A smarter way to get 'free' electricity

[Uncensored2008]

A lease is a type of loan, dude.

So you're going to eat the entire cost plus the interest, eh?

You can't justify theft, dude.

No, they aren't buying from you. It's too expensive.

Pressure washing panels can destroy them!

That's a 'zero risk package'??????!?

So much ignorance.

They pressure washed them last year and there was no damage.

But I'll tell them that some rando on the interwebz knows more than they...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I already know you don't maintain your panels. You don't have to keep repeating it. Buzzword fallacies. Fallacy fallacies. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

Denying your own posts won't work. Anyone can read them.

So you can't show where I said that?

Obviously - admit that you weren't being truthful.

No such fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

Again...no sale. You can't sell your own by telling them to fuck off.

So you have NO electrical service from Edison? You already claimed you do. You are now locked in paradox. That's irrational. You cannot argue both side of a paradox. Which is it, dude?

So find a good utility that isn't so fucked up. There are plenty of them out there!

LOL

Have a good day...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't feel like rehashing all the posts on solar panel maintenance that you conveniently decided to not read. No, it takes more than just a hosing down. Maybe someone in the right part of California can experience minimal hardened deposits, but regular hosing with hard water can lead to accumulating hardened deposits.

The rain is probably worse. NextGen power washes them once a year and checks the inverter

You made the utterly foolish assumption that buyers in general live in southern California.

What a stupid claim you made. You were claiming buyers - since my house is in SoCal, that would be where the buyers are

You don't say!


Socialist.

Maoist more likely.

Well, then move out of the State.

What an idiotic thing to say.

Well, then move out of the State.

Let me modify my response to your question. I'm considering buying a house, and I happen to be looking at a house that has solar panels. Then I notice that the house is in California and I decide to pass. There, how does that work for you?

I couldn't care less what you do.

I've learned that sadly, the claims of solar power owners cannot be taken on face value. They withhold all the negative/downside while crediting their solar panels for having brought peace to the Middle East.

LOL

You have your fantasy and will never let reality infringe.

... which I'm sure you were given free of charge (no pun intended).

Nope, it was one of the more expensive systems, but without the service to replace a failed panel, the replacement panel itself would be of little value. It's nice that Panasonic guarantees the panel for 30 years, but someone has to take the old one off and put the new one on.

To get this, you have to purchase an Owens-Corning roof and the authorized solar system at the same time and have it installed by an OC dealer.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

"Leased" I agree with you.

But what do you mean, "on loan?" If I finance sewer repair and then sell the house, the loan I took to repair the sewers doesn't transfer to the new owner.
Solar energy in general isn't very good technology. At the time I bought it was a very good deal for me - heavily subsidized reducing my cost to a point that it was a no brainer.
I SHOULD be getting a check back from Edison since I generate more than I use - but SCE bribed the corrupt Communist rulers and just get to sell any excess I make.
NextGen will be coming out next week to pressure wash the panels - no cost to me. They do that once a year, part of the 30 year zero risk Owens-Corning package.

If you took out a loan to pay for residential solar panels and still owe on that loan it is likely not transferable to the buyer, or the buyer won't agree to take the loan over from you. Why should they? That means you have to pay off the loan on the solar panels in full before the sale, and for most people, they don't have the balance on the loan in cash to do that. The result is, you can't get anyone to buy your house because they don't want or can't assume the loan that is on them, won't let you have panels on what is going to be their house, etc.

That's really no difference than buying a used car. You won't find many people willing to take over a loan on a used car that is still being paid off any more than you'd buy a used car with a title loan on it. Solar panels are the same way.

The fact that residential solar is heavily subsidized says it all. It would be unattractive to a non-starter if there weren't massive subsidies in place to incentivize its installation. Then it also screws those that don't have solar by shifting the burden for paying for transmission infrastructure to them in increasing amounts--sort of like gasoline taxes paying for roads and maintenance in most states meaning EV drivers are getting a free ride not paying their share of the cost of roads and repairs.

 

[gfm7175]

How exactly do solar panels "straddle" anyone?

IBD already mentioned guaranteed maintenance costs or they don't work. I'll add that their presence also makes roof maintenance and repair more of a hassle.

There is a calculus of whether they will pay off over the investment, but if they are already on a house, there is no investment. Your statement makes no sense.

There is no "investment" (solar panels are not an investment). Answer his question (it's a VERY good one, btw). As a buyer, I wouldn't want to pay for worn/used solar panels that I don't want, nor would I want to deal with the cost/hassle of removing them. This is similar to how I wouldn't want to buy a worn/used EV that needs a battery replacement soon.

