Are Solar Panels Worth It?

[Griffin Malcolm]

Hey team, question on solar panels and their impact on resale value. Essentially, is it worth it? I had a consultation with a solar panel salesman today and he quoted me 29k for 18 panels, however the final price would be 13k after New York and Federal tax credits plus a holiday discount. At 13k, I would be paying about $100 each month for electricity. There would be no up-front cost either. They would fix my $100 for the next 18 months as a grace period so I have time to put the tax credit money "back in" the full cost of the panels. If after 18 months I don't do this, then the loan is re-amortized and the monthly payment would increase.

It seems like a good deal, and an easy selling point to a potential buyer - "hey, your energy bill will be $100 each month even in the winter, and then once you've paid off the panels you've got free energy!" but I'm just not sure about the tax credits. Like, I understand it comes off my taxable income, but it's also not like I'm getting a check for 14k that I can throw at the panels. I feel like it's more likely I would just have a lower taxable income, but still have to pay mostly the full 29k, which would make the monthly payment closer to $200. 

For context on the property - it's my house hack I've owned about 1.5 years now and plan is to sell in May of next year once I hit my 2-in-5 rights. I'm strictly concerned with ROI and how it looks to potential buyers. If anyone can provide some insight it would be appreciated. Thank you!

 

[Kevin Sobilo]

@Griffin Malcolm, I don't have any statistics and I'm not sure there will be any that I would consider reliable. So, here is how I would look at it.

For owner occupied homes, the typical buyer is NOT analytical. They are not able to assign a value to things like roof age. To them a 5 year old roof is in good shape for the near future the same as a 18 year old roof. Also consider that green energy is not universally accepted. Many people on principle alone may not want solar panels as hard as that may be to understand. Demand is what drives up price/value. So, if 25% of potential buyers eschew the concept of solar panels the demand doesn't drive up the price in the same way an above ground pool doesn't add appreciable value.

For functional aspects of the home the buyer usually just looks for potential issues but doesn't analyze the differences for valuation purposes. Where they "see" value is what makes them interested in the home which is how they imagine it will be for them to live in. When a buyer starts talking about how it will be to live in the home you KNOW they are interested. Those aspects of the home are where they "see" value differences for themselves. 

However, for a commercial property or a commercial residential (5+ unit) property value is based on the income approach and reducing expenses in this case by producing electricity factors into that math and very well might increase the valuation enough to make sense. So, from a business point of view with a commercial property it could be a good investment with a good ROI.

If solar panels provided a good ROI on owner occupied homes, then builders building spec homes would include them as standard to reap the reward!

[Joe S.]

No…. unless you can get a super wholesale price on the panels and have someone put them up for you other than some company that takes advantage of simple people.

[Peter Mckernan]

The typical experience that I have had flipping homes with solar and also helping buyers/sellers on sales with solar is that the seller ends up having a request from the buyer to pay the remaining balance off from the solar debt on the home without increasing the value. There were some years ago when buyers would just take over the lease and that is it, the value stayed the same and it was transferred in escrow to the new buyer if they qualified. 

The times have changed on this though, the buyers have become very skeptical on solar, and have demanded that the balance be paid off by the seller at the close of escrow. This is without increasing the sales price either. There are some reasons for this and why it is happening, the solar payment/bill increases incrementally each year until it ends, the company of the solar panels does not have great support, and the last thing, it is not a massive savings in eyes of the buyer with these burdens that they have to go through with an intense contract to sign too.  

[Russell Brazil]

This is highly market, and even location specific. Some markets solar panels may increase your value....others it has no affect...and in others it will drop your properties value. It is important to consult with a real estate agent with knowledge of how panels affect your properties value.

[Nick C.]

We're in sunny Florida, buyers want the loan paid off and there is a $0 increase in home value. 

[Calvin Thomas]

Quote from @Griffin Malcolm:

Hey team, question on solar panels and their impact on resale value. Essentially, is it worth it? I had a consultation with a solar panel salesman today and he quoted me 29k for 18 panels, however the final price would be 13k after New York and Federal tax credits plus a holiday discount. At 13k, I would be paying about $100 each month for electricity. There would be no up-front cost either. They would fix my $100 for the next 18 months as a grace period so I have time to put the tax credit money "back in" the full cost of the panels. If after 18 months I don't do this, then the loan is re-amortized and the monthly payment would increase.

