2% of one's salary to pay off a $17K
mortgage over 25 years works out to an annual salary of
$72,000. Most people making that kind of money are at
the high end already, and won't see the same kind of
percentage increases that people starting out will see.
It is unrealistic to think that, on average, people making
$72,000 today will be making $144,000 ten years from now.
If they are already making $72,000, they are also likely
older, (maybe 60 as a guess) and won't live to see the
payback, if it does come.
What is needed to make solar economically viable for the
masses is a drastic reduction in the cost of solar - or
a huge price increase in the cost of utility provided
power. That does not mean that there are no individual
cases today where solar is attractive economically, nor
does it encompass those who can't connect to the grid.
But it's a non-starter for better than 99 percent of the
people who can connect to the grid. The number of
people who are grid connected and are economically ahead
with solar is exceedingly small. Even Solar Guppy, who
clearly has expertise in this area, posts a 16+ year
payback period - and that's without considering mortgage,
degradation, maintenance etc. over time.
Investing in solar today, with the concept of breaking
even 34 years down the road, is an asinine financial
move. Betting on an earlier computed break-even point due
to rising energy cost is damn near a sure thing - but
still an asinine financial move, unless you have some
idea of when the break-even point will be. In most
cases, when you run the numbers, you'd be better off
playing black jack at the casino. At least there you have
a close to 50% chance of winning. For most people who run
the numbers, solar is clearly a no win situation.
I wish proponents of solar would be more like Solar Guppy,
or the guy in california at the site I posted. They lay
it out, based on actual measurements. The guy in California
is WAY ahead of the game, because it would have cost him
about $90,000 to connect to the grid. He itemizes his
entire system - solar, wind, hydro - with the price of
everything. Solar told us his system cost, capability
and price per utility generated kWh, and provides good
info on his site. If you haven't been to their sites,
I recommend taking a look.