Most EVs Cost More to Drive Than Their Gas-Powered Rivals:

[Into the Night]

How silly of me to consider raising hay for cattle to be farming. I should have realized it's how you fill your head with nonsense.

You are posting to the wrong person again, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

No. I didn't say any such thing.

Blatant lie.

I said I don't have any costs to maintain my panels There is a difference between what I said and the straw man you are building. Are you intelligent enough to see it.

I already know you don't maintain your panels or roof.

Interesting that you are not gfm but feel you can answer for gfm.

I am not answering for gfm7175.

If we use your logic then you must be gfm or you are committing a logical fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. Discard of logic, Sock. Inversion fallacy.

The interesting thing about solar panels is even though they aren't a car they still don't sit directly on my roof. Too bad you didn't know that.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

Really? Have you been on my roof or is your head still stuck in your ass when you claim my panels have a polymer instead of tempered glass?

Many use a polymer instead of glass. The glass (if used) is not tempered.

Yeah..Washing your panels shortens their life and not washing the panels shortens their life.

Word stuffing. Water can damage panels (Yes...that includes rain). So can hail, snow, tree sap (yes, sap can move sideways...it's called 'wind'). So can leaves, high winds, blowing sand, etc. Even sunlight reduces efficiency of the panels over time.

Oh...and you've already admitted that you don't have power at night. I do.

I don't know what you think are facts but claiming both of those are true is not a fact. It is a paradox.

Fallacy fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Discard of logic.

Do you know what a paradox is? You use the word quite often.

I do. Apparently you have no clue since you are now using the word as a random buzzword.

Speaking of hallucinations. That is quite a phantasmagoria wrapped in an illusion wrapped in a delusion.

No. It's a definition.

You are making generalizations and fixating on your own special pleadings.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

By the way, a dirty panel doesn't reduce the life span of a solar panel since it doesn't affect the electronics in any way. If anything it would lengthen the lifespan.

Dirt can certainly reduce the lifespan of a panel. Dirt certainly does affect electronics.

You created the acronym as a way to avoid answering questions.

I created the acronym because twits like you keep asking the same questions over and over mindlessly even though they have already been answered. The problem is YOU. Inversion fallacy.

You use it when you have not provided any answer and know you can't provide one.

I already provided the answer or someone else has. I use it when you keep asking the same question mindlessly anyway. This is typical of twits like you. You use it to deflect the conversation.

But you already knew that didn't you gfm7175.

He didn't write the definition or define the acronym, Sock. Inversion fallacy.

Thanks, gfm7175 for responding to my post addressed to gfm7175.

You can't seem to keep track of who your talking to, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

Still mindlessly allowing false authorities to do your thinking for you, eh?

First off, the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is not Consumer Reports, although their article does make reference to a Consumer Reports study done in 2020. I quickly skimmed through the study (don't have time to closely study it) and besides not including all EV maintenance costs from what I could quickly tell, it also makes up numbers, readily admitting that they don't have the required data and are just making up numbers. Obviously you didn't even quickly skim over the study, let alone read through it.

The NRDC article itself is full of nonsense and leaves out numerous costs associated with EVs, most notably the increased cost of requiring a specialized dealer to perform most maintenance on the vehicle.

I saw another report today out of Britain about mechanics that will be put out of work as that government forces EVs on everybody, leaving only expensive dealerships with special equipment to work on the cars. The price of maintenance will skyrocket under this fascism.

 

[Into the Night]

YABPA. Do you also go by the moniker 'tmiddles' by any chance?

Heh. He IS a lot like tmiddles, but he is acting like the sock of another here. So far, I have noted some six accounts associated with this clown, plus his constant 'quoting' of non-existent accounts.
I don't think he is tmiddles though.

 

[Into the Night]

You have openly admitted that you don't perform any maintenance on your solar panels (nor your roof), and you did it again below.

He admitted that he doesn't maintain his roof either.

 

[Into the Night]

@Poor Richard Saunders
@Into the Night
@gfm7175

I'd just like to interject the problem that is not being adequately conveyed to Poor Richard Saunders, who is making an economics error in the mistaken belief that he is making all the correct calculations. gfm7175 was touching on the issue but not really expressing Poor Richard Saunders' error very clearly.

