Norway: 80% new cars are electric

[PandaBear]

Of course roof repairs and/or replacment requires solar panel removal and reinstall. It is smart to have a new or newer roof before installation.

The cost to charge my EV is zero above the $9 (or less) cost to be connected to the grid. EV charging is added value; the goal is always to maximize asset utilization to increase ROI. I did not purchase the solar for EV charging; that was not a factor in the 2 year evaluation which led to the decision.
I am not sure why you are considering depreciation. When the panels are no longer producing, I have the choice to replace them or simply go back to PG&E. I will be long past break even point; the solar project will have more than paid for itself.

My decision to go solar was as a hedge against future electricity cost fluctuation. And I was not betting on PG&E lowering prices... An insurance policy, if you will. There is value in that. The decision turned out to be far better than I had hoped.

All good reasons you listed to go solar.

My reason to list depreciation is, that's how most would look at how much something cost. You can say your car cost nothing because you pay it off 10 years ago with cash, but that's typically not how people see what something cost.

A $20k solar panel that last 20 years means it cost $1k a year, or 1000/12 a month.

 

[JeffKeryk]

All good reasons you listed to go solar.

My reason to list depreciation is, that's how most would look at how much something cost. You can say your car cost nothing because you pay it off 10 years ago with cash, but that's typically not how people see what something cost.

A $20k solar panel that last 20 years means it cost $1k a year, or 1000/12 a month.

Perhaps check your numbers; that's not the correct calculation; you are missing ROI. It is true that a car and solar panels have useful lives. But a car does not have an ROI.
Your solar calc should be (cost - return) / 20. You would have a negative numerator resulting in a negative cost. ROI starts with the 1st lowered electricity bill and project becomes positive after break even point.
Trust me, I was not going to write the big fat solar project check without a big expected ROI. I looked into this for more than 2 years. It was a true no brainer.

Edit: @PandaBear perhaps you are talking about purchase cost, which is fair, and I am talking about net cost. All good.

 

[JohnnyG]

Perhaps check your numbers; that's not the correct calculation; you are missing ROI. It is true that a car and solar panels have useful lives. But a car does not have an ROI.
Your solar calc should be (cost - return) / 20. You would have a negative numerator resulting in a negative cost. ROI starts with the 1st lowered electricity bill and project becomes positive after break even point.
Trust me, I was not going to write the big fat solar project check without a big expected ROI. I looked into this for more than 2 years. It was a true no brainer.

So, how are you impacted by the new reimbursement rules? Are you grandfathered in?

 

[JeffKeryk]

So, how are you impacted by the new reimbursement rules? Are you grandfathered in?

I do not know what that is. I got 30% tax credit on the cost of the solar project. I pay about $9 per month for PG&E grid use. I pay for electricity above my production. True up is calculated monthly and the net is due annually based on start date. So far I have not had a true up. FYI there is a lot of sun in Los Gatos...

 

[PandaBear]

Perhaps check your numbers; that's not the correct calculation; you are missing ROI. It is true that a car and solar panels have useful lives. But a car does not have an ROI.
Your solar calc should be (cost - return) / 20. You would have a negative numerator resulting in a negative cost. ROI starts with the 1st lowered electricity bill and project becomes positive after break even point.
Trust me, I was not going to write the big fat solar project check without a big expected ROI. I looked into this for more than 2 years. It was a true no brainer.

Edit: @PandaBear perhaps you are talking about purchase cost, which is fair, and I am talking about net cost. All good.

I see, so you are using ROI, then let's see how it works then:

Let's say your solar cost you $100/month in depreciation, purchase cost over useful life, etc, and it replace your $110 electric bill. You can say it pays you $10 a month, if your EV charging is full price at 26c/kwh. Or your solar panel is full price but your EV charging is now much cheaper because instead of full price electricity to charge it you got a huge discount because you place your bet right about solar installation.

What you cannot do is double count them and say both your solar panel is free and EV charging is free. This is why I do not like fuzzy math and IMO all solar panel installation should be calculated with market rate to see if it is a net gain or loss, and EV should calculate whole ownership including depreciation and cost to charge (at market rate even if you have solar panel).

 

[PandaBear]

So, how are you impacted by the new reimbursement rules? Are you grandfathered in?

I do not know what that is. I got 30% tax credit on the cost of the solar project. I pay about $9 per month for PG&E grid use. I pay for electricity above my production. True up is calculated monthly and the net is due annually based on start date. So far I have not had a true up. FYI there is a lot of sun in Los Gatos...

NEM2.0 users are grandfathered for 20 years since installation. He is not impacted. The new user installing now are getting a big haircut, selling solar back to the grid at wholesale (i.e. 4c/kwh) but have to buy back from the grid at full retail price (i.e. 26c/kwh).

