I've now sat through 3 pitches from these guys and while they have a lot of similarities there are definitely some differences.

This last one is the most intriguing. Their strategy is to only put enough panels to cover my usage +15% or so. The plan being that I get a small annual check by selling back into the grid.

They then finance the panels in 5 year increments to where it's close to matching my monthly power bill. Basically, the idea is my out of pocket is about the same every month and I'm paying these suckers off. Part of this is kinda "sale-y" since most people don't live in the house for more than 5 years. You look at the "debt" bucket differently since when you go to pay it off, your additional equity in the house should more than off-set the remaining payment on the panels. And a new buyer has basically $0 electricity costs.

They warranty all the work AND the roof since they're running conduit through the decking. 25 years parts and labor. We live in North Texas and their panels aren't getting damage by hail (so he says, in less words).

This is a larger company, not fly-by-nighter roofing company throwing up panels.

I'm not an idiot when it comes to numbers... so spare me on the "what's the total cost, time value of money, what's the payback period"

I'm more looking for "what are the pitfalls here?" who's gotten Solar and wishes they hadn't?

with power prices doubling this year... investments like these make more and more sense.

what say ye, texags?

What are you being quoted per kWh for the system +15%?

And why would you pay that rate for the +15% to only be able to sell it back a fraction of that amount?

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

What are you being quoted per kWh for the system +15%?

And why would you pay that rate for the +15% to only be able to sell it back a fraction of that amount?

---

still working to get the actual kWh for the system - they gathered some of my electric bills to get my usage.

I don't follow the other question?

they're trying to put enough panels on so that they produce 115% of my power usage so that I produce, annually, more than I use.

With a newer, more energy efficient home, they can achieve the >100% because of the size of roof vs. usage of power. I average about 7k kWh/year or something around there.

I'll rephrase.... you'll likely pay north of 14 cents per kWh for the system. Your overages are going to be bought by the utility company for a fraction of that.

Why intentionally do that?

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

I'll rephrase.... you'll likely pay north of 14 cents per kWh for the system. Your overages are going to be bought by the utility company for a fraction of that.

Why intentionally do that?

---

that's a good question - I'll ask that.

I haven't received the full price quote yet. He did show me a similar sized house, orientation, and age, and the guy's total system was 30k (before 7k tax credit).

His financing cost was less than his power bill and he was at 102% Net Produced/used (so he gets back 2% of power produced from Oncor).

That example seemed like a complete no-brainer... $23k total for the panels with $0 power cost? that's maybe... 10yr payoff cash on cash? w/o any consideration of home equity increase.

Short answer - no.
Longer answer - absolutely not.

Panels can and will lose generating ability to the tune of 1-2%/year. If their numbers mention nothing about panel degradation, they are blowing smoke up your ass just like all the other suckers stuck with panels on their roofs.

If you're only consuming 7k kWh per year (which I'm going to question) then why would you worry about getting solar?

Free energy is free energy? Dunno.

Doing more math… it's probably like 10k kWh

Assuming your price comes in at the $30k mark the price per watt looks fair at ~$3/watt after the solar investment tax credit. However, what Retail Electricity Provider is offering to buy back the excess kWh annually over 100% that you send back to the grid? You may want to look at the Facts Label and Terms of Service for that electricity company, I would really like to see that Net Energy Metering plan as well. Many electricity companies will let you roll over excess kWh to the following month but don't ever pay out cash for that excess electricity.

Are you sure you only use 7,000 annual kWh?

What type of panels and wattage are they quoting? What's the 25 year degradation percentage on those panels, the best panels sit around 92% at year 25.

What percentage rate are they offering and what's the total cost to finance? Have them quote you a cash price to compare to the financing options to find their true cost of financing.

Are most of the panels south or west facing without any shading? String or Micro Inverters?

In our current electricity market, solar is starting to make a lot of sense. Lock in your price for however long you finance the system for and just reallocate the money your spending towards your electric bill to your solar system and own your power as opposed to renting/leasing. And although it increases the value of your home, you don't have to pay taxes on that added value in the state of Texas.

howdyags12! said:

---

Assuming your price comes in at the $30k mark the price per watt looks fair at ~$3/watt after the solar investment tax credit. However, what Retail Electricity Provider is offering to buy back the excess kWh annually over 100% that you send back to the grid? You may want to look at the Facts Label and Terms of Service for that electricity company, I would really like to see that Net Energy Metering plan as well. Many electricity companies will let you roll over excess kWh to the following month but don't ever pay out cash for that excess electricity.

Are you sure you only use 7,000 annual kWh?

What type of panels and wattage are they quoting? What's the 25 year degradation percentage on those panels, the best panels sit around 92% at year 25.

