Posted on 05/19/2015 4:42:18 AM PDT by thackney
Most people buy rooftop solar panels because they think it will save them money or make them green, or both. But the truth is that rooftop solar shouldnt be saving them money (though it often does), and it almost certainly isnt green. In fact, the rooftop-solar craze is wasting billions of dollars a year that could be spent on greener initiatives. It also is hindering the growth of much more cost-effective renewable sources of power.
According to a recent Energy Department-backed study at North Carolina State University, installing a fully financed, average-size rooftop solar system will reduce energy costs for 93% of the single-family households in the 50 largest American cities today. Thats why people have been rushing out to buy rooftop solar panels, particularly in sunny states like Arizona, California and New Mexico.
The primary reason these small solar systems are cost-effective, however, is that theyre heavily subsidized. Utilities are forced by law to purchase solar power generated from the rooftops of homeowners and businesses at two to three times more than it would cost to buy solar power from large, independently run solar plants. Without subsidies, rooftop solar isnt close to cost-effective.
Recent studies by Lazard and others, however, have found that large, utility-scale solar power plants can cost as little as five cents (or six cents without a subsidy) per kilowatt-hour to build and operate in the sunny Southwest. These plants are competitive with similarly sized fossil-fueled power plants. But this efficiency is possible only if solar plants are large and located in sunny parts of the country. On average, utility-scale solar plants nationwide still cost about 13 cents per kilowatt-hour, versus around six cents per kilowatt-hour for coal and natural gas, according to the Lazard study.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
He saved the cost of a sales department, business office, labor pay and benefits.
Sales commission is probably 20% in the solar industry. Overhead and benefits probably another 15 or 20%.
Just guessing, I’d say the loss of a 30% subsidy would result in raising the cost 10 or 15%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.