 

[gfm7175]

Who are they? Am I one of them? I cite science and math a lot, along with the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. Does all that make me "alt right"?

Of course it does! ... as well as having any basic proficiency in English, Logic, History, and Economics. Questioning ANYTHING from "approved sources" is also a HUGE red flag with regard to your "alt right-ness".

 

[Into the Night]

So much ignorance.

They pressure washed them last year and there was no damage.

But I'll tell them that some rando on the interwebz knows more than they...

You are still locked in that paradox. Which is it, dude? You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

Simply not true.

It is true. You even admitted to it earlier. You are still locked in that paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It is irrational.

Homes will use electricity
Solar panels create electricity
Thus solar panels are an investment in energy creation.

It is not possible to create or destroy energy. Solar panels do not create any energy.

The calculus

You are not using calculus. Buzzword fallacy.

boils down to the cost of the system vs. return.

There is no return.

What is your monthly electric bill? If you buy a $25,000 system and have a mean average bill of $200 the break even point is 10.2 years. If you have the system for 30 years, the return is 300%.

There is no return. You are still locked in that paradox too. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It's irrational.

It's a capital improvement and must be analyzed as any other investment in capital improvement would. What is the payback? What is the effective life? What is the rate of depreciation?

There is no return.

Hence a $25K system in the above scenario is a solid investment. Now if you had to pay the REAL cost, which would be closer to $60K it would no longer be such a great deal. BUT the real catch is you are paying the delta anyway, because the federal government is going to subsidize the manufacture of these systems whether you use them or not.

So you choose to be a thief. That locks you into another paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, dude. It's irrational.

So far, you have created six paradoxes in your recent posting. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[gfm7175]

Utterly untrue.

Why do you make up complete nonsense and post it.

The ONLY maintenance for my panels is to hose off the dust occasionally.

Yes, I'm already aware that you do not maintain your solar panels nor have any desire to maintain them in the future.

You are yapping incoherently, as usual. You posed no such question to me.

... except for the multiple times that he's posed such question to you, including in the very post of his that you just responded to here.

You can't just "take the panels."

So you're starting to see why the potential home buyer isn't impressed with the existence of solar panels on your house (and having to pay for it)?

Installation is a major portion of the cost. Further, removal of panels would require repair to the roof.

So you're starting to see why the potential home buyer isn't impressed with the existence of solar panels on your house (and having to pay for it)?

If you made such an "offer" I would counter offer that you can fuck off.

Ok, then don't sell your home and pay for your own solar panel installation/maintenance/repair/removal/replacement.

Maybe you now understand why any semi-intelligent potential buyer isn't interested?

You are babbling utter stupidity.

No, that's YOU.

Solar panels mean you have no electric bill.

WRONG. Solar panels mean that you still have an electric bill WHILE also pre-paying for 15-20+ years of electricity usage.

One cannot say the electricity is "free," since the panels are a $25-50K investment.

A pre-payment is NOT an investment. It is ultimately expensed over time.

BUT when buying a house, the presence of panels means the buyer will not have an electric bill.

WRONG. There are all sorts of expenses re: solar panels (you just got done naming some of them above).

Unless you really do have stock in the power company, not paying an electric bill is a good thing.

There are still electric bills.

 

[Into the Night]

So much ignorance.

You are describing yourself.

They pressure washed them last year and there was no damage.

How do you know? Did you get up there and inspect for damage? Do you even know what that kind of damage looks like?

But I'll tell them that some rando on the interwebz knows more than they...

Bulverism fallacy.

I happen to be a scientist and an engineer AND run a successful company manufacturing sensors for industrial, medical, aerospace, home, and entertainment uses.
It seems I do[/i] know a heck of a lot more about solar panels than some random salesman handing you brochures that you are quoting from.

I know how they work, and I know what makes them break.

You cannot generate electricity with them when it's dark, as in nighttime.
What little you get during the day is not enough.
Not everyone lives in the Southern SDTC. To assume that everyone is just like you is the ultimate arrogance.

You are creating paradox after paradox with your posts and contradicting yourself. You are going to have to start clearing these paradoxes before you can get any further.

 

[Into the Night]

So you can't show where I said that?

Obviously - admit that you weren't being truthful.

Don't try to deny your own posts. Anyone can go back and read them.

 

[Into the Night]

The rain is probably worse.

Not really. It damages solar panels, but not as fast as wind, snow, sand and dust, or hail can. Even sunlight damages solar panels. Sunlight breaks down all plastics.

NextGen power washes them once a year and checks the inverter

You are still locked in that paradox. Which is it, dude?

What a stupid claim you made. You were claiming buyers - since my house is in SoCal, that would be where the buyers are

Buyers are not limited to the southern SDTC.