What percentage rate are they offering and what's the total cost to finance? Have them quote you a cash price to compare to the financing options to find their true cost of financing.

Are most of the panels south or west facing without any shading? String or Micro Inverters?

In our current electricity market, solar is starting to make a lot of sense. Lock in your price for however long you finance the system for and just reallocate the money your spending towards your electric bill to your solar system and own your power as opposed to renting/leasing. And although it increases the value of your home, you don't have to pay taxes on that added value in the state of Texas.

---

Are you a rep? Lol he said a lot of those.
1.9% interest on financing. They ONLY sell. No leasing.

We have Oncor as the carrier. He made it seemlike Oncor will pay us.

Micro inverters that they can individually monitor. I will ask about the degradation factor.

West, no shading as my house is somewhat elevated without any big trees (new neighborhood).

I'm in the solar industry.

Oncor is your Transmission Distribution Service Provider, or the wires and poles company. They're still regulated by the PUC of Texas with a regulated rate of return so a portion of everyones bill goes to Oncor and on the residential side it's ~.04/kWh. However, you have to choose an electricity provider (Retail Electricity Provider) that will bill you such as TXU, Reliant, Constellation, etc. After going solar you will need to choose an REP that offers a Net Energy Metering (NEM) plan, whereas, they will give you credit for the power you send back to the grid.

If they're stating that Oncor will pay you for excess kWh that rolls over annually, make sure to get that in writing. I would even suggest reaching out to Oncor to verify.

Also, there is a cost to finance and typically you can calculate the true cost after they show you a cash price.

And if you finance, they'll give you a monthly payment that assumes you will put the tax credit back towards the loan, if you don't put that 26% tax credit amount back towards the loan, your loan is reamortized and your payment will go up accordingly.

Do you want 25 yr old technology on your roof? Cuz that the logical progression with these things, unless they are upgradable periodically like your smartphone. Panels and switchgear are tech and they will continue evolving.

But ask me next yr when power is 0.30 a kwh and maybe I'll do it ha.

Without much analysis I say go for it .

Solar power's cool. It's good for the grid/national security to have energy coming from different sources. The hot and sunny days you'll be producing the most - that's good for everybody.

You could find better investments for your money, but that's not what this is about. Replace your power cost (and I'll guess you'll be out more than that) and have something on your roof work producing something. It may take more than 10 years to payback, but your house will be around a lot longer than that. Most roofs never produce anything or even have a "payback period." If you sell your home before then you'll likely get most of your money back (thanks to the tax credit) or at least make it more marketable than homes without mini-power plants.




Do you wish you put them on 10 years ago and had them paid off? That's what you'll feel like in 10 years!

JSKolache said:

---

Do you want 25 yr old technology on your roof? Cuz that the logical progression with these things, unless they are upgradable periodically like your smartphone. Panels and switchgear are tech and they will continue evolving.

But ask me next yr when power is 0.30 a kwh and maybe I'll do it ha.

---

I've thought about that too but that problem is inevitable. 15 years from now, you could say the same thing "do you want 15 yr old equipment?"

gvine07 said:

---

Without much analysis I say go for it .

Solar power's cool. It's good for the grid/national security to have energy coming from different sources. The hot and sunny days you'll be producing the most - that's good for everybody.

You could find better investments for your money, but that's not what this is about. Replace your power cost (and I'll guess you'll be out more than that) and have something on your roof work producing something. It may take more than 10 years to payback, but your house will be around a lot longer than that. Most roofs never produce anything or even have a "payback period." If you sell your home before then you'll likely get most of your money back (thanks to the tax credit) or at least make it more marketable than homes without mini-power plants.




Do you wish you put them on 10 years ago and had them paid off? That's what you'll feel like in 10 years!

---

I sort of disagree on the "you could get better returns elsewhere".

I guess that assumes I take risk and buy another asset that produces more cash than it takes to finance, which has some serious risk.

There are other factors here, sure - but if the numbers come back and the financed payment is less than my net gain on electricity cost… it's basically a free asset that pays for itself from day 1.

So question for those in the industry: What if I don't have to install on roof? Is it cheaper/easier to do or does it produce better since it can be installed on the ground with the proper angles? I have over an acre and could easily do a couple of strips that could face south or west, it's wide open.

DeBoss said:

---

So question for those in the industry: What if I don't have to install on roof? Is it cheaper/easier to do or does it produce better since it can be installed on the ground with the proper angles? I have over an acre and could easily do a couple of strips that could face south or west, it's wide open.

---

That would be much better than a roof. Design and install would be cheaper and operation will be more efficient.

