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

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So, investing in the solar panels by YOUR calculations means there is an insignificant difference in the outcome after 20 years. That is an argument for not bothering with the solar panels to begin with.

Except for the fact that the panels are still in production year 21-25. Guess what happens in those years compared to simply investing the money.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So, investing in the solar panels by YOUR calculations means there is an insignificant difference in the outcome after 20 years. That is an argument for not bothering with the solar panels to begin with.

Thanks for accepting proof that the panels pay for themselves in 20 years without using any subsidies. Now will you stop repeating that nonsense?

See my previous post for what happens when I include the tax credit and producer payment in my cost. Why bother with having $60,000 more if you buy the panels? I'll leave that to you to explain why you don't want the extra money.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Thanks for accepting proof that the panels pay for themselves in 20 years without using any subsidies. Now will you stop repeating that nonsense?

See my previous post for what happens when I include the tax credit and producer payment in my cost. Why bother with having $60,000 more if you buy the panels? I'll leave that to you to explain why you don't want the extra money.

Depends on what you pay for them. I have bothered to get several quotes on them from local companies (not that I seriously intended to buy and have them installed, I was just curious). Every one of the quotes for me was over $60,000. They barely broke even with the massive subsidies included.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Depends on what you pay for them. I have bothered to get several quotes on them from local companies (not that I seriously intended to buy and have them installed, I was just curious). Every one of the quotes for me was over $60,000. They barely broke even with the massive subsidies included.

Really? You asked to put in a 25kw system when the average home in Phoenix needs 8kw?

https://www.energysage.com/local-data/solar-panel-cost/az/maricopa-county/phoenix/

As of August 2023, the average solar panel cost in Phoenix, AZ is $2.44/W.

I wonder if your estimates were so high because they were including the "dickhead" factor in their price.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Really? You asked to put in a 25kw system when the average home in Phoenix needs 8kw?

https://www.energysage.com/local-data/solar-panel-cost/az/maricopa-county/phoenix/


I wonder if your estimates were so high because they were including the "dickhead" factor in their price.

I'm just telling YOU what I was quoted, and more than once.

 

[IBDaMann]

Let's play the IBDaMann is really stupid game.

Sure. Is this the game in which you are a financial genius? Only in a game of make-believe can we have these assumptions. Let's play.

This all started with the claim that solar panels wouldn't pay for themselves over 20 years without subsidies.

Nope. It all started when I read this following post of yours:

OK. Let's see your math showing that $22,000 today has a value of $50,000 over the next 18 years.
I already used the time value of money in my calculations that you have not been able to refute. What do you think inflation is?

Naturally you have no idea what myriad of things are wrong with the above, but since we are pretending that you are a financial genius, I'll phrase it as "Naturally you see the myriad of things wrong with the above." It is at this point that I jumped in to give you a helping hand. You still haven't thanked me.

That claim is proven false because I can invest my money at 5% and still have more money than someone that didn't get solar panels.

This tells me how the solar panel salesman tooled you. You probably said something that alerted the salesman to your dearth of financial acumen, so he laid it on thick and heavy, telling you that:

1. Oh yeah, this system pays for itself (knowing that you wouldn't respond with "Oh good, then you'll send the bill to the system?")
2. Your only investment opportunities have total returns of less than 5%
3. Inflation is a bear that has to be in the double digits.

You apparently ate it all up, hook, line and sinker, rushing to JPP thinking it to be financial wisdom and believing that you had made a brilliant financial "investment." Now that you are only speaking to others "after the fact," you aren't prepared for the cold splash of reality and the bursting of the warm-fuzzy bubble handed to you by the salesman.

I ran your numbers considering two cases:

A. You empty your account of $22,000 to buy solar panels that eliminate your electric bills entirely for 18 years.
B. You empty your account of $22,000 to invest at 5% (you buy a bond) and continue paying electric bills that grow with inflation at 2.5%, starting with an annual bill of $1,200, then $1,230 the following year, etc..

... at the end of 18 years, case A has $0 and case B has $3,438 remaining.

In case A, I did not include the expenses/costs your solar panels would incur, nor the losses from degradation that end up requiring you to seek other electricity, all in all widening Option B's advantage.