Poor Richard Saunders mistakenly believes that the time value of money in this case involves applying the rate of inflation to the purchase price of the system, i.e figure inflation of 2.5% APR for a total of $34,312.49 after 18 years. Poor Richard Saunders is not an MBA or an accountant so we should take the opportunity to teach him what Opportunity Costs means and how Net Present Value is calculated so that a valid comparison can be made. Then he will understand his error.

Poor Richard Saunders, when considering spending $22,000 on a system, you also have to consider the value of that same amount of money had you invested it elsewhere. For example, let's say that you could invest in the S&P 500 Index and expect annual growth of 12.39%. You would calculate outward that your $22,000 would grow into 180,102.92 in 18 years. You would then calculate backwards over those 18 years to present day, discounting that value by the rate of inflation (2.5%) in order to get the Net Present Value, which is $115,476 i.e. what that $22,000 S&P 500 Index investment is worth in today's dollars, and compare it to the $22,000 cost of the system purchase. The result is that you would be $93,476 wealthier by investing that $22,000 in the S&P 500 Index and just paying your electric bills outright.

Summary: The Time Value of Money is the principle used to project a future investment value into out years as well as to convert a future value into today's dollars. Both of those are combined to compute the Net Present Value for each potential investment option in order to perform an apples-to-apples comparison.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

A valid point, but in his case, he is not attempting to sell the panels at the end of the term. Instead he is using speculative values for electric bills over that term as his 'time-value' calculation error.
In other words, he is using a random number of type randU.

The panels themselves degrade over time just by exposing them to sunlight. They will become less efficient at conversion. Further, they face being destroyed or severely damaged by a variety of hazards, including several forms of inclement weather or the action of critters.

Therefore the time-value calculation is completely inappropriate to use here.

 

[gfm7175]

Thanks Into the Night for responding to the post I addressed to you.

YALSA.

Perhaps gfm7175 can inform us how washing solar panels shortens their life while not washing them also shortens their life. Claiming both shorten the life of solar panels is a paradox.

YABPA. I've already explained to you that it's all about HOW you wash them, moron... Perhaps Poor Richard Saunders can try being honest for a change...

Then perhaps gfm7175 can explain how visually inspecting the panels costs money.

1) If you hire someone, then hiring someone has a cost (usually a sum of money.
2) If you don't hire someone, then have you ever heard of the saying "time is money"?

You've already admitted that you don't have any cost (and do so again below), ergo admitting that you don't maintain your panels.

It seems he hasn't been able to provide the cost for that yet.

RQAA, provided yet again above.

I have never said I didn't inspect my panels or the wiring. I said there is no cost.

Ergo, admitting that you don't inspect your panels or the wiring.

Assigning a cost to everything that costs nothing is also a paradox.

Ever hear of the phrase "time is money"?

Claiming that dirt on tempered glass shortens the life span of a solar panel is the height if idiocy.

It does. It also reduces performance.

It shows gfm7175/Into the Night know nothing about glass and nothing about solar panels.

Your issue, not ours.

Neither of them have been able to provide any source that supports their opinion that dirt on the panels shorten their life.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks Into the Night for responding to the post I addressed to you.

That was not my post.

Perhaps gfm7175 can inform us how washing solar panels shortens their life while not washing them also shortens their life. Claiming both shorten the life of solar panels is a paradox.

Fallacy fallacy. There is no paradox in stating that water damages panels. It does.

Then perhaps gfm7175 can explain how visually inspecting the panels costs money.

RQAA. I have already answered that question.

It seems he hasn't been able to provide the cost for that yet.

There is no fixed cost, Sock.

I have never said I didn't inspect my panels or the wiring.

Blatant lie. Don't try to deny your own posts.

I said there is no cost. Assigning a cost to everything that costs nothing is also a paradox.

There is a cost. You are just ignoring it because you don't maintain your panels or your roof.

Claiming that dirt on tempered glass shortens the life span of a solar panel is the height if idiocy.

Nope. It is the height of idiocy to not realize that dirt does indeed affect both the efficiency and quote possibly the life of a solar panel.

It shows gfm7175/Into the Night know nothing about glass and nothing about solar panels.

No. That would be YOU, Sock. Inversion fallacy.

Neither of them have been able to provide any source that supports their opinion that dirt on the panels shorten their life.