 

[Sedin26]

So your saying during a major flood situation you had electricity, and big trucks couldn't get gasoline to the stations for people to fill up their cars. But thru the miracle of science and technology, your electric cars were able to get around thru the same flooded streets? How did both of those electric cars do it ?.,,,

The flooding affected infrastructure for gasoline delivery and some of the transportation routes but most of the roads were passable. Those who already had gas could generally get around fine too, though the ones who were really affected were service vehicles and guys who used trucks to run their business - lots of them ran out after a day or so and I saw a lot of threads on Reddit and other sites for people selling what they had in jerry cans for inflated prices.

There are many, many electric vehicles here - you cannot go out for a drive at any time without seeing a bunch of them on the road. The reason I point this out is that the narrative that the electrical grid is unreliable and will die in a natural disaster isn't always accurate

 

[andrew_j]

That is really amazing.

It gives some data to understand what happens with more widespread EV adoption.

 

[nicholas]

But we can learn from the experiences in Norway and possibly adapt them to our situation. Rather than saying this can't be implemented here, we can ask "What can we learn from this?" and "How might we build on Norway's experiences?"

Crazy idea, eh.

 

[JeffKeryk]

I see, so you are using ROI, then let's see how it works then:

Let's say your solar cost you $100/month in depreciation, purchase cost over useful life, etc, and it replace your $110 electric bill. You can say it pays you $10 a month, if your EV charging is full price at 26c/kwh. Or your solar panel is full price but your EV charging is now much cheaper because instead of full price electricity to charge it you got a huge discount because you place your bet right about solar installation.

What you cannot do is double count them and say both your solar panel is free and EV charging is free. This is why I do not like fuzzy math and IMO all solar panel installation should be calculated with market rate to see if it is a net gain or loss, and EV should calculate whole ownership including depreciation and cost to charge (at market rate even if you have solar panel).

I am not sure I understand your logic.
The solar project had a cost; it was for solar and roof. It reduced my electricity bill to $9 per month.
My bill is $9 per month whether I consume zero to max panel production for the life of the panels (or NEM 2 changes).
This assumes I do not incur an annual true up; so far I have not done so. Max annual production is the upper limit of the relevant range.

An investment has an expected return, otherwise why do it?
I have not paid a penny on consumption since the panels were switched on. ROI equals (house + EV) - $9.
Investment is reduced by ROI until break even point; then it's a net gain going forward. Asset goal is to maximize ROI via full utilization.

Say I drive the Tesla 10K per year instead of ICE. At 30 mpg that's 333 gallons or about $1500 per year. In less than 10 years gas savings alone pays for the panel investment. And none of my cars get 30 mpg...
My bill is $9 per month, within the relevant range, for the life of the panels. This is the biggest no brainer in the world.

I may be leaving money on the table each year that I do not have a true up. So far so good.

 

[Trav]

A neighbor down the street pays $120 a month for solar panels, which is considerably more than her previous monthly electric bill, here they do not buy back excess production due to saturation or some such thing so the whole thing is a losing proposition.
I have a slate roof so solar on that roof is a non starter due to possible roof damage, angle and amount of sunshine the roof gets.

Could you make the same deal today? Without tax incentives and the electric company buying back excess production I seriously doubt it.

 

[JeffKeryk]

A neighbor down the street pays $120 a month for solar panels, which is considerably more than her previous monthly electric bill, here they do not buy back excess production due to saturation or some such thing so the whole thing is a losing proposition.
I have a slate roof so solar on that roof is a non starter due to possible roof damage, angle and amount of sunshine the roof gets.

Could you make the same deal today? Without tax incentives and the electric company buying back excess production I seriously doubt it.

I am not sure why your neighbor would make such a deal. Either something is missing or someone can't count.
My solar project was an investment with an expected return. A hedge against future price increases. I worked on this for over 2 years before writing the big check. I knew what I was getting; I was locked into NEM 2 for 20 years or something like that. I don't even think about it today.

Could I get this deal today? I dunno as I am not in the market. Probably not. I am more than satisfied with the result; sometimes you get lucky. Plus, we don't live in the past; it's gone and therefore, beyond learning, is a non issue. Better to move forward than to snivel regardless of your situation.

My long term plan, more than 30 years, was to minimize recurring costs as time went on with contingencies built in. I did what I could when I was working. I drove strippie Toyletta pickups and used Hondas, but I paid off my house. I used to be a drunk, homeless and busted. I never wanna be there again. AA, California low cost education and Silicon Valley opportunity saved my bacon.
Today I live in an incredible place and my cost of living is very low.

 

[Torrid]

A neighbor down the street pays $120 a month for solar panels, which is considerably more than her previous monthly electric bill, here they do not buy back excess production due to saturation or some such thing so the whole thing is a losing proposition.
I have a slate roof so solar on that roof is a non starter due to possible roof damage, angle and amount of sunshine the roof gets.