It seems like a good deal, and an easy selling point to a potential buyer - "hey, your energy bill will be $100 each month even in the winter, and then once you've paid off the panels you've got free energy!" but I'm just not sure about the tax credits. Like, I understand it comes off my taxable income, but it's also not like I'm getting a check for 14k that I can throw at the panels. I feel like it's more likely I would just have a lower taxable income, but still have to pay mostly the full 29k, which would make the monthly payment closer to $200. 

For context on the property - it's my house hack I've owned about 1.5 years now and plan is to sell in May of next year once I hit my 2-in-5 rights. I'm strictly concerned with ROI and how it looks to potential buyers. If anyone can provide some insight it would be appreciated. Thank you!

 

No. Hard pass.

[Bill B.]

This is literally asked monthly if not weekly. You can click on the magnifying glass in the upper corner to search for previous discussions. 

TLDR: You will be asked by the buyer to pay off the solar as the seller. They want nothing to do with it. While it may get your home chosen over an identically priced one it won’t add value. As a potential buyer of 7 homes with solar last year 5 of the deals were outright killed by the solar. (They were leases with escalation clauses without a buyout option.) These people were screwed over hard by solar salesman. The other 2 had balances in the $13k-$25k range. I had the seller pay them off before closing and purchased the homes at the same price as non-solar homes. And this is in Vegas. We have some sun. 

Ps. There is ZERO chance on a solar purchase they will guarantee your total electric bill. The only solar people who even talk about electric costs are the lease people with escalating costs. Avoid them at all costs. As has been the case for 20+ years. You add them to make a statement about how virtuous you are, not to make money. 

Pps. I always love the statement “They’ll pay for themselves in 10 - 15 years…”. Do people not understand that’s a guaranteed 0% return for 10-15 years? Give me $10k of your money, I guarantee you’ll get it all back in 10-15 years. (If I can earn just 5% I’ll have $20k in 15 years. Give you your $10k and walk with a $10k. So even if they last 30 years and could have produced double their cost. Now I could have had $40k from a 5% bank investment.)

[Sasha Mohammed]

just don't do a lease. as others have mentioned, this forces the buyer of the property to take over the lease (if its even allowed/ they qualify) and it certainly does make the property a little tougher to sell. 

i'm also doing a house hack, and here in CA, its made a world of difference for me. the bulk of our energy usage is in the summer when we want to run the a/c. my bill stays a constant $228/mo (i pocketed the tax credit and simply financed the panels after that grace period). instead of getting an $800 bill in the summer months, we run the a/c at a constant temperature 24/7 on auto, stay comfortable, and i typically get a little bit coming back at the end of the year. don't expect to pocket this "little bit back" by being conservative with your useage, it sort of is a use-it-or-lose-it situation... i think i got $54 back this year. But just in terms of my face not changing when someone is too warm and wants to run the a/c or drop the temperature... its been fantastic. For context, 4 adults and all our tech living here, we were running about $250/mo on average per month for electricity anyway... outside of summer a/c useage. so all in all, its saved me about $2k a year if i had to guesstimate for you (it stays hot here through October usually).

i still owe about $23k on mine, have no intentions of selling the house. but if i decide to move out and rent the whole house out, our market would support higher rent in exchange for no electricity bill. i think you just need to decide what YOUR main benefit of having the panels are. for me it was for the house-hack, and consistent billing, despite the usage. if its strictly for property value increase, i'm not sure it would be worth it, pending your specific market. 

[Griffin Malcolm]

Thanks all. Seems pretty clear they aren't the move. I like them if I were buying for a place I'm putting roots down in, but seems like a waste otherwise

[Kevin Sobilo]

Quote from @Bill B.:

This is literally asked monthly if not weekly. You can click on the magnifying glass in the upper corner to search for previous discussions. 

TLDR: You will be asked by the buyer to pay off the solar as the seller. They want nothing to do with it. While it may get your home chosen over an identically priced one it won’t add value. As a potential buyer of 7 homes with solar last year 5 of the deals were outright killed by the solar. (They were leases with escalation clauses without a buyout option.) These people were screwed over hard by solar salesman. The other 2 had balances in the $13k-$25k range. I had the seller pay them off before closing and purchased the homes at the same price as non-solar homes. And this is in Vegas. We have some sun. 

