9-11 year payback isn't bad based on the projections. You could probably goose it a bit with inflation of electrical prices (depends on how the electrical policies change and what they pass through).
I'll also add theres some O&M coming down the line. Inverters @ year 10, small maintenance and Im assuming you re-did your roof before you installed. Anyone putting solar up make sure you do it at the same time as a roof because taking it down to redo a roof kills your economic value.
> I'm assuming you re-did your roof before you installed
In the UK I would expect the roof to be tile, which lasts basically forever unless a storm hits hard enough.
I did have to have my panels taken down and refitted, at a cost of well over £1000, because I hadn't bird-proofed underneath them (wasn't suggested by original installer). So watch out for that one.
It is essentially a bond return, with the caveat being that solar PV panels will last 25+ years with some degradation and reduction in output. To your point, the best arrangement (imho) is a standing seam metal roof (40-70 year lifetime) with the panels mounted via friction racking with no roof deck penetrations. This avoids the economic cost of pulling everything off the roof to re-roof, and should outlive any homeowner 40 years of age or older. I also expect labor willing to get on a roof becoming more scarce and expensive over time in the developed world, which I think should be taken into account. Your battery storage can be replaced 10-15 years from now at the end of its service life by anyone with a hand truck.
This is factually inaccurate. Solar PV panels will continue to produce power at 80-90% of rated output after 25 years, and battery storage will still have 80-90% capacity. I'm sure you can understand that as long as the system is storing and producing power at these levels, its value is not zero.
How do you measure the depreciation? The panels deliver at least 70%, but probably closer to 80%, output after 25 years. The batteries need replacing after maybe 15 years. Assuming that knocks a couple percent points off the return (batteries can only get cheaper and cheaper) that's still a solid 7% long term yield with no default risk. Share your math if you disagree.
EDIT: Two more things that will juice the return
1. Grid electricity prices will go up over those 25 years, at the very least tracking inflation.
2. Unlike bond coupon payments, the "return" from a solar installation isn't taxable. Because you're saving money, not getting paid.
Why would you need to replace the batteries? Do they fail outright at around 10 years, become unsafe, or do they just lose capacity?
Curious!
Even if they're at 50% capacity, they would still work, right? But if there are other considerations, especially safety ones, then that would definitely be a consideration. I'm not sure where to learn about this type of thing.
At which point if you're short on capacity (but who knows how your demand might shift over a decade) it's not like you need to replace the original batteries to get that 20% back, you will probably be able to just expand the pack to bring the capacity up.
Almost all simulations I've done across 3 countries with 3 different payback models for selling back to grid (one of the three doesn’t allow selling back almost anything above your consumption), I could never make investing in Solar not being a gamble.
You really need to gamble on odds of replacing equipment being very low for it to make sense. And in practice most people I anecdotally know that run it, after 5-7 years have already done additional purchases. The payback time keeps getting pushed back to the point that when payback will happen your panel will be worthless in efficiency compared to new ones. At industrial / commercial scale it makes sense, but humans like to move houses, and do stuff in the houses and that messes with the payback plans at the individual level.
So either I was in the wrong countries or most people just gamble on the equipment lifetime, but for that I'd rather buy SPY calls, less drama.
im a systems engineer and cost analyst who has put together some modeling myself as well. as a personal investment on your house, i agree. The economic value of solar seems to be best applied as neighborhood or block purchases, like as part of a co-op or hoa. they would need dedicated infrastructure like a communal parking lot with solar overhead, or running them on the property line borders with an easement underneath for servicing, using property fencing as main support (with upgraded fencing)
basically, the way it really makes sense (to me) is to integrate it as part of a micro-grid system, possibly with generator backups and everything to also keep the lights on in the entire neighborhood if the main grid goes down.
its a higher upfront cost on paper, but way less variables with the roof and you are grouping multiple peoples needs together so the gamble goes down on repairs. the poles for ground-mounting can be used for 40 - 60 years, so you would get multiple panels out of them
This is also true of heating and cooling, and I've never understood why we (in the US) build relatively dense housing communities but don't implement things like this. Having a separate air conditioner for each home, especially in a condominium/townhouse complex, has never made sense to me as it's so inefficient compared to central heating/cooling.
