Sungevity

[OpenSky]

 

[qwerty]

things get adopted when they are ready for widespread use. a good idea is not ready for primetime in its early stages, thus "early stage"

Things are often quite ready for widespread use but simply don't get adopted for years due to openness and awareness. Facebook, Netflix, texting and frozen yogurt are good examples. They didn't substantively change for YEARS until the general public finally adopted them. Critical mass takes time.

ok how bout this, things get adopted by the general public when they are practical. i know, you think they are practical, most people would disagree, thus 20K leafs out of 15.6M cars. 

i just asked my wife without any previous mention of this discussion - "do you think electric cars are ready for primetime?" she said, no - i cant even get to san diego in one.  yes, there are charging stations on the way there, but no one wants to go around looking for a parking stall in some corner of a mall looking for the damn charger and they sure as hell dont want to wait 20 minutes for their charge. what if you needed a charge and the one charger at the mall is being used by some who is taking their sweet time eating lunch at the mall restaurant? not practical man.

I respect your thinking (honestly) -- there is a range anxiety element to EV that folks have a tough time bridging, which translates to perceived practicality. I think you're trying to fit EVs into a traditional car box; they aren't traditional cars.

"I can't even take that Corvette in the snow" is not a reason to avoid buying a 'vette, especially if you have another car.

"I can't load 2x4's into my Altima" is not a reason to buy a truck, especially if you don't do it all the time.

"I can't carry golf clubs on my motorcycle" doesn't invalidate a bike.

EVs are a second, commuter car when you have a predictable, sub 40 mile each way commute. That fits 75% of households, and the surge in plugins over the past year shows many are realizing that very fact.

your examples are not apples to apples comparisons.  most people own one car, an all purpose car. that they can drive to any place they want, regardless of distance. yes, an EV can work for a lot of people under the circumstances you describe, but again, not practical because most people own one car and want that car to take them wherever they want to and not worry about having to fill up every 50 miles. a car isnt like shoes. you can have work shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, etc. most people have one car, not a car for this or a car for that.

 

[OpenSky]

:-*

 

[qwerty]

things get adopted when they are ready for widespread use. a good idea is not ready for primetime in its early stages, thus "early stage"

Things are often quite ready for widespread use but simply don't get adopted for years due to openness and awareness. Facebook, Netflix, texting and frozen yogurt are good examples. They didn't substantively change for YEARS until the general public finally adopted them. Critical mass takes time.

ok how bout this, things get adopted by the general public when they are practical. i know, you think they are practical, most people would disagree, thus 20K leafs out of 15.6M cars. 

i just asked my wife without any previous mention of this discussion - "do you think electric cars are ready for primetime?" she said, no - i cant even get to san diego in one.  yes, there are charging stations on the way there, but no one wants to go around looking for a parking stall in some corner of a mall looking for the damn charger and they sure as hell dont want to wait 20 minutes for their charge. what if you needed a charge and the one charger at the mall is being used by some who is taking their sweet time eating lunch at the mall restaurant? not practical man.

I respect your thinking (honestly) -- there is a range anxiety element to EV that folks have a tough time bridging, which translates to perceived practicality. I think you're trying to fit EVs into a traditional car box; they aren't traditional cars.

"I can't even take that Corvette in the snow" is not a reason to avoid buying a 'vette, especially if you have another car.

"I can't load 2x4's into my Altima" is not a reason to buy a truck, especially if you don't do it all the time.

"I can't carry golf clubs on my motorcycle" doesn't invalidate a bike.

EVs are a second, commuter car when you have a predictable, sub 40 mile each way commute. That fits 75% of households, and the surge in plugins over the past year shows many are realizing that very fact.

your examples are not apples to apples comparisons.  most people own one car, an all purpose car. that they can drive to any place they want, regardless of distance. yes, an EV can work for a lot of people under the circumstances you describe, but again, not practical because most people own one car and want that car to take them wherever they want to and not worry about having to fill up every 50 miles. a car isnt like shoes. you can have work shoes, running shoes, hiking shoes, etc. most people have one car, not a car for this or a car for that.

I'm not sure of the statistics on this, but nearly every single person I know is in a two+ car household. Should we start a poll?  ???  ;D

yeah typically a family, two parents two cars. i meant one car per driver. there are a whole lot of single people out there too.