Ps. There is ZERO chance on a solar purchase they will guarantee your total electric bill. The only solar people who even talk about electric costs are the lease people with escalating costs. Avoid them at all costs. As has been the case for 20+ years. You add them to make a statement about how virtuous you are, not to make money. 

Pps. I always love the statement “They’ll pay for themselves in 10 - 15 years…”. Do people not understand that’s a guaranteed 0% return for 10-15 years? Give me $10k of your money, I guarantee you’ll get it all back in 10-15 years. (If I can earn just 5% I’ll have $20k in 15 years. Give you your $10k and walk with a $10k. So even if they last 30 years and could have produced double their cost. Now I could have had $40k from a 5% bank investment.)

BTW, a solar panel might last WELL beyond 25-30 years. I think the warranties are for 25 years at something like 80% efficiency but they might keep working 40-50 years with 70% efficiency. They do last a long time.

A 10-15 year payback very well might be a MUCH better investment than you are making it sound like because the price of energy goes UP in addition to the lifespan of the system being longer than you suggested. 

Sometimes also, its about protecting yourself. People NEED energy and by producing it yourself you eliminate your risk to market prices. You could make 5% in another investment but if energy prices spike 20% next year the solar panels have done you a great service by taking that inflation risk away.

[Bill B.]

Luckily electricity prices have been much more stable…

In 2009 our rate was 11.2c per kWh

Now it’s 13.1c per kWh

That’s 17% in 15 years. Just over 1% per year, well under inflation. 

Unluckily The “basic charge” that everyone including solar users has more than doubled in those 15 years. Including a 50% increase in this year alone. (Basically to stick it to the solar people.)

Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of solar. It keeps our money from countries that hate us. It puts the brakes on big power company’s power. And it rewards “time of use” power usage. I’d throw in its cleaner energy, but if that was really a factor we’d be building nuclear plants. (This year ‘peak power price’ changed from 1p-7p to just 6-9p because of all the solar generation.)

If we lost power more than once every 5-10 years I would have the Tesla battery with solar. But power is just too cheap and too reliable. But there’s no reason not to wait. As the solar people have been saying for more than 40 years. It’s 10% better and 10% cheaper every year. Eventually it will have to be free. 

Ps. I do believe because of all the new solar production daytime electricity, at least in the summer, will be free or darn near it. There are already power deals that give you unlimited charging for your electric car for a small charge. And many if not most have a 5c kWh for off peak charging. (That’s what I use.)

Pps. If EVs ever start coming with bidirectional charging that will be a massive game changer in the electricity market. 

Last ppps. Has anyone seen what a hail storm does to solar? I saw a guy driving past a square mile of solar panels in Texas where every single panel was destroyed. Not an issue here, but my mom just got a new roof in MN because of hail damage. I wonder if the insurance company would have bought her new panels?

[Gustavo Delgado]

No..

[Bruce Woodruff]

Generally NO. For all the reasons listed above. If you look at true ROI (especially without any Govt tax help) It is an even bigger NO. Their time has not yet come IMO. And without getting battery backup, they really aren't comparable to your basic Elec power supplied by the power company......I.E. you have a power outage, what do you do at night?

Although I am generally a fan of the concept and would love to see them in more widespread use, their time has not yet come IMO......they are just too dang expensive and we have to solve the problem with back-feeding. I have personally installed a medium sized system on an Off-Grid vaction home I have and it is a real life-saver. But I did the install myself, not everyone wants to or can, do this.

But in answer to your original question.....it is a solid NO.

[Calvin Thomas]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

@Griffin Malcolm, I don't have any statistics and I'm not sure there will be any that I would consider reliable. So, here is how I would look at it.

For owner occupied homes, the typical buyer is NOT analytical. They are not able to assign a value to things like roof age. To them a 5 year old roof is in good shape for the near future the same as a 18 year old roof. Also consider that green energy is not universally accepted. Many people on principle alone may not want solar panels as hard as that may be to understand. Demand is what drives up price/value. So, if 25% of potential buyers eschew the concept of solar panels the demand doesn't drive up the price in the same way an above ground pool doesn't add appreciable value.

