Comparison of Panasonic, SunPower and LG

Is hardly an argument.

In Florida, the lightning state, having $30K worth of electronics up on a high spot on your roof, playing lightning rod or wind debris catcher, is hardly an wise investment.
Yes, it can be done, if done well, but the odds are against it with so many "Larry with a Ladder" types roaming the streets with a sale on an install today.

Well, so far, here on the forum, I haven't seen throngs of folks (rather not one single person) who came here to say that they sold their PV home and recouped any of their capital investment in solar. But usually once a month or so we do get folks who cannot buy or sell a home because of the lease that they or the homeowner signed for without understanding what they were agreeing to. Homeowner's insurance companies cannot even figure out how to properly insure, not insure, list PV as an asset to be insured.

I'm sure there are green crunchy folks who may be attracted to net-zero PV homes so they show off to their friends (the South Park episode Smug Alert comes to mind), but on a whole, common folks seem far more concerned about potential lease liabilities, maintenance, holes in the roof, risk of fire, etc. Once the Federal rebate and SRECs are done, honestly saving $2000-3000 per year on electric is not really that big of a concern versus the usual home price drivers.

It would be awesome if my home value increased due to solar, but so far, in two years, I haven't seen any change at Zillow There are so many other factors the drive the price and sale of homes, honestly solar is probably not much better than fancy shingles or a high efficiency HVAC system in that regard.

Hopefully, if I ever move, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Rant mode on.

No, I'm biased against solar ignorance.

On the contrary. I'm about the biggest fan of solar energy, alternate energy in general and energy conservation I know of. As one small indicator, check my post count. I believe I have something positive to add to the alternate energy conversation that's more than repeats of wishful thinking or simplistic B.S. from people who substitute redneck engineering for useful and vetted knowledge.

Solar was the primary motivation for returning to school and changing careers to mechanical engineering back in the '70's after being a successful peddler of industrial energy production and conservation equipment for ~ 10 years. After that and until retirement, I spent most of an engineering career in responsible charge of the design and engineering of power generation and conservation equipment for the power and process industries, including analyzing and finding ways to improve equipment cost effectiveness.

To me, solar energy has always been more than a hobby, but less than a job. You may not know this, but part of being knowledgeable and responsible about alternate energy also means having and using knowledge of its limitations and being better able to spot and call B.S. when I see it from conmen and dreamers who see only what they want to see and latch onto some B.S. that makes (non)sense to them or reinforces their ignorant, simplistic shortsighted notions.

You may think I'm biased because I write things that don't fit your version of reality with respect to solar energy. So be it. That may be an example of the type of thinking the dreamers and their ignorance practice that can and often does harm solar and alternate energy's future, and only make things more of a PITA for those of us who want it to succeed and who see things without rose colored glasses, warts and all.

I forgot more about solar energy, including solar process economics, engineering economics and energy accounting than you're likely to have a clue about for some time.

On saving money, or perhaps what's more accurately described as the issue of cost effectiveness: Contrary to what the greenwash media and solar peddlers (and you it would seem) would have us all believe, most people don't save money on residential PV, at least not in the long run. That they do see it that way is, to me anyway and maybe only, testament to the ubiquitous ignorance which I only see as getting worse.

More to the point, most folks have no clue why or inclination to do anything about their ignorance. Even in the cases where owned PV systems have some cost effectiveness, they would almost always have been better off with use reduction before alternate energy generation. That that is not usually done is testament to most folk's energy ignorance. Kind of like having a leaky boat and getting a bigger bilge pump but don't know about hull caulking for stopping leaks cheaply and effectively.

Most folks get PV most of the time because they're running in near panic and anger from self inflicted high energy bills that they do not and will not make any effort to understand.
There's about 150 or so examples of that in my6 HOA that I'm more than casually aware of.

There's also a lot of media brainwashing. The fix is in. There's also monkey see-monkey do keeping up with the Joneses shenanigans going on. For confirmation of that, look around housing developments for clusters of PV equipped homes.

Some solar projects can be cost effective. Most are not. The reason most are not is usually because most folks are clueless about energy use, or perhaps better said use reduction, or any concept of life cycle costing, the time value of money or energy economics. If they did, or if more folks knew some of what I think I might know about such things, there would be a lot fewer monuments to solar ignorance sitting on roofs and those systems that did exist would be a lot smaller, simpler, a whole lot better designed and a lot more fit for purpose with a decent chance at cost effectiveness that will stand up to more than casual scrutiny such as the moron payback method of first cost /annual saving, both of which terms most folks can't begin to understand in any meaningful sense.

Rant mode off.

Sorry. It is true based on the dozen of real estate agents I personally know.

You have ways to substantiate that statement more than the work cited here recently of the n. Ca paper than had the puny and statistically insignificant sample size, right ?

You have ways and data to back that statement up, right ?

LOL. Whatever you want to believe then go ahead. Just don't install a solar pv system on a home in Fl and expect it's value to rise.

I can see solar panels not increasing real estate sale prices in FL...you guys have cheap electricity and solar panels generally look horrible on the tiled hip roofs on the homes down there. In my area (southern NY) my realtor tells me she sees 2-3% higher prices on homes with owned solar panels, lease arrangements make the home tougher to sell. We have very high electric rates here (in the last year it has been between 18 and 20 cents/kwh depending on fluctuating supply charges). A system that is labeled at 11050 watts is costing me $1.47 a watt after all incentives. With 15% solar losses, and factoring 18 cents a watt the system will make $2,400 of energy a year. This seems to be a pretty good payback scenario to me. This is even before the fact that the solar company I am using (which is GAF master elite certified) will replace my roof and roll it into the solar system price so I can take a tax credit on the new roof (I did not include that in the calcs) - I am about 2 years out from needing a new roof. If I were to sell my home today I would most likely have to re roof or make concessions to the buyer.

If I am doing solar I would have to act this year as NY is eliminating net metering next year. Please look over my numbers and tell me if I am missing something.

Thanks!

I do not sell real estate, but I have lived in Florida for over 40 years and have purchased my share of real estate, as have all of my family and most of my friends. Solar (within this group) is sadly seen as a negative. We have relatively cheap nuclear power in most of the state, we have frequent hurricanes, more lightning strikes than anywhere else in the country, and we have more crooked contractors than any other place I have ever seen anywhere. My power bill rarely tops $150 a month (even in summer). CBS construction, massive insulation, impact windows, LED lighting, and a high efficiency A/C unit all help keep my bills low. In this circumstance paying for expensive solar panels that are susceptible to damage while not providing a payback within a short length of time makes no sense. Just my $0.02, but each to their own.

Reads like the thinking of practical common sense to me. Too bad such thinking is not as common as it once was.

According to a Zillow study, Orlando homes with solar panels sell for a 4.1% premium. Additionally, National Bureau of Economic Research show similar premium price for homes with PV's. Of course, we should listen to the one guy you apparently know that says solar panels cause cancer or such malarky. You geniuses are trying to argue people aren't willing to pay more for a house with a much lower utility bill; however, third grade logic and the data indicates the obvious -- you are wrong.

I can find just about any data from around the country to justify my position if I look long enough. There are many places around the US that a solar pv system has a quick payback as well as has improved the home value.

I am just saying it is not everywhere and third grade logic won't help change the numbers.

Take this as my last post on the subject. And if there are more off topic posts I will shut down the thread.