Quote:
Originally Posted by mswlogo
The promotion that I get paid for making electricity is “only” for 10 years. So after that expires, it’s still no cost for electricity but I don’t make money. That program just speed up the ROI. So first 6 years I’m behind (because I paid for it). Next 4 It’s paid for and they continue to pay me. Then next 10 is paid for but I don’t get paid.
I agree about financing options. There are leasing options too that basically you pay nothing out of pocket. But you pay the solar company for the electricity on your own roof. But at an attractive rate. A friend did that and it’s worked out great for him. After 20 years he may have paid less than I did in total.
I did it more to be green than to save money. So great a feeling generating your own electricity. I had no intention of buying an EV when I installed it. Luckily I over sized the system a bit.
|
Couple things to keep in mind here. Costs aside as I believe alternative energy while great is still not cost effective.... yet.
Many solar systems do not come with self contained storage... in other words you are generating electricity and "storing it" on the grid. The idea here is that you're dumping more energy on the grid during the day while generating electricity and pulling energy off the grid during the night. This is not carbon neutral. As you generate excess power and that goes on the grid others are consuming it. Obviously you are getting credited for that but when you draw after hours you're getting that energy from where ever the power company gets if from which may not be "eco friendly". It should also be noted that the grid itself, manufacture, maintenance and so forth all have a carbon footprint as well. Also power companies are aware of the adoption of solar and are becoming stingy on how much credit you get for excess power generated.
Now if you are self contained and not hooked into the grid instead using a battery array to store energy, or in the case of an EV running off battery, the big thing that is overlooked is the carbon footprint that is created in the manufacture of the vehicle itself and in both cases the manufacture\handling\recycling\disposal of the batteries. This measurable impact is not completely settled in that there are a lot of studies out there that have looked at this and tried to put a figure on this. However many of them are sponsored by and conducted by those that have an agenda either to show a major reduction in footprint or attempting to show the batteries in particular are a ecological disaster. I'd venture a guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle where they are not as carbon neutral as one would hope, it's a fact they contain hazardous materials, do need to be changed out periodically and contain materials that are not recyclable thus there is an impact just one that is not necessarily in the face of the general public.
In the end - alternative energy, solar, wind etc.. will continue to advance as it's overall benefits are clear. At the same time technology is also advancing in the efforts to continue to make burning fossil fuels much cleaner as well. While some companies like amazon are out advertising their commitment to be carbon neutral by X date and have zero emissions, that is complete BS because they don't mention the whole story in that manufacturing all that stuff has a measurable foot print as well as the maintenance and long term operations will as well. It is dishonest to say zero emissions as it is simply not possible. Shifting the visibility of where those emissions are generated doesn't change fact they are not as "green" as one would think.