Would you? Solar power?

[gt7301b]

Spending $124 - $168 a month to save, at most, $80 a month doesn't seem like the financially prudent thing to do. Now if you want to do for environmental reasons that is a different discussion.

[AAM2012]

That's a big investment to save $80/month and you likely won't get anything back if you sell your home. If your electric bill was $300 or something then I might make more sense.

I think I would have to know more about your financial picture. What was the HELOC for? What's the interest rate on the debt? If you have to go into debt to pay for it then I very likely would say no.

Also regarding your comments "it just makes sense" and "they say" prices will increase don't work for me as a reason to do this. It doesn't make financial sense to me if your electric bill is only $80 and you have to go into debt and who is "they"?

[lys]

I would not. I would just make sure your home is as energy efficient as possible in other ways. (insulation to the max, triple pane windows, quality doors, well sealed, new efficient heat & AC) and energy efficient appliances, will give you a better return on your investment and make you more comfortable.

[glynn]

No, I would not do it with your bills. Now if you had my bills it would be a savings.

[AAM2012]

Mar 31, 2015 9:27:25 GMT -5 sxia said:

We're not planning on ever moving. I agree that financially it doesn't make sense. (Although after paying for the solar panels, we would probably have no electric costs.)

But at $80/month it would take you at least 12 years to recoup your money. In reality it'll probably be longer since you said $80 is only a few months out of the year.

Edit: At $40/mo it'll take 24 years.

That doesn't include maintenance cost.

[4speedy]

Will your system have the ability to sell back any excess energy you produce to the electric company? I know many people who have wind turbines can do this, not sure if it works the same with solar panels.  Many states have laws that obligate the electric companies to repurchase energy produced by consumers. Does California have this law?

Finally, how much energy is your system capable of producing for your weather conditions and is it more than you will consume?

A mandatory energy buyback might change your cost/benefit analysis.

[aurora]

I agree with the others that it doesn't sound financially the best idea, but I make all sorts of decisions for environmental, not $, reasons so I think it's fine if you want to go that route.

You could alternatively look into other ways to support the environment that might cost similar amounts over time. Conservation is always a good place to start. Or, does your utility have a solar or wind purchase option through them?

[scout8]

I would do it, but for environmental reasons, not for financial reasons.

[girlscout]

Do the panels go on your roof? My biggest question is what happens when you need a new roof???

[scoot]

You should look into the warranty on the solar panels, inverters, and installation as well, if the solar company provides them (they should). If I remember correctly, most warranties on panels are for 25 years.

Also keep in mind that solar panels lose efficiency over time.

And do your costs above factor in insurance for the system? The warranties typically don't cover things like theft/fire.

[FishChicks]

I would not add solar. For one thing, it's a loss financially and the CA utilities are lobbying hard to pass on costs to solar users. If that happens, which I think is likely, you'll be back to having monthly bills. Another reason I wouldn't go solar is the roof. The last thing I want is additional roof penetrations. I increase my risk of leaks and my cost of roof repair. I also suspect the lifetime of the solar panels will end about the time you've truly broken even on these.

I really like the idea of solar, but unless it's a choice you make knowing it's unlikely to pay off financially and may cause more repair headaches down the road, I wouldn't recommend installing it.

[sb]

Before you decide, make sure to talk to your homeowner's insurance about it. When we were shopping around for insurance, a few providers just declined to quote when they heard we had solar. I assume because of the additional roof penetrations and maybe some more uncommon electrical issues.

[compassrose]

If you can sell the extra energy back to the power company, I would do it for environmental reasons since this is your 'forever' house.
I would ask about buying fewer panels, though, since it sounds like maybe you don't need that much energy?

[mich1]

It doesn't make financial sense with the numbers you've posted.

Have you seen any of the data that suggests a 90% efficiency after 25 years? That number sounds incredulous, I'd like to know how they got it.

[msmerymac]

Yeah, Pasadena/Altadena (IIRC) are at a high enough elevation, even being inland, that they stay relatively cool. And/or poised well for cooling breezes. Or something. Pasadena is surprisingly less hot than a lot of similar inland areas. $80/month in summer makes sense. When I was in WeHo I was paying $100~ a month in the summer for 750 sq ft, but that was a really non-efficient 1927 duplex bungalow. 

But I would be willing to do for environmental reasons. It also seems that if it's your forever house, you'll eventually even out when it comes to payment, especially since SoCal Edison does give a buyback type of credit/offset.

Also, maybe talk to a realtor and see if it adds any equity to your house. Although you're not selling, it would be a nice bonus to your assets.

[explorer2001]

I'm in AZ with plenty of sun for solar and I'd love to do it for environmental reasons. But I haven't for the following reasons: upfront cost, I can't get most of the credits because they are tied to if you used credits in the past which I have, economically with an average electric bill under $100 a month it doesn't male sense, and current panel technology is only about 17% efficient at conversion and things in the development pipeline are much more efficient. This ignores the solar surcharges that are getting tacked on to people's bills here because the grid still has to be maintained so your savings could be significantly less than your full bill per month.

