[Biggd]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

The basic difference is that you appear to be evaluating the societal impact of solar instead of the impact to the homeowner. As Peter from NH Solar points out, the societal impact is much more than financial.

As my post opined, the individual homeowner should be evaluating the impact ONLY to himself when looking at the numbers. In this case, that means giving yourself full credit for the tax incentive. I was more than happy to have the government pay 30% of the cost of my system. To go back to your restaurant comparison--if a restaurant is having a 2 for 1 night, I would not stay home because the savings is artificial or a one-time thing, etc. From a financial perspective, I care only about the size of my bill.

My returns are typical for a system in eastern Massachusetts. I'm confident they are repeatable there, but I do not know the returns for NH or other states. A good local installer should be able to provide these quickly based on the individual homeowner's sunlight, roof, equipment selection, current electricity cost, and state incentives. The risk really is low--there are millions of these installed, with expected repair costs and lifetime performance well understood. I would compare the risk to a corporate bond--even at 5%, you'd be doing quite well in today's environment.

The social impact it what I get stuck on. I don't like the looks of them on any roof and I'm sure I'm not alone. I also have talked to people that say they are a pain to deal with if you have a roof leak. I don't like them but that's JMO!