Now we address your cataclysmic error, the one more catastrophic than man-made climate change, i.e. your belief that there are no investments with total return greater than 5%. In a bizarre act of public denial, you strangely disbelieved that the S&P 500 Index averaged 12.39% growth over ten years. You are the one who simply cannot accept that someone who had invested $22,000 in the S&P 500 Index instead of wasting the money on solar panels, came out so far ahead, despite having to pay his electric bills outright, that he could gift solar panel systems to friends for Christmas and still have enough to get that European vacation and Caribbean cruise.

So, gfm7175 is absolutely correct when he tells you that you have to consider other investment options in an apples-to-apples comparison before declaring the purchase of solar panels to have the best ROI, or even to be considered "good."

 

[IBDaMann]

The problem I have is that your number of 12.93 is unreasonable.

Nope. The number is totally reasonable. The problem you have is your dishonesty with yourself and with others. You refuse to acknowledge that there are many excellent investment opportunities that far outclass your solar panels which don't even break even after 20 years. You force yourself to semantically pivot from acknowledging good investments to referring to them as "unreasonable", and your justification for the silliness is that humans don't have crystal balls and don't know the future. If the S&P 500 averaged 12.39% over ten years, that makes it a perfectly reasonable estimate to use for comparisons. You don't have any basis for claiming that future returns will be worse, or better, than that estimate.

Your problem is that you cannot admit to yourself that you fell for a silly sales pitch and made a very poor financial decision. There are vastly superior investment opportunities that you ignored because you fell under the mesmerizing spell of the solar salesman. You are going to have to live with that. You should have had this discussion on JPP before you agreed to buy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nope. The number is totally reasonable. The problem you have is your dishonesty with yourself and with others. You refuse to acknowledge that there are many excellent investment opportunities that far outclass your solar panels which don't even break even after 20 years. You force yourself to semantically pivot from acknowledging good investments to referring to them as "unreasonable", and your justification for the silliness is that humans don't have crystal balls and don't know the future. If the S&P 500 averaged 12.39% over ten years, that makes it a perfectly reasonable estimate to use for comparisons. You don't have any basis for claiming that future returns will be worse, or better, than that estimate.

Your problem is that you cannot admit to yourself that you fell for a silly sales pitch and made a very poor financial decision. There are vastly superior investment opportunities that you ignored because you fell under the mesmerizing spell of the solar salesman. You are going to have to live with that. You should have had this discussion on JPP before you agreed to buy.

ROFLMAO. You are a fool and continue to prove it.
At this point you have beat the shit out of your strawman and the only result is you are covered in shit.

Actually I have a very real way to claim the results over the next 20 years will be worse since for the entire history of the S&P, 90% of the time a 10 year period had a return of 12% or more the next 20 years had a return of less than 12%. The average for the entire existence of the S&P is about 10%. That means that about 50% of the time the return over 20 years will likely be less than 10%. Picking a number for your return that has a less than 50% chance of being reached is not reasonable. You might as well go bet red on a roulette wheel.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Sure. Is this the game in which you are a financial genius? Only in a game of make-believe can we have these assumptions. Let's play.

Nope. It all started when I read this following post of yours:



Naturally you have no idea what myriad of things are wrong with the above, but since we are pretending that you are a financial genius, I'll phrase it as "Naturally you see the myriad of things wrong with the above." It is at this point that I jumped in to give you a helping hand. You still haven't thanked me.


This tells me how the solar panel salesman tooled you. You probably said something that alerted the salesman to your dearth of financial acumen, so he laid it on thick and heavy, telling you that:

1. Oh yeah, this system pays for itself (knowing that you wouldn't respond with "Oh good, then you'll send the bill to the system?")
2. Your only investment opportunities have total returns of less than 5%
3. Inflation is a bear that has to be in the double digits.

I guess we are going to keep playing the IBDaMann is a complete idiot game.
1. The cost of my system was $22,000 and then I got a $5,720 tax credit and $500 a month producer payment for 10 years as well as no monthly electric bill. (I also produce about 20% more than I use and get paid for that as well.)
2. No. The investment needs to have a return that is 5% over inflation. If the investment has 8% interest and inflation is 3% the result will be the same.
3. Inflation doesn't matter if it's 0 or 20% as long as the return is 5% over inflation.

You apparently ate it all up, hook, line and sinker, rushing to JPP thinking it to be financial wisdom and believing that you had made a brilliant financial "investment." Now that you are only speaking to others "after the fact," you aren't prepared for the cold splash of reality and the bursting of the warm-fuzzy bubble handed to you by the salesman.