[crashgizmo]

Mar 31, 2015 12:57:45 GMT -5 sxia said:

Mar 31, 2015 10:16:43 GMT -5 @juno said:

Where in CA are you? There's a chance you could install a whole-house fan and stop using AC in the shoulder season. We are in CA, but on the coast, so no AC. It gets too hot to handle maybe 2 days per year, and I keep trying to talk myself into a whole-house fan for those two days. They cost almost nothing to run. We saw a contractor that does them at a home show a few weekends ago and I almost pulled the trigger. I absolutely wouldn't go into debt for what is mostly environmental reasons, but I might be willing to save up for it.

We're just east of Pasadena. The house is usually around 80 degrees for most of the summer. We have shades drawn and only run the AC in the hottest part of the day if we can't take it and run fans at night when it gets down to the 60s.

We must be neighbors, first of all. I'm curious where you are, send me a PM if you feel comfortable! 

We looked into solar when we lived in a much warmer climate, and it just didn't make financial sense. I would love to do it for environmental reasons, but MM will win out for me often. I think with the numbers you gave, it just doesn't make sense. 24 years is a LONG time to be paying it off. 

[alleinesein]

Mar 31, 2015 12:57:45 GMT -5 sxia said:

Mar 31, 2015 10:16:43 GMT -5 @juno said:

Where in CA are you? There's a chance you could install a whole-house fan and stop using AC in the shoulder season. We are in CA, but on the coast, so no AC. It gets too hot to handle maybe 2 days per year, and I keep trying to talk myself into a whole-house fan for those two days. They cost almost nothing to run. We saw a contractor that does them at a home show a few weekends ago and I almost pulled the trigger. I absolutely wouldn't go into debt for what is mostly environmental reasons, but I might be willing to save up for it.

We're just east of Pasadena. The house is usually around 80 degrees for most of the summer. We have shades drawn and only run the AC in the hottest part of the day if we can't take it and run fans at night when it gets down to the 60s.

Do you have a really small house?  Or do you live in a condo?

Your electric bills are damn cheap for SoCal.  Ours run between $150-$400 a month based on the time of year (summer months are $275-$400 depending on how hot it is) and that is for a 3000 sq ft home with the a/c set at 78.  

In your situation there is absolutely no good financial reason to switch to solar.  If you were paying $200+ a month for electric then it would make more sense but as it stands right now your bills are typically under $50 a month.  Why go in debt for something that is costing you less than $1000 a year?

[Deleted]

I am near you and would not do it. We pay about $100/month for electric.

With solar panels, you still need to be connected to the grid and the panels don't store power. You will still be using power and will incur a bill, which will always include charges that are independent of how much power you use.

[awick14]

I agree with everyone else, with your numbers it doesn't make sense.

The summers where I live get HOT and my electric bills in the summer are $300-400/ month. And in the winter they are ~$100/month.

If it would cost us $124/month over 12 years to go solar I would. (We also have a buy back option here which makes it more affordable)

[Deleted]

Agree with others that with your math, it really doesn't make the most sense. Plus, solar technology continues to get more affordable, so your payoff is *likely* to be even more favorable in the future, if you'd like to do this for environmental reasons vs. primarily financial ones. (Of course, who knows exactly what will happen with the government grants in the future.)

We have been considering solar for a long time, and right now we're putting it off until 2020. It will help us when we are financially independent by saving us an electricity bill (or large majority of one).

[whitemerlot]

No.

[thumper55]

I'm kicking myself because we didn't put solar panels in when we first moved into our house 7 years ago. There were more incentives then, and we would have recouped the money by now. Our bills are $300-400+ though. Last month it was $416. We are getting solar installed in May and it will take just over 6 years to break even, IF we receive the full tax credit.In past years, we hardly use AC to save money, but once we have solar, we will. We joke that it will feel like we staying in a hotel We contracted with the original roofing company, and part of the deal is that the roof warranty will be extended to 30 years instead of 20.


I'm all for long term investments but $80 wouldn't make it worth it to me.

[itsme]

I'm further east than you and probably in an area that gets a little hotter. We looked into it and we decided against it. Most of the year we are at between $40 & $65 for electricity and in the summer months over $150 to $250 so solar wasn't right for us with regards to cost savings. We were looking at whole house fans as well but ended up getting an evaporative cooler for free. I was completely against it because I thought it would be miserable like the old swamp cooler we had when I was growing up. Even for free I didn't want it but DH talked me into it and I am so glad we got it. Unfortunately it isn't a pretty addition to our window but it has kept our costs down under $100 in the summer months and the entire house cool. It's flush with the windowsill and it's covered by curtains when it needs to be.

www.lowes.com/pd_460595-12934-MCP44_0__?productId=4664615&Ntt=evaporativ+cooler&pl=1¤tURL=%3FNtt%3Devaporativ%2Bcooler&facetInfo=