For functional aspects of the home the buyer usually just looks for potential issues but doesn't analyze the differences for valuation purposes. Where they "see" value is what makes them interested in the home which is how they imagine it will be for them to live in. When a buyer starts talking about how it will be to live in the home you KNOW they are interested. Those aspects of the home are where they "see" value differences for themselves. 

However, for a commercial property or a commercial residential (5+ unit) property value is based on the income approach and reducing expenses in this case by producing electricity factors into that math and very well might increase the valuation enough to make sense. So, from a business point of view with a commercial property it could be a good investment with a good ROI.

If solar panels provided a good ROI on owner occupied homes, then builders building spec homes would include them as standard to reap the reward!

 They are obsolete as soon as you install them.  The technology is getting better, cheaper and thinner. The price to savings ratio, at least in the Northeast isn't there.  It's better to invest into insulation and possibly a new HVAC system than solar.

[Kevin Sobilo]

Quote from @Calvin Thomas:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

@Griffin Malcolm, I don't have any statistics and I'm not sure there will be any that I would consider reliable. So, here is how I would look at it.

For owner occupied homes, the typical buyer is NOT analytical. They are not able to assign a value to things like roof age. To them a 5 year old roof is in good shape for the near future the same as a 18 year old roof. Also consider that green energy is not universally accepted. Many people on principle alone may not want solar panels as hard as that may be to understand. Demand is what drives up price/value. So, if 25% of potential buyers eschew the concept of solar panels the demand doesn't drive up the price in the same way an above ground pool doesn't add appreciable value.

For functional aspects of the home the buyer usually just looks for potential issues but doesn't analyze the differences for valuation purposes. Where they "see" value is what makes them interested in the home which is how they imagine it will be for them to live in. When a buyer starts talking about how it will be to live in the home you KNOW they are interested. Those aspects of the home are where they "see" value differences for themselves. 

However, for a commercial property or a commercial residential (5+ unit) property value is based on the income approach and reducing expenses in this case by producing electricity factors into that math and very well might increase the valuation enough to make sense. So, from a business point of view with a commercial property it could be a good investment with a good ROI.

If solar panels provided a good ROI on owner occupied homes, then builders building spec homes would include them as standard to reap the reward!

 They are obsolete as soon as you install them.  The technology is getting better, cheaper and thinner. The price to savings ratio, at least in the Northeast isn't there.  It's better to invest into insulation and possibly a new HVAC system than solar.

How do you survive using just a flip-phone and not a smart phone? I mean smart phones are obsolete as soon as you buy it. So, buying one would not yet make sense to you?!? Sorry for the sarcasm, but trying to make a point.

I would suggest you think like an investor. Newbie investors are always trying to decide if NOW is the right time to buy an investment and that isn't really a very good question. When you see a good deal you buy it. So, NOW is ALWAYS the right time if the investor sees a deal that's inside his/her buy-box.

With any kind of long term investment (especially real estate) TIME is huge force. It might not matter at all if technology will improve. If your investment window is 20 years and you buy todays technology you may well have a better result than waiting 10 years and having half the investment window to buy. Also, you can evaluate today's deal whereas you can only speculate what deal may be available in 10 years.

You are correct that insulation is almost certainly a bigger bang for the buck in a heating climate. MAYBE HVAC, but that is less clear because the total cost of ownership of a very efficient system might not be that much better than a mid-grade system these days.

Neither of those things affect whether solar is a good deal on its own. The tangible/measurable benefits do seem to pan out over the life of the system especially if energy prices continue to rise. You also need to consider intangible benefits. Right now in fact there are still people here in the northeast without power from last Thursday/Friday's storm. Those people are wishing they had a solar system with some battery storage about now after days of suffering without.

[Rick Albert]

I've never had a buyer pay a premium for solar panels. I currently have clients in escrow on a property with paid off solar panels and when I asked them if it made a difference, they said no.

I have a listing right now with paid off solar panels, so far no one cares.

It is a marketing thing. So if two properties are identical, including price, then solar panels might be a deciding factor. 

