Solar Electic Power

I've gone ahead and attached a copy of the spread sheet that I've compiled all the data on, and presented it in, what I think, is a pretty easy to follow format, every number referenced is in there [1]. There are several issues which I need to address that my opponent has made. Batteries, Maintenance, Selling back energy, Home value, and DIY. I'll address each of these individually. Batteries My opponent reminded everyone that batteries are not recommended to mix old with new. This is not really a problem since I already calculated in replacing the entire battery system every 9 years (3 years shy of their estimated life span). My opponent also says that the batteries can't be sealed because of the dangers of overcharging them. This is not really an issue because the inverter that I picked in round 2 is specifically designed to go between direct use of energy, to charging batteries, to selling to the grid. This means that when the batteries are full, the system automatically switches for safety. Maintenance My opponent says that there would be extra costs for electrical work. That is true, but that is not what we are arguing with this point. To go back to my opponent's first round, he says, "Solar electric systems require cleaning dirt off the panels twice a year, plus snow removal as often as it snows." Removal of snow and cleaning of dirt is not electrical work. It does not take a certified person to do it. While we can argue that electrical maintenance needs to be done every now and again, it does not need to be done every 2 months. How often does the average home owner bring in an electrician to check the wiring throughout their house? Not every other month, not even every year. Many don't do anything until they are actually selling their home, or a problem arises. However, I factored in both my estimates and my opponent's estimates for maintenance (as seen in the spread sheet) and it only alters the tipping point by 1 year, not enough to swing the entire equation. So it doesn't really matter. Selling back electricity This is a major part of this debate. Going over the opening rounds, and our PMs back and forth before starting, we never said anything about being completely off-grid. Stating the solar must be 100% off-grid or nothing at all would be presenting a false dichotomy. The panels I selected are designed specifically to grid tie-ins, and the inverter that I selected (all back in R2) is designed to tie back into the grid, these were all accepted. Since these are all products designed for power generation and commercially available, there should be no reason at all why they cannot be utilized to maximize the efficiency of the system. My opponent even said, "My opponent [Ore_Ele] may chose design variations to optimize costs." If we dismiss the real world option of tying back into the grid, all my opponent will do is prove that 100% independent solar is not cost effective, rather than that solar altogether is not cost effective. Ruining the purpose of the debate. Remember, "The heart of this debate is to focus on the costs of using solar energy as a power source for your home." From R1. The government only requires companies to offer net metering. This means that if you produce your own energy, they can't double charge you. This also means that if the energy company uses your generated electricity, they have to pay you for it, i.e. buy it from you. Why should they use it and not pay for it? Home value The value of the electricity that you don't have to buy is $1,403.54 (increases 4.6% every year). And the money you make by selling electricity back to the grid is $1,115.54 (increases 4.6% every year). So the total energy difference is $2,519.08 for the first year (reminding again, this increases 4.6% every year). The costs for the maintenance, taxes, insurance, etc ranges from $742.79 to $882.79 that first year, pending if you accept Roy's maintenance costs or mine. This means that it is still highly in your favor. My opponent says, "The government uses your building permit to evaluate the cost of the improvement and increase your taxes accordingly." This is not true. Property taxes are based on your assessed value, which is based on estimated market value [2]. It does not matter how much you put into the upgrade. If we stop and look at two examples, we can see how this is logically true. If you spend $20,000 replacing all the tiles in your bathrooms and kitchen with glow in the dark tiles, that is not going to raise your property value by $20,000, it would probably even lower it. Likewise, with this case, one might think that the very existence of the solar panels would increase value because they are an asset that can be sold for money. This isn't accurate, when considering that they are only worth $44,000 and it would take another $46,000 of labor to remove them (meaning they cannot be pulled off and sold very well), so their value would not affect home value at all. The only thing from them that would affect home value is the work that they do (energy generation). Now, we should explain why home value must be counted as an asset on our balance sheet. I could simply say that property values need to be counted under GAAP, however home owners are not obligated to follow GAAP and can do whatever they want (and probably end up going bankrupt if they can't balance a budget). But, like it or not, homes are an asset and are worth money. Surely my opponent would agree that spending $10,000 to increase the value of your home by $50,000 would be considered a smart investment (it allows for more profit at time of sale and builds equity should you need it later). This increase in assets is not something that can be ignored, no more than I can ignore the interest being built up by the alternative method. DIY This was missed last round because of character limits. This is merely to show that they do have DIY kits, and that solar installation is not like rebuilding a semi truck tranny. It doesn't require any complicated tools more than a power drill, a ladder, and (highly recommended) a safety harness. The example of a person that makes so much money is actually a very poor excuse. Your average person is going to be an employee, and set to work a set schedule. As an employee, you are likely paid either hourly or salary (if you make enough to be able to afford this system, you're probably salary). At hourly, you can't just work as many hours as you want, your employer has to approve it. Try going into work two hours early, and stay two hours late and see how long it takes before your boss says you need to only come in for your schedule. With salary, it is different. You can work as many hours as you want (or need to get your job done), and you are paid the same. The only pay rate that would be applicable is commission based, and not many people work that way. The bottom line If you invest the money rather than buy solar, you will get $156,279.87 (a 73.10% profit). If you invest in the solar, you'll get $185,105.50 (a 105.03% profit). We see the solar becomes a better investment on year 22 (when it hits 67.06% to the investment's 64.09%). We can also see that it isn't until year 15 that the solar finally hits a positive percentage. There is a logical reason for this. Solar is not cost effective at 11.09 cents per kWh, however, we know that the cost of energy is only going to up, and as it goes up, solar gets better and better, so while the solar isn't helping too much to start, by the time when years 15 – 20 start to come around (and electricity is going at 20 to 30 cents per kWh, the panels installed are able to make up the lost ground. Thank you [1] https://spreadsheets.google.com... [2] http://www.investopedia.com...