Tell me why PV systems are not a scam

Status
Not open for further replies.
peter d said:
Yes, I am against all subsidies completely. If you can't compete on the free market without help from the government, you don't deserve to exist.
Click to expand...

The thing is, the government is us. Things that are for the common good are wise expenditures, IMO. If, for example, road and bridge building had to depend on the free market (which, by the way, is a misnomer; the "free market" doesn't really exist) for funding, we'd still be driving on worn tracks in the dirt and going around bodies of water. Either that, or every highway and city street would be a toll road.

That's all I am going to say on the matter; anything more would likely put the thread in danger of being shut down.
 
Last edited:
peter d said:
Yes, I am against all subsidies completely. If you can't compete on the free market without help from the government, you don't deserve to exist.
Click to expand...
Free markets are great when the price of something reflects all of its effects. If an activity has effects not captured in its price, there's no way for the market to take into account those effects. This will cause some market participants to be harmed while others benefit, unfairly.

Cheers, Wayne
 
K8MHZ said:
Although no single aspect of what you posted kills the solar paybacks, it's the combination of them that does it.
Click to expand...

No, it's really all about the one factor you still haven't mentioned: ELECTRICITY PRICES.

A picture is worth a 1000 words though. You made my point with your picture of California. In California, a land of sunshine, solar is viable and people use the systems. Where I live, nada. The better the payback, the more people will use them. Since there is nearly no payback in my area, people aren't buying them.
Click to expand...

The sunshine, as discussed above, is a 22% difference. The electricity prices are about a 250% difference.

If there is one thing I want lurkers to get out of this thread, it is NOT TO FOCUS ON SUNSHINE AND TREES. A lot of people in places like NY and MA will miss out if they think that is a legitimate reason not to go solar in their area.
 
ggunn said:
The thing is, the government is us. Things that are for the common good are wise expenditures, IMO. If, for example, road and bridge building had to depend on the free market (which, by the way, is a misnomer; the "free market" doesn't really exist) for funding, we'd still be driving on worn tracks in the dirt and going around bodies of water. Either that, or every highway and city street would be a toll road.

That's all I am going to say on the matter; anything more would likely put the thread in danger of being shut down.
Click to expand...

The government is not "us" anymore.

wwhitney said:
Free markets are great when the price of something reflects all of its effects. If an activity has effects not captured in its price, there's no way for the market to take into account those effects. This will cause some market participants to be harmed while others benefit, unfairly.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. PV would not be viable without subsidies. That is a fact. Remove the subsidies and the PV industry dies instantly.
 
jaggedben said:
No, it's really all about the one factor you still haven't mentioned: ELECTRICITY PRICES.



The sunshine, as discussed above, is a 22% difference. The electricity prices are about a 250% difference.

If there is one thing I want lurkers to get out of this thread, it is NOT TO FOCUS ON SUNSHINE AND TREES. A lot of people in places like NY and MA will miss out if they think that is a legitimate reason not to go solar in their area.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did mention electricity prices. I am paying, taxes included, 15 cents per kWh.

So there is only a 22% difference in sunshine between California and Western Michigan? I seriously doubt that.

And not considering sunshine when considering buying a solar system? What else would be the consideration? How does one do an ROI without considering sunshine and trees?
 
wwhitney said:
If an activity has effects not captured in its price, there's no way for the market to take into account those effects. This will cause some market participants to be harmed while others benefit, unfairly.
Click to expand...

peter d said:
I couldn't disagree more.
Click to expand...
With the statement of mine I quoted above? That statement is not-PV specific, it's a basic result of economics. The electricity market is far from a free market, and my statement above certainly holds true in the electricity market.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of free markets. There just are not very many truly free markets. If a social problem can be addressed by creating a free market with all of the costs properly internalized, I'm all for it.

Cheers, Wayne
 
peter d said:
I couldn't disagree more. PV would not be viable without subsidies. That is a fact. Remove the subsidies and the PV industry dies instantly.
Click to expand...

In the first place, it's nowhere near that simple, and in the second place, so what? The rail system could not exist without public support. Should we do away with it?

There is no such thing as a "free market". Every market that exists is manipulated by moneyed special interest groups.
 
Last edited:
Solar is subsidized. It would be LESS viable without the subsidies, but let's stay away from absolutes ("not viable at all").

Is the the electricity market a free market? If so, how can large utility monopolies exist? It does not seem like a free market.

Free market would be best.

Instead we have pre-existing utility monopolies with privileges granted by gov't......that are now being forcibly taken down a notch by net-metering laws and required solar feed-in tariffs.
I do not like this situation. I don't like either side of it.

A note: perhaps the largest "subsidy" is the 30% federal tax credit. To most free market advocates, a tax credit is regarded as YOUR money being returned to you, and not a subsidy from other taxpayer's money. It does skew the market, but is regarded as a very free market idea.
Just like the home mortgage interest deduction. I am guessing all of you take that.

In reality the largest incentive is the law that requires utilities to take your solar power, and credit you for it on your bill. Without this, there is no solar grid-tie. Regardless of prices, electricity rates and insolation.
Forcing the utility to take your solar power is anti free market and without it I guess 1% as many would install independent, off grid battery based systems for whole homes. I have buil tthem and understand their limitations, MAINTENANCE and high cost.