If there is an active loan or lease, I've heard it has become a nightmare for listings. The solar company wants to also qualify the buyer. I had spoken to a lender who said he approved his clients for a mortgage of hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet the solar company wouldn't approve them.

Basically, if you are thinking of selling, don't do the solar panels. Very low probability you will get anything back.

[Bud Gaffney]

Solar Panels suck.

[Bud Gaffney]

The technology just is not there yet.

[John Morgan]

Mine are 12 years old and not producing much at all. It’s a hard pass for me.

[Calvin Thomas]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Calvin Thomas:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

@Griffin Malcolm, I don't have any statistics and I'm not sure there will be any that I would consider reliable. So, here is how I would look at it.

For owner occupied homes, the typical buyer is NOT analytical. They are not able to assign a value to things like roof age. To them a 5 year old roof is in good shape for the near future the same as a 18 year old roof. Also consider that green energy is not universally accepted. Many people on principle alone may not want solar panels as hard as that may be to understand. Demand is what drives up price/value. So, if 25% of potential buyers eschew the concept of solar panels the demand doesn't drive up the price in the same way an above ground pool doesn't add appreciable value.

For functional aspects of the home the buyer usually just looks for potential issues but doesn't analyze the differences for valuation purposes. Where they "see" value is what makes them interested in the home which is how they imagine it will be for them to live in. When a buyer starts talking about how it will be to live in the home you KNOW they are interested. Those aspects of the home are where they "see" value differences for themselves. 

However, for a commercial property or a commercial residential (5+ unit) property value is based on the income approach and reducing expenses in this case by producing electricity factors into that math and very well might increase the valuation enough to make sense. So, from a business point of view with a commercial property it could be a good investment with a good ROI.

If solar panels provided a good ROI on owner occupied homes, then builders building spec homes would include them as standard to reap the reward!

 They are obsolete as soon as you install them.  The technology is getting better, cheaper and thinner. The price to savings ratio, at least in the Northeast isn't there.  It's better to invest into insulation and possibly a new HVAC system than solar.

How do you survive using just a flip-phone and not a smart phone? I mean smart phones are obsolete as soon as you buy it. So, buying one would not yet make sense to you?!? Sorry for the sarcasm, but trying to make a point.

I would suggest you think like an investor. Newbie investors are always trying to decide if NOW is the right time to buy an investment and that isn't really a very good question. When you see a good deal you buy it. So, NOW is ALWAYS the right time if the investor sees a deal that's inside his/her buy-box.

With any kind of long term investment (especially real estate) TIME is huge force. It might not matter at all if technology will improve. If your investment window is 20 years and you buy todays technology you may well have a better result than waiting 10 years and having half the investment window to buy. Also, you can evaluate today's deal whereas you can only speculate what deal may be available in 10 years.

You are correct that insulation is almost certainly a bigger bang for the buck in a heating climate. MAYBE HVAC, but that is less clear because the total cost of ownership of a very efficient system might not be that much better than a mid-grade system these days.

Neither of those things affect whether solar is a good deal on its own. The tangible/measurable benefits do seem to pan out over the life of the system especially if energy prices continue to rise. You also need to consider intangible benefits. Right now in fact there are still people here in the northeast without power from last Thursday/Friday's storm. Those people are wishing they had a solar system with some battery storage about now after days of suffering without.

 One can survive on a flip phone and not have a smartphone just fine. The Orthodox Jews in NYC (and I am sure elsewhere) have no issues transacting millions of dollars of business each and every year on a flip phone.

The tech for solar panels is just not there.  It's a hindrance, not a help.  In a decade, who knows, but now, no dice.

[Kevin Sobilo]

Quote from @Calvin Thomas:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Calvin Thomas:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

@Griffin Malcolm, I don't have any statistics and I'm not sure there will be any that I would consider reliable. So, here is how I would look at it.

For owner occupied homes, the typical buyer is NOT analytical. They are not able to assign a value to things like roof age. To them a 5 year old roof is in good shape for the near future the same as a 18 year old roof. Also consider that green energy is not universally accepted. Many people on principle alone may not want solar panels as hard as that may be to understand. Demand is what drives up price/value. So, if 25% of potential buyers eschew the concept of solar panels the demand doesn't drive up the price in the same way an above ground pool doesn't add appreciable value.

