My significant other had solar panels on his roof and they were wonderful. He hardly ever had an electric bill and would get a check in the mail a couple times a year. That being said, he only lived there during the warm months and spent winters in Florida. Had he stayed up north all winter there would probably have been some charges.

When we were looking at it, the ground installations were more expensive than the roof mounted. Our neighbor is in the process of doing a ground installation but I haven't discussed it with him. But mainly I think because his roof is east and west instead of south facing. Depending on where you live, the ground installations are easier to clean if you live in an area that gets little rain.

Another consideration is how you are paying for them. If you are taking on debt to pay for them, and the monthly electricity savings are greater than the added cost of the debt, you may experience positive cash flow from the get go.

In our area, it does not pay to be a net generator as our utility "buys" power at wholesale but sells it to us at retail. So instead in the summer when we generate more than we use we "bank" it with the utility. Come winter when we use more than we generate, the utility draws down our bank first. Once it's gone, then we face electricity charges.

"If you are taking on debt to pay for them, and the monthly electricity savings are greater than the added cost of the debt, you may experience positive cash flow from the get go."

From a personal finanical analysis standpoint, this comment is misleading.

If the same person takes money from savings to pay for the equipment, the monthly cash flow savings may appear to be more positive, but so what? Investment return is lost from the reduction in invested funds and that's a real cost that would otherwise offer a compounded return. Also, savings and cash flow are not the same. If the utility cost savings isn't enough to pay for the equipment within a reasonable period of time, putting in solar equipment if thought to be done for money reasons would be a poor choice, a net cost and not a savings.

Thanks for your thoughts. I guess I need to contact a company to talk to them, I just didn't want to be on their "radar". I thought more people would be using the panels to get more advice.

Our roof is awful for solar so no personal experience. But my sister has had it for 3 or 4 years and rarely has an electric bill during summer, and her bills in winter are much lower than pre-solar. My DH has been helping our daughter get solar for her roof (anticipating a 7 year payback, with a 20+ useful life). Neither solar company has been "pushy" at all, so I wouldn't worry about a hard sale or continuous contact, unless you're in an area with many competing solar installers (we aren't). Good luck :-)

Elmer, my cash flow point is correct. But for some, cash flow is a difficult concept. Your comment entangles a lot of financial concepts, so let me try to make order of it.

1. “monthly cash flow savings”: Cash flow is not savings...it is cash flow. It can be positive or negative. If debt costs me $10 a month for an investment that generates $12 a month, then I have a positive cash flow. And that’s not a “so what”. If that investment is cash flow negative, then there must be another stream of cash used to make the investment possible. For some, added cash may not be available.
2. If an investment has a negative cash flow, it hopefully has a larger payback in the future in order to make sense…such as buying a home which entails a negative cash flow but presumably an appreciated asset upon sale. But with an investment that is not expected to appreciate…such as buying a car…then we have to look to the service received from that investment — such as getting us to work where we can make money to pay the car loan — to determine if the payback from that investment is worthwhile. Solar panels don’t appreciate. Studies I’ve seen are a mixed bag as to whether they add to the sales price of a home, so we’re left with the service received off of them, the value of which is subject to the vagaries of electricity costs. But based on specific locational factors such as the local cost of electricity and insolence, it may pay.
3. “Investment return is lost from the reduction in invested funds and that's a real cost that would otherwise offer a compounded return.” This is opportunity cost…what is the return of the foregone investment, and does it exceed the return from the investment under consideration. If the funds are losing money, then switching them to a positive return investment is a good thing. But if the funds are making more money than the proposed investment, that’s not a good thing. But that is not specific to an investment in solar panels. And that’s different from cash flow.
4. “If the utility cost savings isn't enough to pay for the equipment within a reasonable period of time, putting in solar equipment if thought to be done for money reasons would be a poor choice, a net cost and not a savings.” This is bringing in the issue of payback time….how long it takes to recoup your investment. Maybe the payback is too long based on the opportunity costs of other investment choices, or the useful life of the asset, or the costs of the foregone liquidity, but that doesn't make it cash flow negative. Moreover with a positive cash flow, the payback begins immediately, not at some future date.