DeBoss said:

---

So question for those in the industry: What if I don't have to install on roof? Is it cheaper/easier to do or does it produce better since it can be installed on the ground with the proper angles? I have over an acre and could easily do a couple of strips that could face south or west, it's wide open.

---

If you have ground space, it's 100% better. You can get actuating panels that follow the suns movement to produce peak power (based on available sun) all day long.

FatZilla said:

---

DeBoss said:

---

So question for those in the industry: What if I don't have to install on roof? Is it cheaper/easier to do or does it produce better since it can be installed on the ground with the proper angles? I have over an acre and could easily do a couple of strips that could face south or west, it's wide open.

---

If you have ground space, it's 100% better. You can get single-axis tracker actuating panels that follow the suns movement to produce peak power (based on available sun) all day long.

---

Just to add, most people aren't going to want to pay extra for your house because you have solar panels. Probably going to be more of a detriment, especially if you're still paying on them.

My good friend just bought his starter home with this wife and it came with panels. He offered asking and the owner asked him to pay for the panels. He declined and said rip them off but he won't pay for them. Needless to say he got free solar panels but said if they weren't included he'd never add them.

Do any of these companies offer battery back up & transfer switches with these systems? I'd much rather have a system that can run independently. A lot of people get hoodwinked into thinking they can run their house when the grid goes down and are shocked when that's not the case.

gvine07 said:

---

Without much analysis I say go for it .

Solar power's cool. It's good for the grid/national security to have energy coming from different sources. The hot and sunny days you'll be producing the most - that's good for everybody.

You could find better investments for your money, but that's not what this is about. Replace your power cost (and I'll guess you'll be out more than that) and have something on your roof work producing something. It may take more than 10 years to payback, but your house will be around a lot longer than that. Most roofs never produce anything or even have a "payback period." If you sell your home before then you'll likely get most of your money back (thanks to the tax credit) or at least make it more marketable than homes without mini-power plants.




Do you wish you put them on 10 years ago and had them paid off? That's what you'll feel like in 10 years!

---

My issue with this statement is they are absolute eye sores. They ruin the appearance of the home and it becomes an eye-sore for direct neighbors. I shutter when I drive by neighborhoods with panels covering a large portion of the roof and you can 100% tell a panel installed in the past 2 - 3 years vs one that went on 10 years ago...they fade and look even worse....

FatZilla said:

---

Panels can and will lose generating ability to the tune of 1-2%/year. If their numbers mention nothing about panel degradation, they are blowing smoke up your ass just like all the other suckers stuck with panels on their roofs.

---

I have had 4 solar companies run an analysis on my house, and each time their modeling showed a rising utility rate per year and zero degradation of the panels.

So in addition to the above, if they try telling you that utility rates go up each year in Texas, call them out on it.

I bought my first home in August 2006. I'm a paperless person too, so from that day on, I've had electronic delivery of every utility bill I've ever received across three homes. I was paying $0.11/kwh in August 2006. In 2019, I was paying $0.09/kwh. Some years had be as low as $0.08 and I think $0.12 was my max.

Every time I present this data to the sales person they tell me it's because I'm just more savvy than the average person at shopping rates and the average person pays more than I do.

Yes, rates are astronomical right now, however I don't think they're sustainable. I wouldn't male a 25-year decision based on 6-months of data.

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

FatZilla said:

---

Panels can and will lose generating ability to the tune of 1-2%/year. If their numbers mention nothing about panel degradation, they are blowing smoke up your ass just like all the other suckers stuck with panels on their roofs.

---

Every time I present this data to the sales person they tell me it's because I'm just more savvy than the average person at shopping rates and the average person pays more than I do.

---

Which is also why you don't have solar living in TX.

planoaggie123 said:

---

gvine07 said:

---

Without much analysis I say go for it .

Solar power's cool. It's good for the grid/national security to have energy coming from different sources. The hot and sunny days you'll be producing the most - that's good for everybody.

You could find better investments for your money, but that's not what this is about. Replace your power cost (and I'll guess you'll be out more than that) and have something on your roof work producing something. It may take more than 10 years to payback, but your house will be around a lot longer than that. Most roofs never produce anything or even have a "payback period." If you sell your home before then you'll likely get most of your money back (thanks to the tax credit) or at least make it more marketable than homes without mini-power plants.




Do you wish you put them on 10 years ago and had them paid off? That's what you'll feel like in 10 years!

---

My issue with this statement is they are absolute eye sores. They ruin the appearance of the home and it becomes an eye-sore for direct neighbors. I shutter when I drive by neighborhoods with panels covering a large portion of the roof and you can 100% tell a panel installed in the past 2 - 3 years vs one that went on 10 years ago...they fade and look even worse....