RQAA. Since you obviously feel that dirt covered panels doesn't reduce their efficiency, and cannot possibly shorten the life of panels, you obviously are clueless about solar panels at all, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

Perhaps you should have stayed out of it since you are only making yourself look like a fool.
Expecting 12.93% growth in the S&P 500 is idiotic. As everyone who invests knows, there is no guarantee of future earnings.
S&P 500 historical
If we go back and look at the last 20 years of the S&P we will see that no single year in that time frame had 12.93% growth. The yearly earnings had wild swings from a 38.07% gain to a 36.81% loss.
Just to give an example of the results of $22,000 invested in different years and their results 10 years later.
$22,000 invested in 1996 would have been worth $55,815 10 years later
$22,000 invested in 2000 would have been worth $17,847 10 years later.

To do an apples to apples comparison, since the $22,000 is paying for electricity, then the payments over time for electricity should come from the invested $22,000.
If we assume $100 a month electric costs and just use $1,200 per year in the S&P numbers. That means we are withdrawing $1200 each year to pay for that years electricity.
With $22,000 invested in 1996 after 10 years of paying electricity bills we would have $40,796.
With $22,000 invested in 2000 after 10 years of paying electricity bills we would have $4876. Because of a couple of good years the money would last 15 years but by 2015 we would only have $71 left.
Clearly investing the money is not guaranteed since investing that money in 2000 would leave us without any money to pay electricity bills over 20 years.

To get a real sense of the possible earnings, the normal procedure would be to do a monte carlo simulation to look at the possible outcomes. That would give you the likelihood of what the value would be and whether the money would last to pay our electric bills.

I asked for a guaranteed investment and clearly the S&P isn't guaranteed since the chances of investing in a first year that gains 38% isn't that great.

Random numbers used as 'data'. Argument from randU fallacy. Attempted proof by randU.
You are also incapable of understanding investments in general.
Your attempt at a time-value calculation is based on random numbers (that you made up). That calculation is completely inappropriate here. You are not selling the panels and are completely ignoring that ALL of the money you spent on your panels will be worth LESS THAN ZERO within 20 years. How? Cost of removal and disposal.

 

[gfm7175]

@Poor Richard Saunders
@Into the Night
@gfm7175

I'd just like to interject the problem that is not being adequately conveyed to Poor Richard Saunders, who is making an economics error in the mistaken belief that he is making all the correct calculations. gfm7175 was touching on the issue but not really expressing Poor Richard Saunders' error very clearly.

Poor Richard Saunders mistakenly believes that the time value of money in this case involves applying the rate of inflation to the purchase price of the system, i.e figure inflation of 2.5% APR for a total of $34,312.49 after 18 years. Poor Richard Saunders is not an MBA or an accountant so we should take the opportunity to teach him what Opportunity Costs means and how Net Present Value is calculated so that a valid comparison can be made. Then he will understand his error.

Poor Richard Saunders, when considering spending $22,000 on a system, you also have to consider the value of that same amount of money had you invested it elsewhere. For example, let's say that you could invest in the S&P 500 Index and expect annual growth of 12.39%. You would calculate outward that your $22,000 would grow into 180,102.92 in 18 years. You would then calculate backwards over those 18 years to present day, discounting that value by the rate of inflation (2.5%) in order to get the Net Present Value, which is $115,476 i.e. what that $22,000 S&P 500 Index investment is worth in today's dollars, and compare it to the $22,000 cost of the system purchase. The result is that you would be $93,476 wealthier by investing that $22,000 in the S&P 500 Index and just paying your electric bills outright.

Summary: The Time Value of Money is the principle used to project a future investment value into out years as well as to convert a future value into today's dollars. Both of those are combined to compute the Net Present Value for each potential investment option in order to perform an apples-to-apples comparison.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Thanks for taking the time to dive deeper into the subject matter. I doubt that Moron Richard Saunders will be honest re: your detailed explanation of opportunity cost. But yes, that's what I was beating around the bush at.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Blatant lie.

I already know you don't maintain your panels or roof.

I am not answering for gfm7175.

Fallacy fallacy. Discard of logic, Sock. Inversion fallacy.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

Many use a polymer instead of glass. The glass (if used) is not tempered.

Word stuffing. Water can damage panels (Yes...that includes rain). So can hail, snow, tree sap (yes, sap can move sideways...it's called 'wind'). So can leaves, high winds, blowing sand, etc. Even sunlight reduces efficiency of the panels over time.