Could you make the same deal today? Without tax incentives and the electric company buying back excess production I seriously doubt it.

That definitely wouldn't be a good deal for me either. My gas supply to my house is in my power bill and right now where I'm not using heat or AC I'm at about $150. I was about $215 with heat for the winter. I do plan to go solar at some point in the future if the numbers make sense once both cars in the house are electric.

 

[Trav]

She was told that there would be net metering, it never happened. She got a letter as did I that the company was going by area to determine saturation and this area would no longer be included. It was a scam and she went for it, to this day I still get 2-3 calls a day about solar, all scams.
I dont understand anything about this stuff and dont want to know, in MA there is no such thing as a deal.

 

[demarpaint]

She was told that there would be net metering, it never happened. She got a letter as did I that the company was going by area to determine saturation and this area would no longer be included. It was a scam and she went for it, to this day I still get 2-3 calls a day about solar, all scams.
I dont understand anything about this stuff and dont want to know, in MA there is no such thing as a deal.

I had someone knocking on my door Tuesday trying to pitch solar panels. Oh God how I miss my dog. Needless to say I sent him paching in under 30 seconds, and he won't be back. LOL

 

[alarmguy]

All good reasons you listed to go solar.

My reason to list depreciation is, that's how most would look at how much something cost. You can say your car cost nothing because you pay it off 10 years ago with cash, but that's typically not how people see what something cost.

A $20k solar panel that last 20 years means it cost $1k a year, or 1000/12 a month.

Well,
We all buy things that make us happy and nothing wrong if solar is worth it to some. So many variables nationwide especially regarding the cost of electricity. Those electric cost costs are related to the voting priorities and patterns of the area population.

Here, in my new home electric is 10.2 cents kWr 24 hours a day. I have the OPTION to maybe save more if I play the peak demand game, I haven't lived here long enough to do that though. Right now I am sticking with the fixed rate.
If I went variable;
Off peak rate is 6.6 cents and super off peak from 10 pm to 5 am everyday is 4.3 cents kWr. Then there is a peak demand period 4 hours per day at 30 cents.

Ok but I'm off subject (hang in there)
That number you posted of 1k a year for 20 years is really just the tip of the iceberg.

1. I took a very conservative 4% annual return on dropping 20k into an IRA or any investment vehicle, even a bank at the present time.
If you put that 20k into anything giving a 4% return you would have $43,822.46 in 20 years, so your actual cost of solar is $2,191.23 per year.
2. At the end of 20 years, or 25 years, you have the cost of disposing of those panels, doing another reroof and if you chose to install new panels.
or
3. Having panels on a roof COULD be a detriment to the selling price of the home. Some people do not want them at all but even those that do, life has unexpected changes, who knows if you are going to move in 10 years, 15 years, 12 years, 17 years?
First problem for a potential buyer is what to do with those almost "spent" panels and or roof.

Im not discounting having panels but the public in general ignores or do not informe themselves the true cost of anything they purchase. I was no different at one point in my life and why this stuff has to be taught mandatory in High School but you can bet it will never happen the banking lobby makes sure of it day in and day out. It's an incredibly powerful lobby.

 

[OVERKILL]

A neighbor down the street pays $120 a month for solar panels, which is considerably more than her previous monthly electric bill, here they do not buy back excess production due to saturation or some such thing so the whole thing is a losing proposition.
I have a slate roof so solar on that roof is a non starter due to possible roof damage, angle and amount of sunshine the roof gets.

Could you make the same deal today? Without tax incentives and the electric company buying back excess production I seriously doubt it.

Could I get this deal today? I dunno as I am not in the market. Probably not.

The latest revision of NEM, due to over-penetration of solar and the impact theses schemes had on retail rates, has dropped compensation to $0.04/kWh, so you no longer get credited full retail for your output.

So, no, the same deal cannot be made today.

 

[alarmguy]

The flooding affected infrastructure for gasoline delivery and some of the transportation routes but most of the roads were passable.

We dont really have issues like this in the USA and not a reason to chose one source vs another. If anything in the USA we are far more affected by electric power loses than that of delivery trucks.

 

[JohnnyG]

I do not know what that is. I got 30% tax credit on the cost of the solar project. I pay about $9 per month for PG&E grid use. I pay for electricity above my production. True up is calculated monthly and the net is due annually based on start date. So far I have not had a true up. FYI there is a lot of sun in Los Gatos...

There is in Florida too. The new net metering rules going into place in most states are discouraging people from investing in solar power.

 

[JohnnyG]

NEM2.0 users are grandfathered for 20 years since installation. He is not impacted. The new user installing now are getting a big haircut, selling solar back to the grid at wholesale (i.e. 4c/kwh) but have to buy back from the grid at full retail price (i.e. 26c/kwh).

As I thought.
Too bad this is discouraging further investments in solar.