Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#71

Post by ashayh »

steven2012 wrote: post #10

I'm super excited about the promise of solar panels, because my house has unobstructed exposure to the sun, and I live in the Bay Area, so we get sunshine 300+ days per year. However, every time I revisit the math, it never works out. Even if I purchase it myself, the payoff times are never less than around 17-20 years, depending on how aggressive I project the rise in electricity rates. Given that solar panels have…

I look at it from another perspective.

Many people in the bay area have expensive homes and cars. People do not think twice about over bidding 50-150K when buying a house. In fact, that's the only way to get one here, and that's what we did. Its also common to spend crazy amounts on home renovation.

Then people also get an expensive Tesla or some other car that costs 50K or more.

But far fewer people would rather spend the 25K on solar and see a guaranteed return of investment of 150-200$ a month for the next 20 years. And the energy cost is guaranteed to be the same per watt throughout that period.

Regardless of whether you buy or rent, you _have_ to pay a power bill. Mine regularly crossed 150$ a month while renting. And I will continue to have a power bill till I die (40-60 years?). Why not lock in the price for the next 20 years at least?

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#72

Post by walshemj »

bborud wrote: post #33
walshemj wrote: post #8

The problem is that this is a tax dodge for rich middle class people - at one time selling your solar energy back to the grid you got 8% return for 20 years guaranteed by the government. Even after the scheme was amended its a nice little subsidy for richer people it's the poor sods on key/coin meters that are paying for this.

I find it disheartening that every technology that takes us in the right direction, but which is not yet cost effective, is constantly pissed on by people who expect immediate solutions and who fail to see that these things are not going to develop themselves. Sure, it is a tax dodge for rich middle class people, but if people could just keep their envy in check for the decade or two it is going to take to bring cost…

Yes but giving vast tax breaks to upper middle class people isn't the way to do it and i say that as some one who could easily have done that (we have a v nice roof facing in just the right direction)

Did you not see the original 8% tax free return for 20 years I mentioned - the uk 10 year yield is currently 2.7%

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#73

Post by walshemj »

IgorPartola wrote: post #51
walshemj wrote: post #8

The problem is that this is a tax dodge for rich middle class people - at one time selling your solar energy back to the grid you got 8% return for 20 years guaranteed by the government. Even after the scheme was amended its a nice little subsidy for richer people it's the poor sods on key/coin meters that are paying for this.

> rich middle class people That is an oxymoron. By definition, middle class is in the middle, not rich.

Class has nothing to do with how much money you have especially in the UK.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#74

Post by walshemj »

adam-a wrote: post #59
IgorPartola wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rich middle class people That is an oxymoron. By definition, middle class is in the middle, not rich.

From the perspective of a working class person, a middle class person could be considered rich. I was going to make a point that the middle class, being in the middle of the income-population pyramid, are more wealthy than the average. Interestingly, in the UK at least, 71% are middle class, which spoils that [0]. [0] - http://britainthinks.com/sites/default/files/reports/Speakin...

I was thinking of the A's in the NRS classification

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#75

Post by bborud »

walshemj wrote: post #72
bborud wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it disheartening that every technology that takes us in the right direction, but which is not yet cost effective, is constantly pissed on by people who expect immediate solutions and who fail to see that these things are not going to develop themselves. Sure, it is a tax dodge for rich middle class people, but if people could just keep their envy in check for the decade or two it is going to take to bring cost…

Yes but giving vast tax breaks to upper middle class people isn't the way to do it and i say that as some one who could easily have done that (we have a v nice roof facing in just the right direction) Did you not see the original 8% tax free return for 20 years I mentioned - the uk 10 year yield is currently 2.7%

Then how do you suggest we get people to install solar panels?

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#76

Post by itsybitsycoder »

jadc wrote: post #53
ripter wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it a subsidy seems weird to me. Every state I've lived in will pay you if you generate more electricity than you use. You are providing power back into the grid, of course you should be paid for it. That doesn't sound like government support to me.

It is called a subsidy because the feed-in-tariff you get is generally more than the market rate for the electricity produced. Also in many countries, you lock in a certain tariff for many years (20-25 years) so the amount you get paid vs market rate diverges even more over time.

>you lock in a certain tariff for many years (20-25 years) so the amount you get paid vs market rate diverges even more over time.

Isn't that only true if the market rate for power goes ~down~ over time?

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#77

Post by tunesmith »

adam-a wrote: post #59
IgorPartola wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rich middle class people That is an oxymoron. By definition, middle class is in the middle, not rich.

From the perspective of a working class person, a middle class person could be considered rich. I was going to make a point that the middle class, being in the middle of the income-population pyramid, are more wealthy than the average. Interestingly, in the UK at least, 71% are middle class, which spoils that [0]. [0] - http://britainthinks.com/sites/default/files/reports/Speakin...

It used to be that the working class was the middle class.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#78

Post by toomuchtodo »

walshemj wrote: post #72
bborud wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it disheartening that every technology that takes us in the right direction, but which is not yet cost effective, is constantly pissed on by people who expect immediate solutions and who fail to see that these things are not going to develop themselves. Sure, it is a tax dodge for rich middle class people, but if people could just keep their envy in check for the decade or two it is going to take to bring cost…

Yes but giving vast tax breaks to upper middle class people isn't the way to do it and i say that as some one who could easily have done that (we have a v nice roof facing in just the right direction) Did you not see the original 8% tax free return for 20 years I mentioned - the uk 10 year yield is currently 2.7%

The money has to come from somewhere, and its either tax breaks or direct subsidies (ie. cash payments).

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#79

Post by toomuchtodo »

mjn wrote: post #23
infinotize wrote: post #13

Tangental observation: it's interesting that a large number of people are really enthusiastic about changing to solar, moving away from carbon-producing energy sources, etc. But when it comes down to it, even for those people the response is usually "the math just doesn't work" for solar. I wonder if in surveys how many people would say they would pay a little extra for clean energy, until it's actually time to shell…

One place to look for numbers more solid than people just claiming they would pay more, could be in areas with deregulated markets for home electricity, like Texas, where people have a choice of generation provider. Since generation is decoupled from transmission and maintenance, providers don't compete on reliability, but mainly on price and environmentalism. The "green" plans are typically $0.02-$0.04/kWh more expe…

I live in Schaumburg, a suburb of Chicago. Recently, ballot measures were passed by local communities across Illinois that allow the communities to collectively negotiate with power providers for their citizens. I used to pay ComEd (incumbent generation/transmission provider) 7-8 cents/KwH for power (nuclear-generated by their Byron, IL facility). I know pay a provide 5.5 cents/KwH for "green" (wind-generated) power. The cost for non-renewable power was only 0.5 cents cheaper per KwH.

Re: Ikea's New Solar Panels: Sunshine Optional, Subsidies Required

#80

Post by walshemj »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #78
walshemj wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but giving vast tax breaks to upper middle class people isn't the way to do it and i say that as some one who could easily have done that (we have a v nice roof facing in just the right direction) Did you not see the original 8% tax free return for 20 years I mentioned - the uk 10 year yield is currently 2.7%

The money has to come from somewhere, and its either tax breaks or direct subsidies (ie. cash payments).

No government has an infinite amount of cash and there are better things (NHS, Infrastructure, Sovereign Wealth funds) to spend it on rather than a vast tax break for high net worth individuals.
Post reply on HN