It could be as simple as a different model. In one of those it was easy to make it feasible if you had no cap on how much to sell back, but it was limited to consumption plus like 10% or something like that. Since the property used very little energy but had a big roof we thought itd be a good thing to produce green energy while making a little money or even just breaking even, but to break even we'd have to use way more energy which was completely against the original objective. So its not like the technology isn't able to do it but the rules can make it very hard and a few years less of operation for some components make the math very difficult if you're conservative and want to ensure break even within some reasonable timeline
Outside transfer switch and a 10-20kw portable generator is like $4-5k. It requires manual switching but it works for us in our hurricane-prone region. Helped with last years 1 in a 100 year winter storm in our southern region.
Battery/solar doesn’t make sense in my opinion. Too many years to break even like this parent comment said and by the time you break even at 10 years, your system either is too inefficient or needs replacing. At least with the portable generator, you can move it with you to a new home and use it for other things like camping or RVing.
Context: I’m in the Netherlands. With taxes, power is around 25cent/kWh for me. For reference: Amsterdam is around a latitude of 52N, which is north enough that it only hits Alaska, not the US mainland.
I installed 2800Wp solar for about €2800 ($3000, payback in: 4-5 years), and a 5kWh battery for €1200 ($1300) all in. The battery has an expected payback time of just over 5 years, and I have some backup power if I need it.
I’m pretty sure about the battery payback, because I have a few years of per second consumption data in clickhouse and (very conservatively) simulated the battery. A few years ago any business case on storage was completely impossible, and now suddenly we’re here.
I could totally see this happen for the US as prices improve further, even if it’s not feasible today.
Whats funny about that -- is you assume thats the case - but a lot of solar isn't installed to be backup power. With Storage yes, but straight up solar -> no.
99% of systems are grid tie, so unless you’re spending another $7k for an ATS and associated infrastructure or you’re 100% off grid, your power still goes off.
"An ATS (Automatic Transfer Switch) for solar is a crucial device that seamlessly switches your home's power between the utility grid, your solar panels/battery bank...
And I should clarify that you technically can get away with a less expensive interlock system, but you're still paying a few thousand dollars to have your panel replaced (unless you feel comfortable doing that sort of electrical work yourself).
Making a system non-grid-tie is comparatively expensive, that's why grid tie is so common. People think you add solar + batteries and you're ready for doomsday - not quite.
Rather like the car, think of panels as buying 20+ years of electricity upfront rather than being exposed to market rates. You can buy a car upfront, on credit, lease it, or rent it; in all of those the longer you commit the cheaper it is.
Not for everyone, but definitely for homeowners with suitable roofs and local utilities.
> For example, CATL is one of four LFP battery suppliers at the Zhangbei National Wind-Solar-Storage Demonstration Project in China. CATL’s batteries are the only ones that have never been replaced, retaining over 90% of residual capacity after 14 years.
Batteries are not only not worthless after almost 15 years in service, they still have sufficient capacity to continue to operate. If you need that capacity back lost to degradation, add a battery ~15 years from now, they will only continue to get cheaper.
I get your point that in modern society, you can invest in an ETF in a few clicks, but in a way, owning your own infrastructure is simpler. Transform the sun into energy reserves with parts you can buy, understand, and install yourself from wholesalers.
A power company is opaque, carries overhead, and requires complexity to serve at an institutional level. ETFs have a similar complexity/abstraction to their customers.
battery life span is defined as when the reach 80% of their original capacity. it's possible that the decline will accelerate after that point but they aren't suddenly useless
Someone on this thread is able to speak to the argument that has been made about beef being specifically the animal meat to not eat due to its ability to raise inflammation in the system. I had one of the top level specialists say that people with high cholesterol should only eat beef once a year due to its ability to raise inflammation in the circulatory system.
Wouldn't beef tallow be along the same line? It's seems contradictory that beef tallow is the next greatest thing yet also ramping up inflammation internally. I can't square the circle here (I haven't done a deep dive though).