 

[qwerty]

this site needs more polls

besides, IHO cant be the only starting polls

 

[OpenSky]

 

[qwerty]

Right, so generally the two cars have different purposes. One is a commuter, the other is the hauler...

yeah generally they do, and rarely is one an electric. not ready for primetime. just say it out loud man. cant drive more than 80-90 miles without "filling up", not practical, not ready for primetime. you can try to convince yourself that they are but they are not. like i said, if they were, with all the conveniences you mentioned, no oil change, no gas station visits, they would be flying off dealer lots. instead they need government subsidies and manufacturers take losses on them. yeah, sure they are ready for widespread adoption.

 

[OpenSky]

8)

 

[qwerty]

I'd have agreed with you one year ago.

So would have my brother, boss, two closest friends and a smattering of folks in my office - all of which now drive plug-in vehicles.

Chances are, there's a plug-in that suits you today- right now, whether is has a range extending combustion engine or not. Primetime is here!

yeah all those buyers you just mentioned and what, still 20K leafs right? you gotta get all your neighbors to make the leap, maybe they will sell 21K next year.

 

[OpenSky]

 

[qwerty]

It's not wearing thin man - u just can't accept facts and it's quite puzzling.  Yes it's trending in the right direction, I don't disagree agree with that. I think more and more people will buy electric cars as their range gets longer and and charging time decreases, eventually we will all probably have an electric car. The Trend line doesn't mean it's ready for widespread adoption RIGHT NOW. Include all the various electric cars, I was just using the leaf as an example. It still doesn't matter, 50% growth of tiny number is still a tiny number. I agree on your outlook, that's obvious to everyone. We are discussing the now, and regardless of fact or perception, these things with their current ranges and charging times are not practical for most people RIGHT NOW.

I have an electric lawnmower because I have a small patch of grass, but it has a short running time. It works for me because it takes me five minutes to cut the grass just like the leaf works for you because u have a short commute. If I lived in both Tustin, and had an acre lot, the electric lawnmower wouldn't work for me, but you would tell me of course it would, just charge it right before it dies, then it's great because I don't wait for my lawnmower to charge because I'm doing  other things around the house.  When I'm done with those other things in two hours I can go back to cutting the grass. No one wants to plan out their day around the charging of the car. It's not practical, it's doable but not practical. No one wants to get in their car and plan out their drive when they go to San Diego and see where they have to stop to recharge. Somehow these points don't seem to register with you. Perhaps I'm not articulating my argument correctly, English is my second language so there is a good chance I'm not.

Like i tell irvine commuter, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[JL-CG]

Sorry for reviving such an old thread, but after the last 3 months of energy usage, I decided to call Solar City if their programs were any different from Sungevity.

Something that Solar City offered, which Sungevity did not, was something called a PPA - I pay nothing for install, maintenance, insurance, etc. Solar City installs a solar panel on my roof, and I pay Solar City $0.15/kwh, for as much as the system produces (I was quoted a 5.25 kw DC unit that produces 8,870 kwh per year). Typically, my electricity bills creep into Tier 4, where I am paying about $0.32/kwh.

Thus, with this PPA, Solar City becomes my utility company, and I pay it $0.15/kwh, with annual increases of 2.9%.

I was not aware of such a program, and I wonder what the "catch" here is. Obviously, I am tied into a 20-year agreement (which is fully transferable), I don't take advantage of the tax incentives, and I don't own the solar panels.

To buy the panels outright, I'd be paying about $18,800 AFTER the federal tax credit (although this may not include CA incentives through CSI. Assuming a monthly bill of $150, that's a repayment period of about 10.5 years (12.5 years if my monthly bill averaged $125.00).

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Sorry for reviving such an old thread, but after the last 3 months of energy usage, I decided to call Solar City if their programs were any different from Sungevity.

Something that Solar City offered, which Sungevity did not, was something called a PPA - I pay nothing for install, maintenance, insurance, etc. Solar City installs a solar panel on my roof, and I pay Solar City $0.15/kwh, for as much as the system produces (I was quoted a 5.25 kw DC unit that produces 8,870 kwh per year). Typically, my electricity bills creep into Tier 4, where I am paying about $0.32/kwh.

Thus, with this PPA, Solar City becomes my utility company, and I pay it $0.15/kwh, with annual increases of 2.9%.

I was not aware of such a program, and I wonder what the "catch" here is. Obviously, I am tied into a 20-year agreement (which is fully transferable), I don't take advantage of the tax incentives, and I don't own the solar panels.

