Ford cuts prices of F-150 Lightening by 7-16%.
- Thread starter demarpaint
- Start date
I hear many people talk about it. I imagine they will run the numbers. I don't know what tax incentives and other incentives are, nor do I know what solar prices currently are. I would imagine prices have dropped, but do not know that. If your net project cost is $20K but you save upwards of $300 per month on PG&E and $200 per month on gas, it may make sense.
Again, I am not in the market so I don't have the numbers.
I think they should do that now. The Maverick makes a lotta sense for many and if you can charge at home or at work that probably offers even more value.
Honestly I won't live long enough for solar panels to net me $100K where I live, and for the amount of electric I use. For solar to save me money on gas I'd have to buy an EV. Anyone reading these threads knows my position on that.
Well, didn't Mehthusala live to be 1,000 or something like that? I wish you the best @demarpaint
From your lips to God's ears. Maybe the both of us can live that long, and continue to debate this. Who knows I could live long enough to be forced into everything electric, and solar at home to power it, for free.
Do I see a Model 3 Performance in your future? Maybe a Plaid or Lucid Air? No, I see a Porsche Taycan!From your lips to God's ears. Maybe the both of us can live that long, and continue to debate this. Who knows I could live long enough to be forced into everything electric, and solar at home to power it, for free.
LOL It hasn't been made yet, let alone named.
I wonder how Ford explains the "Prairie Premium" - or perhaps they mark them up here so that people in "the city where no one pays list" think they got a deal.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yeah, they seem pretty reasonably priced here, or at least, there are plenty of options at the lower end of the price scale.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Well, let's do a little exercise on this
According to this page, the cost per watt for a 9kW system is $2.60:
https://www.solarreviews.com/solar-panel-cost/california
Which is $23,400 but apparently there's a tax credit that brings the cost down to $16,355 (which sounds greasy, but anyway).
Let's say Bob buys this system, his monthly electricity usage averages 1100kWh and we'll say the average PG&E rate is $0.35/kWh
We'll say Bob gets 12% CF per our earlier exercise.
So, Bob's system generates 26kWh/day, 778kWh/month.
Bob sells his 778kWh to the grid at $0.04/kWh for $31.10, Bob buys the remaining 322kWh from PG&E at $0.35/kWh for $112.70, so Bob ends up paying $81.60/month (not sure how delivery and other charges factor in here with NEM 3).
So, Bob is saving $31.10/month; $373.20/year, if we look at this just from a NEM 3 value perspective, it will take 44 years for the system to pay for itself with NEM 3, viewed that that lens.
However, the other way to look at this is how much he would have paid for that 778kWh from PG&E and use that as the savings, which is $272.30, which is $3,267.60/year, so then it would take 5 years to break even based on the post tax-credit price, or, 7 years pre. I'm not sure what sales tax is in Cali, and if he'd have to pay that too, so these are all pre sales tax prices.
Now of course as I noted, this is all without delivery and other charges that may fundamentally change how this costs out. If he's paying $80 in delivery for example, that doesn't necessarily change (again, depending on the structure of NEM 3), which will impact how much of the total bill gets washed by the solar system, and, subsequently, what the actual payback period looks like.
Last edited:
And in 44 years odds are Bob is going to be replacing or upgrading those solar panels, at least once, possibly twice. Notice I didn't mention a roof. Even if we factor out the roof, Bob is going to pay more for it because the panels have to come down to do the roof, even if Bob bails on solar. This old timer doesn't have that much time to breakeven, let alone make a profit.Well, let's do a little exercise on this
According to this page, the cost per watt for a 9kW system is $2.60:
https://www.solarreviews.com/solar-panel-cost/california
Which is $23,400 but apparently there's a tax credit that brings the cost down to $16,355 (which sounds greasy, but anyway).
Let's say Bob buys this system, his monthly electricity usage averages 1100kWh and we'll say the average PG&E rate is $0.35/kWh
We'll say Bob gets 12% CF per our earlier exercise.
So, Bob's system generates 26kWh/day, 778kWh/month.
Bob sells his 778kWh to the grid at $0.04/kWh for $31.10, Bob buys the remaining 322kWh from PG&E at $0.35/kWh for $112.70, so Bob ends up paying $81.60/month (not sure how delivery and other charges factor in here with NEM 3).
So, Bob is saving $31.10/month; $373.20/year, so it will take 44 years for the system to pay for itself with NEM 3.
It seems Bob needs to buy more solar. I cannot speak to the numbers, but I have to believe if there were no benefit solar would be a dead business around here. Solar is still a big investment especially if you incur interest on payments. People have to be smarter than that.Well, let's do a little exercise on this
According to this page, the cost per watt for a 9kW system is $2.60:
https://www.solarreviews.com/solar-panel-cost/california
Which is $23,400 but apparently there's a tax credit that brings the cost down to $16,355 (which sounds greasy, but anyway).
Let's say Bob buys this system, his monthly electricity usage averages 1100kWh and we'll say the average PG&E rate is $0.35/kWh
We'll say Bob gets 12% CF per our earlier exercise.
So, Bob's system generates 26kWh/day, 778kWh/month.
Bob sells his 778kWh to the grid at $0.04/kWh for $31.10, Bob buys the remaining 322kWh from PG&E at $0.35/kWh for $112.70, so Bob ends up paying $81.60/month (not sure how delivery and other charges factor in here with NEM 3).
So, Bob is saving $31.10/month; $373.20/year, so it will take 44 years for the system to pay for itself with NEM 3.
I may be wrong but those numbers have to be off. It just doesn't make sense, no one would buy.
Also, new homes have solar, with certain exceptions such as mountainous locations. I cannot believe the incremental cost of solar when erecting a new complex is anything close to a single home installation.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
See the edit for a different perspective on the costing.
You, on NEM 2, get credited full retail, new customers get credited market value ($0.04/kWh). However, if you look at it from avoiding having to pay for those kWh (because the value of the kWh you export is extremely low) perspective, the prospect looks a little better. These people will still have an electricity bill, they will still have to pay full retail for the kWh they consumed outside the time their system was exporting, but they will ultimately have to pay for fewer kWh, so it effectively acts like a demand reduction device rather than a NET/NET import/export scheme with equal cost/value (yours).
How much solar Bob can install will of course depend on the surface area of his roof.
Last edited:
Do they really though?? haha
My goal, of course, was to minimize recurring costs for the long term. Energy costs are crazy high around here so electricity was low hanging fruit. As I recall, the original payback was around 8 years; I believe I am at or near that now. Regardless, I was determined to not have an electric bill; pay once cry once as we say around here. I had to buy sufficient generation or it was not worth it to me.
EVs do not make sense for a lot of people now, but if you have solar they just may. Say a family can drive 15K per year powered by the panels. That's about 1,000 gallons @ 25mpg or close to $5,000 around here, give or take.
Get that Tesla, BMW, Bolt, Taycan, whatever you like instead of the gas powered version. And go faaaaast!
Again, all this information has only solidified my decsion to go solar. If I were to sell our home, which I am not, the solar installation would likely increase the home value vs a similar property without solar.
It is also fair to say my hatred of PG&E played a part in the decision matrix.
JHZR2
Staff member
Interesting, I didn't give that much thought. I read here I think, some people in Florida were saying they can't get HO insurance if they have solar panels on the roof. Florida is a prime area for solar.
People around here have likely made some pretty sound financial decisions or they wouldn't be here.
Similar threads
