All Forum Posts by: Eli Winkelman

@Nate Wightman @Russell Brazil It might also matter on the particular style of the house, the type of panels, and how they're laid out. For example, an older house with polycrystalline panels arranged on different areas offset from each other (like this), in a higher end area, would definitely lower the value. However an install more like this, might raise value, even in a high class neighborhood.

The credit line is actually a good idea, keeps tenants from having to get high interest loans. I wouldn't say that green doesn't give a decent return, at least for solar, in many areas of the U.S., if you run the numbers you can get better than stock market returns, for something that doesn't have as much risk. In Hawaii and Massachusetts the IRR for a 5kw residential solar system are over 30%. It works out pretty well in Oregon as well, here's a breakdown of the cost and IRR before and after all the incentives https://solarlandlord.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/the-cost-of-solar-in-oregon/. I'm not sure how it works out in Toronto though, totally different tax incentives.

@Nate Wightman

What you're saying is similar to what I've heard. However I know of the study you referenced, it was done only in California, where solar will bring up the value of your house. I think that in many areas people will pay more for solar, but in some they're still viewed as ugly things people don't want. In Portland they have become much more common and accepted, they're not viewed as just an eye sore anymore.

As far as the side of the house it's on, we almost got a PPA a couple years ago, but the panels would've gone on the street-facing side of our house, and we ended up not doing it because people thought it would be an eyesore.

The Tesla Powerwall seems to be a pretty good, but still expensive. http://www.prietobattery.com might be a solution to the battery problem, but I don't think they're looking at using it that way yet. Mostly looking at using it for small electronics because it can be molded into non-standard battery shapes and has 5x the power density. Could also be good for electric cars too. Right now though, it doesn't make sense to get an offgrid system as an investment, unless of course, you're actually off the grid, and then it's just a way to get electricity.

The amount you need to wash off the panels depends a lot on the location, if you live somewhere dry and dusty, they'll need to be washed off pretty regularly, but if it rains and snows where you are that will get off the dirt, except in those really dry and dusty climates, it's not generally that big of an issue.

Unless you have an offgrid system (with a battery), if you have solar, it will turn off when the grid goes out because it's grounded to the grid. So yes, you can use solar to keep the electricity from going out, but you will need expensive batteries that need to be replaced ~ every 4 years.

 This actually does happen, but it will also make the house a bit colder during the winter. Solar panels can help decrease the urban heating effect (http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00014/abstract)

@Account Closed  Great post, sums up basically everything. I agree with basically everything you said, except number 7, in a couple locations solar can lower the value of your home, but in general it will raise the value at least as much as the system cost. If it is a commercial installation the MACRS depreciation can get you back 25% of the system cost over 5-6 years (50% bonus depreciation too). If you don't have the capitol, doing a ppa or lease isn't really an investment (you don't put any money in, unless you pay upfront), so you're basically getting free money (or savings) over a period of time (assuming solar is right for your building, NREL estimates that solar makes sense for 25% of homeowners, not sure how they calculated that though.)

I'm not very familiar with the actual specific technical problems that can occur with installations. As far as I know, at this point, there isn't a very large risk of damage happening, and if it does the installer will have insurance to cover it.

As far as leasing or a power purchase agreement versus buying it outright (or were you talking about a loan?) is that buying it outright will have a much higher return. Leasing it won't have any return because you aren't making an investment. If you don't have the capitol, leasing or doing a PPA is a good option, but if you do, then buying is far superior as far as the investment goes. For maintenance, I wouldn't worry about it too much, an installer that knows what they're doing should offer a couple years of support, and warranty for the panels and inverter. Generally though, this won't be needed, most of the maintenance you need to do just involved spraying off the panels every couple of weeks, there are no moving parts. If you have to choose between a loan or a lease/ppa, generally a lease/ppa is a better deal, but not always, I'd recommend looking at both, figure out how much you'd save with each (pay attention to the tax credits and Renewable energy credits, as these can affect ROI), factor in the support you'll get with a lease/ppa, and that you'll own the panels when the loan is payed back, this will change the amount of money you'll save.

 You can do that. You could also set up a separate lease agreement for the solar panels, save the tenants a bit of money on electricity, and it's easier to advertise then trying to explain that they get such and such amount of free energy, which will still raise the rent, and turn people away before they see that some electricity is included.