My ROI for me for my Solar, batteries, generator are who cares. Happy wife, happy life
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Why is Tesla Solar so Inexpensive Compared to Others?
- Thread starter IamMark
- Start date
Looks like Orange County has the the form as well (BOE-64-SES):
Basically if the assessor's office tries to smack you with a higher appraisal due to a solar/ESS system, you need to fill this in to get them to not-assess the higher amount due to your green investment.
I went through Sunrun (nation's largest solar installer; and one of the biggest in California). They told me they don't submit this for homeowners since it's a tax thing that they aren't responsible for. But in my case, my County Assessor's office actually mailed me paperwork related to a higher assessment due to my solar+ESS. So I had to complete this form to get them to back off on the higher appraisal.
Yep, if I was going through what you are. My wife did ask where the batteries going to cause any extra work. Opps
They are warranted to produce 85% of original production 25 years from now so I don't see them going from 85 to 0 in the following 5 years. In the end no one knows what the outcome will be 30 years from now. But by 30 years that system produced roughly 400% of its original investment tax free after factoring degradation, which is roughly triple what a good muni pays today. (Based on what I paid for my system vs my local energy cost and net after tax investment, other places with higher or lower rates and incentives will obviously be different).
The original comment was trying to equate a bond to a PV system for ROI which isn't a good match, instead using a piece of equipment that you might buy for a business would be the right choice.
The value of the system doesn't drop to $0 at year 25 or 30. The warranties would have expired, but the equipment will still be operating with higher loss and if something needs to be replaced then you could just replace the inverter, optimizer, Powerwall, gateway or PV panel and continue operating.
Equipment ROI is Net Profit/Total Investment * 100%, so the @Laketime numbers is correct $2,500/$25,000 * 100% = 10% with a payback period of 10 years. After the 10 years you would realize an additional $37,500. The system would be fully depreciated, but would still be producing power if maintained.
For clarity I did not try and equate a bond to a PV system. I never mentioned anything like that. I compared it to a traditional investment like a bond and the mentality of income earned not breakeven. I mentioned munis only because they are one of the few other investments that produce tax free income. I feel the industry has poor messaging when they talk of breakeven without mentioning how much people earn on their system each year, and that expense offset is tax free...
Exactly, it would seem to some that these are off the back of the truck middle of the night panels. They are well rated and competitive. One of my assistants just decided to make the plunge but also had Sunrun quote him. Sunrun came in at $32,000 before incentives for a 25 panel 8.75kW system and Tesla came in at $16,400 for a 24 panel 8.16kW system before incentives. Aside from the .59kW difference in production that is almost exactly twice as much money. Even if the Tesla panels dropped an extra 1 or 2 percent in the first year it would take centuries to break even if he went with Sunrun instead.
Last edited:
brucet999
Active Member
Specs you linked prove my statement.
"Output Decline
Year 1 2.0%
Years 2 to 25 0.54%
Output at End of Warranty Term 85.0%"
Premium quality panels like SunPower Maxeon and Panasonic HIT suffer zero LID (that's the 2% year 1 decline above) and 25-year output is 90% or slightly better.
Q Cells panels are definitely better than average, but not equal to Panasonic HIT.
Last edited:
brucet999
Active Member
Ah, yes, thanks for the reminder. I remember getting a letter from the assessor's office after we finished our remodel project (including solar). They increased our assessment for adding air conditioning, but not for solar.
willow_hiller
Well-Known Member
For the difference in price, I would argue Q Cells are superior. 5-6% additional output per year past 25 years is not worth the additional $1 per watt of installation cost up front.
With my Federal ($6,110), state ($1,000), and county ($5,000) incentives factored in, my payback period for a 12.24 kW Tesla Q Cell installation ($23,500) is just under 4 years. That's an ROI that's tough to beat.
Wow! Lucky you! The only incentive I will be getting will be the Fed Tax Credit and some measly $400-ish or so from So Cal Edison. There are no State and County incentives to be had! Amazing since we have so much sun here, the state should be HIGHLY encouraging people to move to solar. I'm in the waiting game for Permitting to come through for my system to be installed.
Ok, at the end of 25 years the best panel is producing at 90% vs 85%. For a 6kW array that is a difference of 0.3kW (5.4kw vs 5.1kw). If the annual production year 1 is 9,000kWh that drops to 8,100kWh and 7,650kWH or 450kWh less. At $0.30/kWh (California) that's worth $135/year.
Taking it to ludicrous extreme and saying that was true for all 25 years that's $3,375. Which is a lot less than the $6,000-8,000 installation cost savings. If you want that extra 5% for every 20 panels add one more.
pdx_m3s
Active Member
At the end of the day, it comes down to cost-per-kWh over the life of the system. Not only are you wrong about Tesla using "low quality" panels (they are not), you will be hard-pressed to find a better value in terms of $/kWh over the life of a system.
My Tesla system was $1.23 per kW (which should produce ~12MWh per year... west-facing) and every component is warrantied for 25 years. Even if it degrades an extra few percent by year 25, I will have come out ahead.
brucet999
Active Member
At $1.23/k'w, you got a very low price that was not available 2 1/2 years ago when I bought my system. Congratulations.
I got an answer like this and found a few academic papers on this (adjusting home appraisals for green tech). It’s ridiculously favorable - they came up with values of up to 20x a years energy savings! Frankly, I would be fine with 5x.
it’s a very interesting contrast to properties with leased panels as those can diminish the value as it creates a third party that could torpedo a sale if they aren’t approved for a lease transfer.
It seems like there are a lot of different analyses on the effect of solar on property values, but I would tend to say it is not something to count on. I think it will depend a lot on the market, as well as the specifics of the system (size, age, manufacturer, etc.) I would expect that as solar adoption becomes more widespread, and the benefits better understood, it should tend to have a more positive effect on home values.
I would agree that leasing presents a bigger potential issue for sale, though I would see the big negative as home buyers simply may not want to take on the responsibility of a monthly payment (and the penalty/cost to end the lease.) One interesting note, though, is that it appears Tesla will not block a sale (though there are stories of them being very slow with paperwork.) Their website states:
So, the worst case would be to pay the $250, which I could see the seller doing as needed - it is certainly less than the cost for removing the solar.
I have a friend who after find the solar was leased, and within a few days of signing papers to close the house, backed out.
CrazyRabbit
Active Member
CrazyRabbit
Active Member
he should have negotiated... but you need to know, lease deals are bad.
i would have taken the tesla price prorated for life and asked for the difference on the lease payoff. seller would have *sugar* a brick!
Similar threads