Oh...and you've already admitted that you don't have power at night. I do.

Fallacy fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Discard of logic.

I do. Apparently you have no clue since you are now using the word as a random buzzword.

No. It's a definition.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

Dirt can certainly reduce the lifespan of a panel. Dirt certainly does affect electronics.

I created the acronym because twits like you keep asking the same questions over and over mindlessly even though they have already been answered. The problem is YOU. Inversion fallacy.

I already provided the answer or someone else has. I use it when you keep asking the same question mindlessly anyway. This is typical of twits like you. You use it to deflect the conversation.

He didn't write the definition or define the acronym, Sock. Inversion fallacy.

You can't seem to keep track of who your talking to, Sock.

Speaking of random phrases. That seems be exactly what your post is. Do you get paid by the number of times you use the word "fallacy?"

If you already told us what maintenance on solar panels cost more than $5 annually, post a link to your answer. If you can't post a link then we will all know you are the one that is telling tall tales. My guess is you will be unable to provide any link but will just respond with random acronyms that you think make you look smart.

Dirt doesn't affect electronics since most electronics are sealed devices. What affects electronics the most is heat. Dirt can cause electronics to overheat if it prevents heat dissipation. But we are talking about dirt on glass. Dirt on glass doesn't affect the electronics since there is negligible interference in heat dissipation.



https://www.aes.com/sites/default/files/2023-04/Appendix 2-A_Solar Panel Specification Sheets.pdf
Front Glass - 3.2mm tempered glass with AR Coating

https://www.canadiansolar.com/wp-co.../Canadian_Solar-Datasheet-HiDM_CS1H-MS_EN.pdf
Front Cover 3.2 mm tempered glass

https://si-datastore.s3.us-west-2.a.../VrhvN9JFCna9nGxZQACXf0ZZDeEiULG2zwfSLSZQ.pdf
Glass: Single glass 3.2 mm coated tempered glass

https://static.trinasolar.com/sites...asheet_VertexS_NE09RC.05_NA_EN_2023_A_web.pdf
Front Glass - 3.2 mm (0.12inches), High Transmission, Tempered Glass

No solar manufacturer would use glass that wasn't tempered unless they were looking to be out of business in 2 years because of liability lawsuits. What is normally referred to as float glass or annealed glass if hit with large hail would break into large shards that would slide off a roof.

What is funny is that Into the Night has responded to my posts to gfm7175 and gfm7175 has responded to my posts to Into the Night.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Random numbers used as 'data'. Argument from randU fallacy. Attempted proof by randU.
You are also incapable of understanding investments in general.
Your attempt at a time-value calculation is based on random numbers (that you made up). That calculation is completely inappropriate here. You are not selling the panels and are completely ignoring that ALL of the money you spent on your panels will be worth LESS THAN ZERO within 20 years. How? Cost of removal and disposal.

Fallacy fallacy
The fallacy fallacy occurs when Into the Night claims another poster is using fallacies but Into the Night can't explain why it is a fallacy. Into the Night does this to try to appear smarter than he really is.
Calling historical returns from the S&P 500 random is complete nonsense. No one other than Into the Night would attempt to pass such idiocy off as some sort of argument.

Anyone can follow the link in my post to see I used real numbers. Unfortunately Into the Night is incapable of rational thought or understanding investments.


(Into the Night is responding to my post to IBDMann.)

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Thanks for taking the time to dive deeper into the subject matter. I doubt that Moron Richard Saunders will be honest re: your detailed explanation of opportunity cost. But yes, that's what I was beating around the bush at.

Let's see if you can refute the actual numbers I used in response.
I'll bet you can't.

 

[gfm7175]

Let's see if you can refute the actual numbers I used in response.
I'll bet you can't.

I'll bet that I already have. I'll take a look.

 

[gfm7175]

Perhaps you should have stayed out of it since you are only making yourself look like a fool.

Your issue, not his.

Expecting 12.93% growth in the S&P 500 is idiotic. As everyone who invests knows, there is no guarantee of future earnings.
S&P 500 historical
If we go back and look at the last 20 years of the S&P we will see that no single year in that time frame had 12.93% growth. The yearly earnings had wild swings from a 38.07% gain to a 36.81% loss.
Just to give an example of the results of $22,000 invested in different years and their results 10 years later.
$22,000 invested in 1996 would have been worth $55,815 10 years later
$22,000 invested in 2000 would have been worth $17,847 10 years later.