sleeperblues, Here are some of the consideration I think are important:

• find out how the utility handles solar panels that are hooked up to the grid and what their minimum charge is per month for service
• find out what the tax credits are and whether or not they require you to hook up to the grid. When we installed ours, they did. Having an independent system with battery storage would not give us any tax credits. Depending on your area, the tax credits can be substantial
• note that having solar panels hooked up to the grid does NOT necessarily mean you have electricity when the power is out. Our system needs the signal from the grid so they can match phase. Without that signal, no power. But if you have battery back up, there are systems that will switch over immediately. But batteries have their own issues.
• the sellers should measure insolence for your location...how much sun exposure the panels will get during the day based on how close to solar south they are and the angle they are positioned at. That's important as that will determine how much electricity you can generate.
• as with any investment, talk to people in your area and get recommendations as, just with any business, not all installers are alike. A good installer should have a lot of this information, but just be careful as they will want to spin it in their favor
• we purchased...did not lease. I've never explored the lease offerings sufficiently to determine if it's a good deal or not...you'd want to be very careful on the fine print on these things.

Rate of return is an "along the way", periodic notion. Recovering an investment is cumulative.

If installing solar equipment were a no brainer, pay less each month opportunity, everyone would have them. But it's not, the cost (whether directly by financing or by forgone investment returns) typically exceeds the benefit for many years. Until the outlay has been received back in the form of cumulative savings, the investment hasn't been recovered.

In my area, so-called "lease" arrangements are popular, where the installing company has financing to pay for and own the equipment and the homeowner is promised a fixed electricity rate (lower than the utility offers) over the term of the contract. Why are these popular? Because the cost of ownership has a long tail for recovery.

I agree with you that the install cost can't be expected to increment directly into a home's value. In fact, as the average American adult moves pretty regularly, whether for job reasons or for wanting a different place to live, it's not uncommon for people to sell a house where solar has been installed and never recover their outlay. These are just things to consider.

As I mentioned before, I think the best reason to install solar equipment is a moral/emotional one, it's something that's a good thing to do and the cost factors are given secondary consideration. . Economic benefits are often not realized on a net basis.

I wouldn't bother: I've read several articles from people in Alberta who have had solar panels installed in order to save money and still have to pay outrageous fees. It makes no sense at all.

Annie -- IDK much about solar. Do you own your panels or lease them? What's the upfront investment? What's life expectancy? Any problems with installation? Are you glad you did this?

Friends installed solar in California -- lease arrangement, I think. It helped sell their house.

We have a perfect south-facing expanse of roof for solar (minimal tree shade). I'd planned to investigate solar when our shingles needed replacing. (Now 20 years old.)

chisue, we own our panels. I don't actually recall the up front investment as it was part of the new build of our entire house. At the time we got rebates and tax credits so I'm not sure what the net cost was. When we installed them, about 11 years ago, the life expectancy was at least 25 years. For that reason, we put on 50 year shingles because you don't want to have to remove them to re-roof and then reinstall. We've had no problem with installation. We have had one board replaced in the inverter (the box that converts the DC from solar to AC for electricity use) in the interim.

Yes we are very glad we did this. Mainly because we went with geothermal heating/cooling where the primary fuel is electricity and a major energy expense for us.

A neighbor went with tesla tiles on his roof. No idea what the cost was or how effective they are, but they are far more attractive than the panels we have.

Thanks for the tips, Annie, they are very helpful and exactly what I was looking for.

Some years ago I put solar panels on my barn roof when a group coop was set up to reduce installation costs. I've since moved, but for my small house I paid only the hook up charge for electricity for the whole time I lived there. It was a net metering system and while you could use your overage until the end of the year, it all reset each Jan 1. There were no monetary payments from the power company. I wish I could have afforded to put them on my present house, also well set up for them, but the cost of this new 950 sq ft house was simply appalling, built as it was during top cost of materials.

Thanks, Annie. Yes, I'd been interested in the solar that's actually roofing. It's all becoming more common, but those don't have a long track record. At this stage of the game (83 and nearly 81), I don't think we'll be the ones to add solar. Maybe our beautiful, big, south-facing roof will be a plus when we sell!