[Edit: I looked into it --> Beef uniquely raises ApoB-containing particles in susceptible people + Saturated fat from beef down-regulates LDL receptors].
[Edit 2: Beef tallow is worse than eating beef since it is a concentrated version of what I wrote about in edit 1]
That is quite interesting to me as someone who is suffering from CIRS (chronic inflammation from toxic mold exposure). The prevailing wisdom in CIRS circles is that an ideal diet is nothing but unprocessed fresh grass fed beef and berries and greens. From what I've read, tallow doesn't oxidize as quickly as other oils and it has almost no linoleic acid (omega 6) which can create eicosanoids and crowd out omega 3s.
The link between cardiovascular disease and general consumption of animal products (in comparison with diets with reduced or zero animal products) is by now extremely well established I believe. I believe in this case meta-analyses and large studies should be very informative (although understanding root causes is also important). All cause mortality also observed to be reduced, although to a lesser degree.
Just from a cursory search, you can find tons of studies supporting this. It is not a controversial statement at all in scientific nutrition and medical fields.
I think it's significant however that unhealthy plant based diets show increased mortality, so it's important to pay attention to what you eat in any case.
It's also worth keeping in mind conflicts of interest and cultural aspects. I think probably there are strong interests in the side of animal products, although this is partisan in the US (and surely there is some lobbying from the opposite direction as well). Also I think culturally there's strong preference for animal products, in particular meat and beef consumption, almost everywhere. Of course, science is supposed to be resistant to conflicts of interest (and it is usually mandatory to disclose funding conflicts of interest), but not all studies are the same. Those conflicts being mostly in the other direction give me additional confidence there isn't a strong bias from those sources.
Also I always like to mention you should supplement a plant based diet, with vitamin B12 and usually a few other vitamins.
---
Also, for the more literally minded, it's obviously not simply due to the atoms from your food source having come from animals most recently that they're unhealthy, so it's also obviously theoretically possible to produce healthy animal-based foods (if only by transmuting their atoms with nuclear reactions), it's the particular proteins, fats and other compounds typically found tend to interact in unhealthy ways with our system.
But that said it's also very significant (in favor of plants) that animals often suffer a lot in the production of those food products, and whether or not you consume them you have the responsibility to diminish their suffering.
Food products are so complex that it’s unlikely there’s anything we eat that could be called strictly “good” or “bad”. I would say that fixation on some vague and nonspecific issue like “inflammation” is probably a red flag for the quality of the information at hand. What inflammation exactly? In what people? Under what conditions? It surely varies widely by individual and interacts with other elements of diet, genetics, activity, and environment.
Well really they are copying the original Microsofts suite packaging which everyone has copied over the years! But yes specific they are trying to take market share on Adobe.
Its actually like taking on MS and Adobe together... but they aren't really taking on MS office.
Your numbers are off. Korea + China ~ 2500 $/kw, USA ~ 6-9000 $/kw. ` GW ~ $2.5B. A large portion of that is dealing with archaic regulations and very long timelines. Important to have regulations that are functional protect the public but also don't inhibit industries growth (which were the design of Nuclear regulations in the 80s).
Best of luck JPow - that was a perfect statement from the Fed.
It seems like theres a bit of an inflection point right now in the US. I wonder how much entropy the system can handle it has to be near a breaking point.
Maybe but the underlying tech still needs to perform which, as i understand it from public docs, has not. No amount of clear runway will make up for an airplane not being able to take flight.
I will be very surprised if Oklo makes it. Insiders have been selling a fair bit over the last couple years because my speculative guess is they know that they cant possible meet the expectations in the market for their product.
They essentially got a ton of traction because Altman was on the board (but since left) but most (not all) tech people don’t understand deep energy problems.
I'll also add theres some O&M coming down the line. Inverters @ year 10, small maintenance and Im assuming you re-did your roof before you installed. Anyone putting solar up make sure you do it at the same time as a roof because taking it down to redo a roof kills your economic value.
reply