@IBDaMann -- This predictable response from Moron Richard Saunders is largely why I didn't dive deeper into the opportunity cost concept. He is instead choosing to fixate on the irrational requirement he has set for himself that an investment be 100% fool-proof safe from any loss of any sort, and he's sticking to it. Maybe it's easier for him to cope that way? He doesn't wish to admit that he is a moron for buying into the snake oil salesman jargon that he'll be saving all sorts of money if he buys solar panels.

To do an apples to apples comparison, since the $22,000 is paying for electricity, then the payments over time for electricity should come from the invested $22,000.
If we assume $100 a month electric costs and just use $1,200 per year in the S&P numbers. That means we are withdrawing $1200 each year to pay for that years electricity.
With $22,000 invested in 1996 after 10 years of paying electricity bills we would have $40,796.
With $22,000 invested in 2000 after 10 years of paying electricity bills we would have $4876. Because of a couple of good years the money would last 15 years but by 2015 we would only have $71 left.
Clearly investing the money is not guaranteed since investing that money in 2000 would leave us without any money to pay electricity bills over 20 years.

False premise. There is no need to make withdrawals from the investment sum in order to make monthly payments for electricity usage. $100/month is less than a day's worth of labor, let alone a month's worth.

That's the whole point that's being made re: opportunity cost. Since a monthly electric bill can easily be paid using a small portion of money from one's paycheck, and doesn't require a lump sum withdrawal from savings (or a loan), that lump sum of money you'd otherwise be using for solar panels is then free to be used for something else, such as an investment (or numerous investments). Since I do accounting work for a living, I do have a fairly decent grasp on such financial concepts, and I am pretty good at separating out salesman jargon from the truth.

I asked for a guaranteed investment and clearly the S&P isn't guaranteed since the chances of investing in a first year that gains 38% isn't that great.

You're making an irrational request.

Obviously the solar panel salesman isn't going to inform you of how much further ahead you'd be if you'd simply pay your monthly utility bill as you receive it, and then invest the $22,000, instead of unnecessarily paying for a couple decades worth of a utility expense up front. You should have spoken to me first... or ITN... or IBD... or T.A. Gardner... we could have preemptively informed you about such matters.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Your issue, not his.


@IBDaMann -- This predictable response from Moron Richard Saunders is largely why I didn't dive deeper into the opportunity cost concept. He is instead choosing to fixate on the irrational requirement he has set for himself that an investment be 100% fool-proof safe from any loss of any sort, and he's sticking to it.

Are you sticking to your argument that my solar panels were not 100% fool proof as an investment?
Are you irrational for such an argument?

False premise. There is no need to make withdrawals from the investment sum in order to make monthly payments for electricity usage. $100/month is less than a day's worth of labor, let alone a month's worth.

That's the whole point that's being made re: opportunity cost. Since a monthly electric bill can easily be paid using a small portion of money from one's paycheck, and doesn't require a lump sum withdrawal from savings (or a loan), that money is then free to be used for something else, such as an investment. Since I do accounting work for a living, I do have a fairly decent grasp on such financial concepts, and I am pretty good at separating out salesman jargon from the truth.

Apples to cumquats. If you don't use the money to pay for my electricity then you are not making a valid comparison. You are simply claiming that by investing money I would then make more at my job. That is irrational. The premise was that the cost of solar panels would not pay for itself in savings. I showed that it would. Your attempt to start to require me to work to pay for electricity is what is the false premise.

You're making an irrational request.

Obviously the solar panel salesman isn't going to inform you of how much further ahead you'd be if you'd simply pay your monthly utility bill and invest the $22,000 instead of unnecessarily paying for a couple decades worth of an expense up front. You should have spoken to me first... or ITN... or IBD... or T.A. Gardner... we could have preemptively informed you about such matters.

Why is my request irrational? My savings on electrical bills will be more than the cost of the panels. My savings on electrical bills is 100% guaranteed. Your investments are not 100% guaranteed as I have shown from historical data.
I can invest the $100 I would have paid per month for the next 20 years and will end up with more money then if I invested the money now and paid for electricity every month.