I ran your numbers considering two cases:

A. You empty your account of $22,000 to buy solar panels that eliminate your electric bills entirely for 18 years.
B. You empty your account of $22,000 to invest at 5% (you buy a bond) and continue paying electric bills that grow with inflation at 2.5%, starting with an annual bill of $1,200, then $1,230 the following year, etc..

... at the end of 18 years, case A has $0 and case B has $3,438 remaining.

Congratulations. You have just had your electricity turned off for non-payment if you are making annual payments at the end of the year.
If you invest $22,000 then you haven't paid your electric bill the first 12 months. Go back to the drawing board and try again.

In case A, I did not include the expenses/costs your solar panels would incur, nor the losses from degradation that end up requiring you to seek other electricity, all in all widening Option B's advantage.

Now we address your cataclysmic error, the one more catastrophic than man-made climate change, i.e. your belief that there are no investments with total return greater than 5%. In a bizarre act of public denial, you strangely disbelieved that the S&P 500 Index averaged 12.39% growth over ten years. You are the one who simply cannot accept that someone who had invested $22,000 in the S&P 500 Index instead of wasting the money on solar panels, came out so far ahead, despite having to pay his electric bills outright, that he could gift solar panel systems to friends for Christmas and still have enough to get that European vacation and Caribbean cruise.

So, gfm7175 is absolutely correct when he tells you that you have to consider other investment options in an apples-to-apples comparison before declaring the purchase of solar panels to have the best ROI, or even to be considered "good."

More evidence, you don't know what the hell you are talking about as you continue to argue that your numbers are my reality, when they aren't.

 

[Into the Night]

Speaking of random phrases. That seems be exactly what your post is.

LIF. Grow up.

Do you get paid by the number of times you use the word "fallacy?"

The fallacies are YOURS, dumbass.

If you already told us what maintenance on solar panels cost more than $5 annually, post a link to your answer.

Word stuffing.

If you can't post a link then we will all know you are the one that is telling tall tales.

Holy links are not a proof. I do not need a link to understand that weather, dirt, water, and other insults can reduce the efficiency or even destroy the panels.

My guess is you will be unable to provide any link

No need.

but will just respond with random acronyms that you think make you look smart.

No randomness.

Dirt doesn't affect electronics

Yes it does.

since most electronics are sealed devices.

Blatant lie. Most electronics are NOT sealed devices.

What affects electronics the most is heat.

Blatant lie. Also, the solar panel itself is not 'electronics'. It CAN be DESTROYED by hail, snow, even water and dirt. At the last dirt reduces the efficiency of the panel.

Dirt can cause electronics to overheat if it prevents heat dissipation.

Not electronics. Dirt can DESTROY panels (such as blowing sand). Dirt covering the panels reduces their ability to function.

But we are talking about dirt on glass.

Yup.

Dirt on glass doesn't affect the electronics since there is negligible interference in heat dissipation.

Dirt on glass can DESTROY the glass, dumbass.

No solar manufacturer would use glass that wasn't tempered

Sure they do.

unless they were looking to be out of business in 2 years because of liability lawsuits.

You're going to sue some no name company in China?????!? Good luck!

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.

Hail can DESTROY solar panels. It doesn't matter what kind of glass or plastic is used to cover them.

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.

You post on a public forum and find it funny that multiple people respond to your posts?????!? You are VERY strange, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic. Chanting.

Calling historical returns from the S&P 500 random is complete nonsense.

Random numbers are NOT 'history'.

No one other than Into the Night would attempt to pass such idiocy off as some sort of argument.

It is YOU trying to pass off such idiocy as an argument. Inversion fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Void reference fallacy.

Anyone can follow the link in my post to see I used real numbers.

True Scotsman fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Holy Links are not a proof.

Unfortunately Into the Night is incapable of rational thought or understanding investments.

Inversion fallacy.

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

So? You are posting on a public thread. This isn't a private mail service, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

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

They are not an investment.

Are you irrational for such an argument?

That would be YOU. It is YOU that is locked in various paradoxes.

Apples to cumquats.

YOUR problem.

If you don't use the money to pay for my electricity then you are not making a valid comparison.

...and you have no power at night or if the panels fail.

