[mattmaroon]

Right, but you have to compare it to the opportunity cost of the money. A solar panel is an annuity. There is a one time sunk cost for a relatively consistent, long-term payout.

If I put $100 into the stock market in approximately seven years I will have $200. If I put $100 into solar panels, in 10 or 15 years, I will have $100 worth of savings. Financially, it is not much better than just putting it under a mattress.

I get that the non-economic parts of solar are pretty much all upside. I’m not saying nobody should do it. Just that they should view it as a luxury, not an economic opportunity. But until the finances work out, it will not achieve widespread adoption, and the finances are a function of how much sun you have and your energy prices.

Those of us up north have little sun and lower energy prices. We would be a lot better off just putting your money in the stock market and paying for your electricity if you were only considering money. That is not true of the American southwest.

I have homes in both Phoenix and Cleveland and I have done the math on both. I actually can’t put solar in Phoenix, I wish I could, it would be a great investment. I could put solar in Cleveland, but I might as well throw my money down the drain. I can’t imagine the math is any better in Canada.

[glxxyz]

> I can’t imagine the math is any better in Canada.

I don't have to imagine, I've actually installed it and I can see the impact on my bills. By most estimates it has a 12-15 year ROI that matches the stock market, and will continue to generate electricity for another 10-15 years after that. The 'math' is a function of many things: orientation, roof angle, occlusion, installation costs, electricity cost, latitude, grants/loans, net metering terms, etc. It's a huge assumption to say that what doesn't work in one location in Cleveland won't work for a property in Canada 2 degrees further north.

[mattmaroon]

It does not match the stock market in any locale in the US. Artificial externalities may make it do so (government incentives, exorbitant energy rates) in Canada, in which case ok great. But I think you’re probably doing your math wrong.

I’m guessing you’re not counting the fact that if you buy a stock for $100 you still have the $100 (you can sell the stock) but that’s not true of solar because it’s an asset whose value quickly goes to near $0 as the cost of uninstalling the panels is more than they are worth or nearly so. You’d have to be getting near 20% ROI annually for it to match the stock market in that time frame. A quick google shows that even the Canadians selling solar don’t claim that. You don’t even get that in California, where the panels produce a multiple of what yours will and all of the other factors (incentives, latitude, high energy prices and net metering, etc.) lean toward solar so I’m guessing you’re erring.

Easy to verify though: what was your install cost and how much is it saving you on energy bills?

[glxxyz]

> I’m guessing you’re not counting the fact that if you buy a stock for $100 you still have the $100 (you can sell the stock)

Your guess is wrong. A better term for what I calculated is the IRR of a series of cash flows. You're correct that stock is a liquid asset, I'm obviously aware that I can't liquidate the panels attached to my roof.

This whole thread got out of hand, I was just giving the anecdote that I saw a much better return on a heatpump than a solar installation. I don't care who believes or doesn't believe my calculations.

> Easy to verify though: what was your install cost and how much is it saving you on energy bills?

A rough estimate is given on my original comment in this thread.

[alextingle]

I see it as insuring myself against electricity price rises. If it's a roughly neutral cost today, but saves me a lot if electricity prices double or triple, then that's a good deal.