Since you are convinced I would make more money investing the $22,000 and then paying for electric bills, prove it. Give us your math.
Simple excel formula is =fv(rate,nper,pmt,[pv])

Give us your numbers for investing 22,000 now and paying $100 a month for 20 years.
Give us your numbers if I pay 22,000 for solar and then invest the $100 I am saving every month for 20 years.
Tell us what rate of return after inflation would be required for solar to be a better option.

Then you will have to tell us what investment guarantees that constant rate for every month. (Hint - with inflation at 3%, the return would need to be 9%, 6% after inflation.)

The problem you have gfm7175 is you can't actually do the math. I can.
I can also do the numbers based on historical market returns. Based on historical market returns there would be about a 20-25% chance that doing it your way would result in my not having enough money to pay my electrical bills in that 20 years.
Of course we are ignoring many factors, like my solar panels didn't cost $22,000. They cost less than $20,000 but I added on getting my electrical panel upgraded in anticipation of future needs. Then we aren't including the either money I get for having solar panels through tax rebates and utility payments, I got a $5,000 tax credit and then I also get $500 per year for 10 years from the utility company for being a renewable source allowing them to meet their requirements.

 

[Nordberg]

Rightys have no problem with typing lies. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/articles/saving-money-electric-vehicles

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Rightys have no problem with typing lies. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/articles/saving-money-electric-vehicles

You have no problem citing empty platitudes and rhetoric, but hey...

 

[IBDaMann]

Therefore the time-value calculation is completely inappropriate to use here.

Sure, I was pointing to Poor Richard Saunders' words that reflected what he was thinking, and I simply wanted to address the error within. He specifically cited his use of "time value of money" to refute what you were saying, and included the question about what you thought inflation was.

gfm7175 and you are doing a fine job at explaining why his erroneous calculations are for an inappropriate comparison. I just think that if he is going to reference the time value of money as his argument, he should know what it is.

Smashing, guv'na ... cheerio.

 

[IBDaMann]

Perhaps you should have stayed out of it since you are only making yourself look like a fool.

As long as we all remember that you are the uneducated rube in the equation. You could have said "thank you" but you consider helpful information that doesn't come from your slave-masters to be offensive.

Expecting 12.93% growth in the S&P 500 is idiotic.

Once again, we take a step back and remember that you are not an MBA or an economist of any type, and being a leftist you tend to lash out like this whenever you are greatly confused. Don't worry, cooler (and more educated) heads will prevail and will help you through your total dumbass stages. Feel free to take notes on everything I teach you, unless your slave-masters prohibit such; I wouldn't want you to get into any trouble as you are being bent over furniture.

Whenever you are projecting future rates of return, you select a rate that you believe is reasonable. Oh look, the S&P 500 Index average yearly return over the last ten years (as of the end of June 2023) is 12.39%. Any rational adult considering investment options for, say, $22,000 would be wise to at least consider a projected value of 12.39% annual growth for an S&P 500 Index investment, and include that information amongst other considered options as a comparison figure.

Also, one has to estimate a reasonable value for the rate of inflation. I used 2.5% but you can use any value that you find reasonable for your calculations. Just make sure to use the same inflation rate value for all investments being considered, otherwise you lose your apples-to-apples comparison.

By the way, if you think I'm going to look like a fool discussing economics, accounting and financial markets, you should see how you look. Too funny. Take notes. Really. I can't emphasize that enough. Oh, and don't be afraid to ask Into the Night for his business investment insights. You could come away with a few pearls of wisdom there.

As everyone who invests knows, there is no guarantee of future earnings.

Exactly, it's all speculation, which is why you need to give it some thought and come up with what you believe are reasonable projection values.

To do an apples to apples comparison, since the $22,000 is paying for electricity, then the payments over time for electricity should come from the invested $22,000. If we assume $100 a month electric costs and just use $1,200 per year in the S&P numbers. That means we are withdrawing $1200 each year to pay for that years electricity.

Nope. How much do you have to pay up front? How much do you pay to buy the system? That is the amount you project as your investment value for your different investment options.

You can include subtractions to your Net Present Value for electric bills that you have to pay. Instead of being $93,000 wealthier for simply investing in the S&P Index and paying your electric bills outright, you can factor in the savings provided by the system to get a more accurate value of being only $72,000 wealthier for simply investing in the S&P 500 Index and paying your electric bills outright.

This is fun. Anytime you want to talk economics or accounting, just let me know. My rates are competitive.