[abakker]

I would point out that most ROI models for solar look so good because of very generous subsidies. If subsidies aren't counted, the ROI time is not nearly so good.

Additionally, the Total Cost of Ownership of Solar will be higher in areas where panels/solar systems are prone to damage from weather etc. Wind, Rain, Snow, freeze/thaw, dust can all damage solar arrays, or negatively impact their performance.

If there are batteries involved, those will likely also need to be replaced before the system has initially paid itself off. Even if batteries get cheaper and better every year, the disposal fees for old batteries and their current inability to deal with house-sized loads well can easily add significant cost.

I don't want this to sound like I am anti-solar. I am a big proponent of solar, but there are many problems with the current system. It is a somewhat unfair comparison no matter what, since the energy we buy from fossil fuel generation does not accurately reflect the cost of the pollution it makes or the environmental harm it does.

[djrogers]

"I would point out that most ROI models for solar look so good because of very generous subsidies. If subsidies aren't counted, the ROI time is not nearly so good."

True, without the 11k rebate, my break-even point would have been 7 years instead of 5. I'd still have done it...

[abakker]

Thats pretty good - You also have the benefit of getting alternative return on that 11K upfront, which helps.

Depending on whether you sell your house or not, I assume that the solar system will also generate a reasonably high ROI as an improvement to the home? It would be interesting to see what the real payback time period would be if you were to try to sell the house before its usage ROI were realized.

i.e. could you buy a house, add solar, get the rebate, sell the house after 2 years and still get a return on the solar investment money because you'd improved the value of the house?