To buy the panels outright, I'd be paying about $18,800 AFTER the federal tax credit (although this may not include CA incentives through CSI. Assuming a monthly bill of $150, that's a repayment period of about 10.5 years (12.5 years if my monthly bill averaged $125.00).

It's not a catch...there is basically two ways to do solar panels.  You either buy electricity from the solar panel company or buy the solar panels.  The difference is whether you can/want to front the costs.

 

[JL-CG]

It's not a catch...there is basically two ways to do solar panels.  You either buy electricity from the solar panel company or buy the solar panels.  The difference is whether you can/want to front the costs.

So why wouldn't more people not do the PPA if you're basically locking in your energy rates (and the annual increases)? With the PPA, it seems as if you're eliminating the question of "how long does it take me to recoup the cost of the solar system?" when compared to a lease or an outright purchase.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

It's not a catch...there is basically two ways to do solar panels.  You either buy electricity from the solar panel company or buy the solar panels.  The difference is whether you can/want to front the costs.

So why wouldn't more people not do the PPA if you're basically locking in your energy rates (and the annual increases)? With the PPA, it seems as if you're eliminating the question of "how long does it take me to recoup the cost of the solar system?" when compared to a lease or an outright purchase.

It depends on how much energy you use and who you are as a person.  Also, solar panels can add value to a home.
https://www.energysage.com/solar/financing/should-you-buy-or-lease-your-solar-panel-system

 

[JL-CG]

Thanks - I had read that article as well.

However, what I meant was this: If you could lock in your energy rates at $0.15/kwh, w/ 2.9% increases for the next 20 years, with no money out of pocket, why wouldn't every homeowner jump on this?

 

[eyephone]

It's not a catch...there is basically two ways to do solar panels.  You either buy electricity from the solar panel company or buy the solar panels.  The difference is whether you can/want to front the costs.

So why wouldn't more people not do the PPA if you're basically locking in your energy rates (and the annual increases)? With the PPA, it seems as if you're eliminating the question of "how long does it take me to recoup the cost of the solar system?" when compared to a lease or an outright purchase.

The business model is based on selling a system with rising electricity prices, when costs of solar energy will be coming down dramatically over the contract period.

The real issue is when you sell the house:
1. The buyer will accept the lease/PPA, because they do not know better or do not care.
2. The buyer can choose to not accept the assignment because they know because of falling solar prices, they can buy a superior a more cost-effective system at a lower cost. Also, they can get a cheaper lease/PPA from the market than the old system on roof. The potential buyer will ask to clear out the lease/PPA or ask for a discount.

Source: seeking alpha article, Solar City leases and PPA: counting in uninformed customers and investors?, May 14, 2014

 

[Meggie]

Thanks - I had read that article as well.

However, what I meant was this: If you could lock in your energy rates at $0.15/kwh, w/ 2.9% increases for the next 20 years, with no money out of pocket, why wouldn't every homeowner jump on this?

What rates are you charged with if you consume more than what the panel produces?  If it follows Edison rate without deducting the solar kW then there isn't that much saving.  In other words, will your excess consumption be charged at Tier 1 or Tier 3/4? 

 

[JL-CG]

Thanks - I had read that article as well.

However, what I meant was this: If you could lock in your energy rates at $0.15/kwh, w/ 2.9% increases for the next 20 years, with no money out of pocket, why wouldn't every homeowner jump on this?

What rates are you charged with if you consume more than what the panel produces?  If it follows Edison rate without deducting the solar kW then there isn't that much saving.  In other words, will your excess consumption be charged at Tier 1 or Tier 3/4?

According to the Solar City rep I spoke with, any usage above what the solar system produces would be charged at Edison's regular rates, but would follow the tier 1/2/3/4 structure, meaning that if my excess usage fell within the tier 1 allotment, I would only be charged tier 1 prices.

 

[JL-CG]

The business model is based on selling a system with rising electricity prices, when costs of solar energy will be coming down dramatically over the contract period.

The real issue is when you sell the house:
1. The buyer will accept the lease/PPA, because they do no lt know better or do not care.
2. The buyer can choose to not accept the assignment because they know because of falling solar prices, they can buy a superior a more cost-effective system at a lower cost. Also, they can get a cheaper lease/PPA from the market than the old system on roof. The potential buyer will ask to clear out the lease/PPA or ask for a discount.

Source: seeking alpha article, Solar City leases and PPA: counting in uninformed customers and investors?, May 14, 2014

Thanks - I actually had not considered the situation of falling solar energy prices; rather, I had only thought about it in terms of rising electricity prices.