You are simply claiming that by investing money I would then make more at my job. That is irrational.

Word stuffing. He made no such statement.

The premise was that the cost of solar panels would not pay for itself in savings.

They don't.

I showed that it would.

Math error. Attempt to use speculation as 'data'. Use of cost as 'investment'.

Your attempt to start to require me to work to pay for electricity is what is the false premise.

Not a false premise.

Why is my request irrational?

RQAA.

My savings on electrical bills will be more than the cost of the panels.

No.

My savings on electrical bills is 100% guaranteed.

No. You also have no power at night or if the panels fail.

Your investments are not 100% guaranteed as I have shown from historical data.

Cherry picking fallacy.

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.

...and you have no electricity at night or of the panels fail.

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.

RQAA.

Give us your numbers for investing 22,000 now and paying $100 a month for 20 years.

RQAA.

Give us your numbers if I pay 22,000 for solar and then invest the $100 I am saving every month for 20 years.

RQAA.

Tell us what rate of return after inflation would be required for solar to be a better option.

RQAA.

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.)

RQAA.

The problem you have gfm7175 is you can't actually do the math. I can.

Math error. RQAA.

I can also do the numbers based on historical market returns.

There are more investments than the stock market. Special pleading fallacy.

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.

Attempted proof by contrivance.

Of course we are ignoring many factors,

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

like my solar panels didn't cost $22,000. They cost less than $20,000

So you lied. Argument from randU fallacies. It is obvious you are just making up numbers now.

but I added on getting my electrical panel upgraded in anticipation of future needs.

Divisional error fallacy.

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.

Attempted justification of communism. Communism is not a return on investment. It is theft. TANSTAAFL.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Lies, Nordbutt. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

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.


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.


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.


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.

He keeps quoting different costs for his system He's making shit up.

 

[Into the Night]

I provide real evidence from respected sources. You rightys are just suckers for lies and anything that affirms your lies must be the truth. You guys are distressingly dishonest in discussions.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHHA! Biased government sources are NOT respected, Nordbutt!

 

[Into the Night]

That is some funny shit there. A "reasonable" (stupid) person might think that 12.39% growth over the last 10 years would mean the growth would be 12.93% over the next 20 years. Any rational adult who knows anything about investing would know that past returns over the previous 10 year period are not guaranteed over the next 20 years.

Let's look at why you are wrong to think 12.93% return is reasonable.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average-annual-return-sp-500.asp
Clearly the market doesn't normally return 12.93% over long periods. Over the last 2 years, the S&P has returned an annualized rate of less than 3%.
(Let's see if you can actually calculate annualized rate of return. S&P - Up 28.75% in 2021 and then down 18.17% in 2022. $1000 invested on Jan 2 of 2021 would be worth $1053.56 on Jan 1 of 2023)

When it comes to inflation, 2.5% might seem reasonable but what was inflation the last 2 years? Was it that 2.5%?
What you think is reasonable isn't reality.

Math errors. Use of random numbers as 'proof'. Use of cost/benefit calculation for non-investment. Dropped data (cherry picking fallacies and special pleading fallacies). Attempted proof by randU.

 

[Into the Night]

Consumer reports did studies on exactly what we talked about. I and my family have EVs and have real-life experience. You are just looking for someone, somewhere who is grinding the same fake axe you are. You cite Road and Track? You cite ICE publications. You have nothing.

Road and Track is NOT an 'ICE publication'.
Your 'real life experiences' is minimal driving and only in a city and not maintaining your car. You are AGAIN failing to account for all costs associated with owning an EV, Nordbutt, and you are NOT a 'typical driver'. There is no such thing.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Redefinition fallacy. Denial of logic. Chanting.

Random numbers are NOT 'history'.

It is YOU trying to pass off such idiocy as an argument. Inversion fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Void reference fallacy.

True Scotsman fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Holy Links are not a proof.

Inversion fallacy.

So? You are posting on a public thread. This isn't a private mail service, Sock.

Repeated use of the -
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 historic annual returns in the stock market random numbers is pretty idiotic. But then we expect nothing else from Into the Night.

 

[Into the Night]

Good for you and your family. If it works for you and them, then enjoy. Just don't force me to drive them.

Or to force people to pay for Nordbutt's car. Remember, subsidies, grants, and credits are theft too. They are communism.