---

Have you considered that this issue is 100% psychological and isn't an issue to people who aren't extremely sensitive to the concept of environmentalism? "People are making decisions I don't like and these solar panels remind me of that" is a strong feeling.

planoaggie123 said:

---

gvine07 said:

---

Without much analysis I say go for it .

Solar power's cool. It's good for the grid/national security to have energy coming from different sources. The hot and sunny days you'll be producing the most - that's good for everybody.

You could find better investments for your money, but that's not what this is about. Replace your power cost (and I'll guess you'll be out more than that) and have something on your roof work producing something. It may take more than 10 years to payback, but your house will be around a lot longer than that. Most roofs never produce anything or even have a "payback period." If you sell your home before then you'll likely get most of your money back (thanks to the tax credit) or at least make it more marketable than homes without mini-power plants.




Do you wish you put them on 10 years ago and had them paid off? That's what you'll feel like in 10 years!

---

My issue with this statement is they are absolute eye sores. They ruin the appearance of the home and it becomes an eye-sore for direct neighbors. I shutter when I drive by neighborhoods with panels covering a large portion of the roof and you can 100% tell a panel installed in the past 2 - 3 years vs one that went on 10 years ago...they fade and look even worse....

---

I'm sure there are people who would stay away from solar panels, but I would bet overall it helps more than it hurts... especially if the solar panels cover 90+% of an electric bill!

Edit because not worth argument.

What will it cost you if you have to remove the panels to replace your roof? Is your roofing material new enough to not need replacement in the next 25 years? Is your roofing material hail proof?

It'll cost $$, but if it's due to hail or other weather event it'll be covered by insurance. Yes, eventually that will get passed on to insurance premiums.

Usually the solar panel installers have it in the paperwork that only they can remove/replace the panels for a new roof to keep the warranty and it will cost $x. Insurance companies just write the check.

I put a grid connected solar array on the roof of my garage at a seasonally occupied mountain cabin in Colorado about 8 years ago as a DIY project. I cant really see any performance degradation in that time. Two years I've gotten checks from the power company at the end of year reconciliation. The thing I didn't count on was the monthly fee increasing from about $20 to $42 since I installed the panels. They have also restructured their billing to incorporate a "surge fee". These things have a big effect on your payout time if that's important to you.

I asked on a recent thread, why can't you use your solar when the power goes out? I understand about back feeding to the grid, but why can't we just put in a switch to stop this? I would most likely do this, but not being able to use it when the power is out is not acceptable to me.

Milwaukees Best Light said:

---

I asked on a recent thread, why can't you use your solar when the power goes out? I understand about back feeding to the grid, but why can't we just put in a switch to stop this? I would most likely do this, but not being able to use it when the power is out is not acceptable to me.

---

I agree.

You put a transfer switch when you put a backup generator, which turns off the main to the lines. Your home is powered, but no power leaves.

Install one when you install solar and you should be able to power your house after a hurricane, just like a backup generator, and the main power lines stay safe.

I don't know why solar companies can't do this. The only thing is you'll need to pull the meter off to install it. But no different than generator.

~egon

Dr. Doctor said:

---

Milwaukees Best Light said:

---

I asked on a recent thread, why can't you use your solar when the power goes out? I understand about back feeding to the grid, but why can't we just put in a switch to stop this? I would most likely do this, but not being able to use it when the power is out is not acceptable to me.

---

I agree.

You put a transfer switch when you put a backup generator, which turns off the main to the lines. Your home is powered, but no power leaves.

Install one when you install solar and you should be able to power your house after a hurricane, just like a backup generator, and the main power lines stay safe.

I don't know why solar companies can't do this. The only thing is you'll need to pull the meter off to install it. But no different than generator.

~egon

---

What if the hurricane rips off or damages the panels and they can't produce? Or the power goes out and it's still dark and raining?

What if it freezes and our morons running things make it worse and the power goes out for days, but it is bright and sunny for a couple days?

The main issue beyond the transfer switch is the cheaper inverters are not designed to "island", meaning they depend on a connection to the grid to give them a voltage setpoint and a 60 Hz sine wave to follow. This allows you to seamlessly switch between consuming from the grid power when a cloud passes over and the solar is not offsetting your house load.

Once you are islanded and producing your own power, it's not as simple as throwing the transfer switch to get back on the grid either, there is a sync that has to happen to make sure the solar inverter matches frequency phase, and voltage. Otherwise your inverter is going to become an flaming projectile.

Then you also need a small battery and a control system to coordinate all that.

Short answer is basically $$$.