Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: curiosity
Pouring money into a costly, inefficient technology is hardly a good financial choice, even in the long term.

Do you rent or own your own home? Which is the better long term investment? Do you believe that solar panels crumble and fall off the roof once they pay for themselves? Would a house with a solar array be more attractive to most buyers than without? I'll even bet you could easily recoup the costs plus some.

20 posted on 10/17/2006 10:07:49 AM PDT by Realism (Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Realism
Do you rent or own your own home?

I rent because 1) I think the real estate market is overvalued in my area right now and 2) I don't want to tie up 90% of my wealth in a single risky asset (i.e. a condo). Basic modern portfolio theory says that someone with my level of savings (I just finished school and am starting out, so I don't have much) is much better off renting and investing in a diversified portoflio of stocks and bonds.

Which is the better long term investment?

Renting is not an investment. Buying a house or condo is an investment, but by no means the only investment available. If you choose to invest in a house or condo, you have to forego investment in something else. The choice, therefore, is not just renting vs. in owning, but rather investing in a single piece of real estate or investing in a diversified portfolio of other assets, including stocks, bonds, and perhaps even diversified real estate investment trusts. For someone like me, with local real estate prices being what they are, investing in a diversified portoflio of securities and other assets is a much better deal.

Do you believe that solar panels crumble and fall off the roof once they pay for themselves?

No. It's just that with the current technology, istalling solar panels provides a really lousy return on your investment. The fact that it takes twenty years to recoup the costs makes it pretty obvious that an investment in solar panels has a negative net present value.

Would a house with a solar array be more attractive to most buyers than without?

Yes, but in most areas, the amount by which your house would appreciate would not cover the cost of installing the solar panels. If this were not the case, everyone would be installing panels.

I'll even bet you could easily recoup the costs plus some.

That's a bet you would lose, except perhaps in some very remote locations without ready access to the natioanl power grid.

21 posted on 10/17/2006 10:50:11 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Realism
Do you believe that solar panels crumble and fall off the roof once they pay for themselves?

My understanding is that solar panel performance degrades at about 5% per year. So after 10 - 20 years they might as well crumble and fall off, it would save the cost of removing them.

Anyone who invests on just the possibility of breaking even (no possibility of profit) in more than 7 years is an idiot.

23 posted on 10/17/2006 11:14:36 AM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson