Alfredo Martinez

Solar's Dead Cat Bounce May Be Over

Of course you can subsidize something until it makes sense for a consumer to buy it, but that's not really the point. Once you strip away all the government subsidies, solar power is a real money LOSER for consumers. That's why the industry is in trouble, the solar companies need heavy government expenditures to make them attractive to consumers. For someone to spend $30,000 on a solar panel unit that's going to save them a $50 a month on electricity is a complete waste.

States like California that are completely bankrupt and are sending out IOU's are going to have to rethink their financial priorities about subsidizing solar panels for wealthy homeowners.

Once you strip away government subsidies, solar generated electricity can't stand on its own two legs.

On Apr 04 03:11 PM rooferguy wrote:

> Whoever says that "solar is not cost effective" must live in a state
> where electricity is really cheap or there are no solar incentives.
> Here in northern California our darling utility just raised the top
> tier rates to 44 cents/kwh (4th tier is 38 cents and third tier is
> 26 cents).
>
> My little 3kw rooftop solar system has been cranking out about 4,500
> kwh/yr (it was installed about 3 years ago), so I save about $1,800/yr
> (half tier 5, half tier 4). Today's cost (I paid a bit more) for
> that system is about $10,000 (after the CA rebate and federal tax
> incentive). That's less than a 6 year simple payback, and a cash
> on cash return of 18%.

Solar's Dead Cat Bounce May Be Over

It's simply not true that a 200 sq ft solar panel can provide an average households energy needs. One big hole in that theory is, what happens at night when the sun's not shining?

Most solar panels systems for the home are 1 KwH systems (at peak when the sun's at the perfect angle and there are no clouds), and cost around $10,000. One kilowatt-hour (kWh) equals the amount of electricity needed to burn one 100 watt light bulb for 10 hours.

Do the math, does that sound like it can provide enough electricity to power all your appliances, air conditioner, heater, refrigerator, stove, oven, hot water heater, television, etc? Of course not.

The solar industry was banking on gullible governments to subsidize their operations, and the money is simply no longer there, which means their stocks are ridiculously overpriced, just like their products.


On Apr 04 01:02 PM Peter Bermel wrote:

> On Apr 04 12:52 PM Alfredo Martinez wrote:

Solar's Dead Cat Bounce May Be Over

I would love it if solar power were as effective as everyone wants it to be, but it's really more of a luxury novelty than a cost effective source for energy. I have a property that has a large solar panel on the roof, and it barely powers the hot water heater during the day at peak hours. Without the government subsidies and write offs, it's an absolute waste of money.

Governments around the world on the brink of depression aren't going to be willing to throw billions on solar energy like they WERE going to do before this financial crisis hit, which is why I'm weary of investing in solar energy right now. Solar is only desirable when governments subsidize the hell out of it.

If every home in America had a solar panel on it, we'd still need 90% of our power from other sources.