Maoist more likely.

Mao was a socialist and a dictator. There is no 'Maoist'.

What an idiotic thing to say.

Well, since you won't flee the SDTC and choose to live in a dictatorship and not do anything about it, you have only yourself to blame for your own misery.

I couldn't care less what you do.

You'll never sell a house that way!

LOL
You have your fantasy and will never let reality infringe.

You cannot deny your own posts. Don't try. Anyone can read them.

Nope, it was one of the more expensive systems, but without the service to replace a failed panel, the replacement panel itself would be of little value. It's nice that Panasonic guarantees the panel for 30 years, but someone has to take the old one off and put the new one on.

You are still locked in that paradox. Which is it, dude?

To get this, you have to purchase an Owens-Corning roof and the authorized solar system at the same time and have it installed by an OC dealer.

You are still locked in that paradox too. Which is it, dude?

 

[IBDaMann]

Of course it does! ... as well as having any basic proficiency in English, Logic, History, and Economics. Questioning ANYTHING from "approved sources" is also a HUGE red flag with regard to your "alt right-ness".

So "alt-right" is a kind of style, right? I'm alt-right stylish, yes?

 

[gfm7175]

The calculus boils down to the cost of the system vs. return. What is your monthly electric bill? If you buy a $25,000 system and have a mean average bill of $200 the break even point is 10.2 years. If you have the system for 30 years, the return is 300%.

You are ignoring opportunity cost, for starters.

It's a capital improvement and must be analyzed as any other investment in capital improvement would. What is the payback? What is the effective life? What is the rate of depreciation?

It's effectively a prepaid expense.

You're paying for X years of electricity up front. If you take out a loan to pay for it, then there's also interest expense to add to the cost. If you keep a local utility distribution line available, then you're still receiving a monthly electric bill (whether or not you actually use any electricity). That's part of the cost. There would also be maintenance costs, but you're proud that you don't maintain your panels, so there's that.

Hence a $25K system in the above scenario is a solid investment.

Nope, there's no investment. A prepaid expense is not an investment.

 

[gfm7175]

Let me modify my response to your question. I'm considering buying a house, and I happen to be looking at a house that has solar panels. Then I notice that the house is in California and I decide to pass. There, how does that work for you?

Yeah, even if I COULD afford to live in California, I'd choose against it.

 

[gfm7175]

So much ignorance.

They pressure washed them last year and there was no damage.

But I'll tell them that some rando on the interwebz knows more than they...

Ignoring the damage done doesn't make it go away.

 

[gfm7175]

So "alt-right" is a kind of style, right? I'm alt-right stylish, yes?

SUPER stylish!

I hear that alt right is "trendy" right now.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yeah, even if I COULD afford to live in California, I'd choose against it.

Sadly, the same can be said for much of Wisconsin as well. We should consider the housing market in Wyoming.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is true. You even admitted to it earlier. You are still locked in that paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It is irrational.

It is not possible to create or destroy energy. Solar panels do not create any energy.

No one said that solar panels create energy. They convert photons into electrical current - they create electricity from sunlight. Sunlight is an energy source.

You are not using calculus. Buzzword fallacy.

Please don't be ignorant.

There is no return.

Please don't be ignorant.

There is no return. You are still locked in that paradox too. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It's irrational.

Please don't be ignorant.

There is no return.

Please don't be ignorant.

So you choose to be a thief. That locks you into another paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, dude. It's irrational.

Ad Hominem fallacy.

So far, you have created six paradoxes in your recent posting. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Please don't be ignorant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, I'm already aware that you do not maintain your solar panels nor have any desire to maintain them in the future.

Are you a sock? Enquiring minds want to know...

... except for the multiple times that he's posed such question to you, including in the very post of his that you just responded to here.

False

So you're starting to see why the potential home buyer isn't impressed with the existence of solar panels on your house (and having to pay for it)?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

So you're starting to see why the potential home buyer isn't impressed with the existence of solar panels on your house (and having to pay for it)?

Assumes facts not in reality.

Ok, then don't sell your home and pay for your own solar panel installation/maintenance/repair/removal/replacement.

It wasn't for sale in the first place.

Maybe you now understand why any semi-intelligent potential buyer isn't interested?

Assumes facts not in reality.

No, that's YOU.


WRONG. Solar panels mean that you still have an electric bill WHILE also pre-paying for 15-20+ years of electricity usage.


A pre-payment is NOT an investment. It is ultimately expensed over time.


WRONG. There are all sorts of expenses re: solar panels (you just got done naming some of them above).


There are still electric bills.

If a system fails to generate enough power to run the home, it is undersized.

All capital improvements are investments.