Solar Electic Power

Before I dive into the costs of my system, and what you will have after 25 years left in the bank. There are some things to point out first. 1) My opponent and I came up with the exact same number for the benefit of investing, so that number is essentially solid and I image that we won't need to waste any characters on it. 2) Deep cycle batteries are designed to be able to discharge between 50% and 80% without damaging them [1]. While they have the most efficient life spans when only discharged 50%, that more efficient life charge is why the company advertises them with a 12 year life span and the warranty does only 7 years, so long as the battery is used correctly. A discharge of 80% would fall under correct usage. It should also be noted that I picked a battery system that would only be going over 50% a handful of times a year, and not every night, so this effect is going to be minimal regardless. 3) My opponent is correct that the solar panels are warranted to be at 80% in 25 years. Earlier, he stated that they deteriorate at a rate of 0.5% to 1%, with a middle ground of 0.75%. As such, I will be expanding the solar panels from 86 to 100 (this will raise the cost from $78,866.60 to $90,283.12, and the laborless cost up to $44,283.12). This will put the 25 year amount for the alternative option at $156,279.90 (and $29,928.13 if you do the labor yourself). 4) Removal of snow and dust from the solar panels does not require a professional under any stretch of the imagination. I would argue that kids (the same that are willing to mow your lawn, clean your gutters, etc) would be willing to work at lower rates for that. However, I also believe that $30 per visit is a decent middle ground (coming to $240 per year). This would put the cleaning at $434.09 at year 25, with an average of $327.91 per year. 5) Inflation will factor into: Cleaning costs, property taxes, insurance taxes, value difference of property. 6) Inflation will not factor into: Electricity costs and capital gains from investments. 7) Energy should be able to be sold back into the grid at whole sale cost for a variety of reasons. First, the energy companies actually do want it (though they would prefer it be free for them) since they are getting energy at 60% discount and don't have to make the capital investment for it. This energy is turned around and sold to others at retail value for profit. Second, we are working with the current grid system and it is already set up for this, so the cost of the smart grid is already a sunken cost. If needed, we could argue that the home owner could pay for additional inverters to sell power to his neighbors at some rate between wholesale and retail (where they are not obligated to be 100% off grid and can work both), this however, gets a lot into sales and negotiating prices and just gets to be too many variables. Benefits of my system I will now go into the costs and benefits of my selected system (still comparing to both). Most of what my opponent shows are true costs and I cannot argue against them. We have insurance and property taxes (I grouped together) at $14.10 per $1,000 of home value. For this we only need to look at how the home value changes because of this system. This is where my opponent makes his biggest miscalculation. The amount of money you put into a home renovation does not equal the amount that it changes the value of your home. Anyone that has decided to renovate a living room or bedroom before moving has learned that just because you put $10,000 into the upgrade, does not mean that you will get that back out (you could get more or less, with living rooms and bedrooms, likely a lot less). Green energy options are very similar in that the dollars you put in are not equal to the dollars you get out. For this, we need to look at how energy savers and energy producing things affect home value (this will also need to be adjusted for inflation). Energy savers actually change your home value not based on how much energy they save (makes sense). Current studies estimate that for every $1 you save on annual energy, your home will increase $10 to $25 [2], this variance likely effected by how pleasing the energy savers are to the eye and such. The middle point will be $17.50, but I'll go with a low ball side and suggest $15.00 for every $1 in energy savings. If we look at the initial investment, it saves the total of $1,403.54 in energy, as well as makes another $1,115.54 in energy sold back to the grid (if my opponent rejects the grid, I can come up with a system that sells to neighbors at 20% under market value, since most people wouldn't mind getting some of their electricity from a neighbor at 20% discount, though that will limit our number of rounds of debating). This comes to a total of $2,519.08, which would increase the value of your home by $37,786.23. This seems like it makes for a very poor investment (only increases the value of the home by 40%), however, we must take into account the fact that energy costs are increasing. And so the value of these savings increases the home's value more and more. After 5 years, the panels are producing $3,076.71 in energy (this takes into account that their efficiency has dropped about 3.7% over these 5 years). This means the increase home value is going to be $52,215.27 (at this point we've had 13.14% inflation). Since energy costs are increasing faster than the solar panels' efficiency is decreasing, the net result is a constant increase in value. We can even see that after 20 years (when the panels are down 14% efficiency, but electricity is up 145.83% in cost), that the panels are generating $5,616.41 worth of electricity and adding up $138,047.20 of value to your house (thanks to 63.86% inflation in 20 years). At 21 years, your house has increased by $147,306.40. Over this same 21 years, you'll have put $11,437.26 in the bank from the selling of electricity back to the grid at wholesale. This takes into account the expenses of maintenance, property taxes, insurance, and the revenue of taking the profit and investing it at the rate of 4.3% (why shouldn't it be invested? ). So, we find at the 21 year mark, your initial $90,283.12 solar investment (with labor, $44,283.12 without labor) is now worth $158,743.60, while if you just invested in the markets, you'd be at $148,147.40 (or $36,787.68 for the doing labor for yourself). This shows that at 21 years, you've surpassed the alternative investment. Now, if my opponent wishes to argue that we need to go with $50 per maintenance visit, that only pushes back the crossing point by 1 year. What we find, is that if you pay for the labor, the tipping point occurs at 20 years (if you do the labor yourself, that tipping point is only at 3 years). As you can see the labor costs make a HUGE difference, and my opponent actually suggested that labor would be less, and I'm sure, with enough shopping around, you could find less, and as more people do this, the labor costs will drop, but that only changes where the tipping point is, but in all cases where labor is factored, it will be around the 15 – 22 year mark, and in all cases, where you do it yourself, you'll be at around 2 – 4 years. Based on this, it should be quite clear that placing panels on your home (be they on your roof, on in your yard, if big enough) can be a worthwhile investment for many homeowners. Especially those that are capable of doing the labor, or part of it themselves. Of course, we'll also find that location plays a major role, as well as climate. Is it possible that the various factors line up so that solar is not right for some people? Of course, but for the average homeowner, these will line up in their favor. [1] . http://www.windsun.com... [2] . http://www.ongrid.net...