For functional aspects of the home the buyer usually just looks for potential issues but doesn't analyze the differences for valuation purposes. Where they "see" value is what makes them interested in the home which is how they imagine it will be for them to live in. When a buyer starts talking about how it will be to live in the home you KNOW they are interested. Those aspects of the home are where they "see" value differences for themselves. 

However, for a commercial property or a commercial residential (5+ unit) property value is based on the income approach and reducing expenses in this case by producing electricity factors into that math and very well might increase the valuation enough to make sense. So, from a business point of view with a commercial property it could be a good investment with a good ROI.

If solar panels provided a good ROI on owner occupied homes, then builders building spec homes would include them as standard to reap the reward!

 They are obsolete as soon as you install them.  The technology is getting better, cheaper and thinner. The price to savings ratio, at least in the Northeast isn't there.  It's better to invest into insulation and possibly a new HVAC system than solar.

How do you survive using just a flip-phone and not a smart phone? I mean smart phones are obsolete as soon as you buy it. So, buying one would not yet make sense to you?!? Sorry for the sarcasm, but trying to make a point.

I would suggest you think like an investor. Newbie investors are always trying to decide if NOW is the right time to buy an investment and that isn't really a very good question. When you see a good deal you buy it. So, NOW is ALWAYS the right time if the investor sees a deal that's inside his/her buy-box.

With any kind of long term investment (especially real estate) TIME is huge force. It might not matter at all if technology will improve. If your investment window is 20 years and you buy todays technology you may well have a better result than waiting 10 years and having half the investment window to buy. Also, you can evaluate today's deal whereas you can only speculate what deal may be available in 10 years.

You are correct that insulation is almost certainly a bigger bang for the buck in a heating climate. MAYBE HVAC, but that is less clear because the total cost of ownership of a very efficient system might not be that much better than a mid-grade system these days.

Neither of those things affect whether solar is a good deal on its own. The tangible/measurable benefits do seem to pan out over the life of the system especially if energy prices continue to rise. You also need to consider intangible benefits. Right now in fact there are still people here in the northeast without power from last Thursday/Friday's storm. Those people are wishing they had a solar system with some battery storage about now after days of suffering without.

 One can survive on a flip phone and not have a smartphone just fine. The Orthodox Jews in NYC (and I am sure elsewhere) have no issues transacting millions of dollars of business each and every year on a flip phone.

The tech for solar panels is just not there.  It's a hindrance, not a help.  In a decade, who knows, but now, no dice.

So, what you're saying is that you were incorrect on that point because the only people you could give an example of using a flip phone don't do it because a smart phone is outdated as soon as you buy it. 

You also gave no specific reason you believe the technology "is just not there". Giving no reason is effectively the same as having no opinion. 

[Calvin Thomas]

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Calvin Thomas:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

Quote from @Calvin Thomas:

Quote from @Kevin Sobilo:

@Griffin Malcolm, I don't have any statistics and I'm not sure there will be any that I would consider reliable. So, here is how I would look at it.

For owner occupied homes, the typical buyer is NOT analytical. They are not able to assign a value to things like roof age. To them a 5 year old roof is in good shape for the near future the same as a 18 year old roof. Also consider that green energy is not universally accepted. Many people on principle alone may not want solar panels as hard as that may be to understand. Demand is what drives up price/value. So, if 25% of potential buyers eschew the concept of solar panels the demand doesn't drive up the price in the same way an above ground pool doesn't add appreciable value.

For functional aspects of the home the buyer usually just looks for potential issues but doesn't analyze the differences for valuation purposes. Where they "see" value is what makes them interested in the home which is how they imagine it will be for them to live in. When a buyer starts talking about how it will be to live in the home you KNOW they are interested. Those aspects of the home are where they "see" value differences for themselves. 

However, for a commercial property or a commercial residential (5+ unit) property value is based on the income approach and reducing expenses in this case by producing electricity factors into that math and very well might increase the valuation enough to make sense. So, from a business point of view with a commercial property it could be a good investment with a good ROI.

If solar panels provided a good ROI on owner occupied homes, then builders building spec homes would include them as standard to reap the reward!

 They are obsolete as soon as you install them.  The technology is getting better, cheaper and thinner. The price to savings ratio, at least in the Northeast isn't there.  It's better to invest into insulation and possibly a new HVAC system than solar.