The situation is what it is. A morass of laws and regs. I do not support them. I did not vote for them. I do see the incentives and I take them.

As i have developed from gnashing my teeth about environmental destruction to what i feel is a more realistic and optimistic view of the future, these heavy handed tactics bother me more.
Yet, I feel taking advantage of the incentives is just like going to a state school and paying in-state tuition.

One thing is absolutely sure: i do provide exactly the power and savings promised to my customers. Usually a bit more.
 
ggunn said:
In the first place, it's nowhere near that simple, and in the second place, so what? The rail system could not exist without public support. Should we do away with it?

There is no such thing as a "free market". Every market that exists is manipulated by moneyed special interest groups.
Click to expand...

well, yes we should work towards the direction of making it more free and competitive.
 
Zee said:
well, yes we should work towards the direction of making it more free and competitive.
Click to expand...

I do not agree that a "free market" is best for everyone. I think that maybe the closest thing to a free market we have in the US is the illegal drug trade.
 
K8MHZ said:
This is what I remembered:

"I think that I shall never see a billboard lovely as a tree. Perhaps, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all."

-Ogden Nash
Click to expand...
I believe I read that in Mad magazine years ago.
 
K8MHZ said:
Actually, I did mention electricity prices. I am paying, taxes included, 15 cents per kWh.

So there is only a 22% difference in sunshine between California and Western Michigan? I seriously doubt that.

And not considering sunshine when considering buying a solar system? What else would be the consideration? How does one do an ROI without considering sunshine and trees?
Click to expand...

Please go back and re-read what I've already wrote. The 22% sunshine difference is based on weather station data for my area and yours. I can't take your subjective doubts seriously. (BTW California is also a huge state with several different climates, and the 22% was for Northern California, as was the map capture I posted.)

As stated above, sunshine does not vary across the US as much as do policies and electricity prices. See Arizona vs. New Mexico solar industries.

At 15cents per kWh solar would be cheaper. Even with your bad Michigan weather and trees, the levelized cost of solar electricity would be around 11-12cents. But that only translates into an investment that pays back if 15 cents is what you'd get paid for exporting to the grid.
 
jaggedben said:
Please go back and re-read what I've already wrote. The 22% sunshine difference is based on weather station data for my area and yours. I can't take your subjective doubts seriously. (BTW California is also a huge state with several different climates, and the 22% was for Northern California, as was the map capture I posted.)

As stated above, sunshine does not vary across the US as much as do policies and electricity prices. See Arizona vs. New Mexico solar industries.

At 15cents per kWh solar would be cheaper. Even with your bad Michigan weather and trees, the levelized cost of solar electricity would be around 11-12cents. But that only translates into an investment that pays back if 15 cents is what you'd get paid for exporting to the grid.
Click to expand...

Did you even pay attention to the fact that K8MHZ spends $528 PER YEAR on electricity? Tell me how at nearly any price, let alone $0.15/kW-hr, with that usage he can get an ROI less than about infinity? I spend about $2,000/yr on electricity so you'd have a fighting chance in my case, especially since NJ has one of the most generous solar programs.
 
gadfly56 said:
Did you even pay attention to the fact that K8MHZ spends $528 PER YEAR on electricity? Tell me how at nearly any price, let alone $0.15/kW-hr, with that usage he can get an ROI less than about infinity? I spend about $2,000/yr on electricity so you'd have a fighting chance in my case, especially since NJ has one of the most generous solar programs.
Click to expand...

I don't think electrical usage effects ROI much. If someone has a small electric bill then they only need a small solar system. Sure there are economies of scale but probably not much difference per watt between 5k system and 15k system.
 
electrofelon said:
I don't think electrical usage effects ROI much. If someone has a small electric bill then they only need a small solar system. Sure there are economies of scale but probably not much difference per watt between 5k system and 15k system.
Click to expand...

Not subject to economies of scale and better considered as fixed costs independent of size will be permit and inspection fees and any "connection charge" that the POCO may impose. If POCO charges a fixed amount per month as part of their tariff for PV it can make a very small system impractical.
 
gadfly56 said:
Did you even pay attention to the fact that K8MHZ spends $528 PER YEAR on electricity? Tell me how at nearly any price, let alone $0.15/kW-hr, with that usage he can get an ROI less than about infinity? I spend about $2,000/yr on electricity so you'd have a fighting chance in my case, especially since NJ has one of the most generous solar programs.
Click to expand...

You have not been paying attention. Residential solar costs about 8cents a kWh at contracting prices, maybe 11-12 in his case. Now, I still don't know what he gets paid for exporting to the grid. But if it were 15 cents then a system that lasts twenty-five years would take about 11/15*25years = 18 years to pay itself back. Now I'm not saying that would make it a great investment, but the ROI well under infinity.

System size isn't the biggest factor either. The difference in price between what my company charges for an under 4kW and over 6kW is only about 12 percent.

People are sure talking a lot on this thread without showing their work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top