How do you survive using just a flip-phone and not a smart phone? I mean smart phones are obsolete as soon as you buy it. So, buying one would not yet make sense to you?!? Sorry for the sarcasm, but trying to make a point.

I would suggest you think like an investor. Newbie investors are always trying to decide if NOW is the right time to buy an investment and that isn't really a very good question. When you see a good deal you buy it. So, NOW is ALWAYS the right time if the investor sees a deal that's inside his/her buy-box.

With any kind of long term investment (especially real estate) TIME is huge force. It might not matter at all if technology will improve. If your investment window is 20 years and you buy todays technology you may well have a better result than waiting 10 years and having half the investment window to buy. Also, you can evaluate today's deal whereas you can only speculate what deal may be available in 10 years.

You are correct that insulation is almost certainly a bigger bang for the buck in a heating climate. MAYBE HVAC, but that is less clear because the total cost of ownership of a very efficient system might not be that much better than a mid-grade system these days.

Neither of those things affect whether solar is a good deal on its own. The tangible/measurable benefits do seem to pan out over the life of the system especially if energy prices continue to rise. You also need to consider intangible benefits. Right now in fact there are still people here in the northeast without power from last Thursday/Friday's storm. Those people are wishing they had a solar system with some battery storage about now after days of suffering without.

 One can survive on a flip phone and not have a smartphone just fine. The Orthodox Jews in NYC (and I am sure elsewhere) have no issues transacting millions of dollars of business each and every year on a flip phone.

The tech for solar panels is just not there.  It's a hindrance, not a help.  In a decade, who knows, but now, no dice.

So, what you're saying is that you were incorrect on that point because the only people you could give an example of using a flip phone don't do it because a smart phone is outdated as soon as you buy it. 

You also gave no specific reason you believe the technology "is just not there". Giving no reason is effectively the same as having no opinion. 

 I don't get into pissing matches online.  Whatever you believe, you can believe.  Enjoy.

[Ellen Steele]

One thing I have run into as a real estate agent, is to be mindful of the age of the roof when installing solar panels. To replace the roof on a home with solar panels, to maintain the solar panel warranty, you will need to use their company to remove the panels, store them safely during roof work, and then use their company to replace the panels and make sure they are working again. Some solar companies offer one free removal/replacement, but if the company goes out of business or is aquired, this will be difficult to use. Here in Austin, TX I had this situation happen this year, and it cost about $6000 for removal/replacement of the panels on top of the cost of the new roof. 

[James Hamling]

Ok @Griffin Malcolm, ready to "Nerd-Out"..... 

I was involved in R&D program with O.C. on "solving" a solar-on-the-roof solution that (a) worked and (b) was scalable. 

You might notice today, it's discontinued. Yup, there's a reason for that. 

Firstly, the real item is only a question of Point of Production. Because the grid is getting feed via solar, a person in many markets can get solar power, the question is via a privatized system or via the utility provider. 

Solar panels start diminishing in production from the first minute there installed. This is the science of how a solar panel works. It's shedding material from impact of sun's rays, that's how elec is produced. So, that is a key item to keep in mind when doing an analysis is what the slope is of diminishing production. 

Next is install impact. Does it improve the roof itself, or does it bring increased maintenance. It varies a lot depending on install method, regional area, heck even a specific properties weather exposure. 

Now the biggest impactor is often the least spoken on which is energy storage. Batteries wear out, that's just reality, and were talking batteries for a house, yeah, that's $. Personally, I am a big fan of the "alternative" storage systems such as water pumps, sand etc. because the battery method is honestly not all that efficient on a cost to operate measure. 

Often today the systems make no sense in a standard urban/ suburban deployment, they just don't, this is why we have solar farms going up instead of the old point of use focus. BUT for certain rural areas it's worth it's weight in gold because of the reliability factor vs an unreliable or expensive existing utility structure. 

In my opinion, the only one's who should ever consider or who it may be viable for in urban/ suburban settings is MFH. Where it can have a significant ROI in the immediacy, were talking 100% ROI in less than 5yrs.

For SFH, I find it makes more sense if it's a location where Starlink is also best internet option.