Looks pretty good to me over 25 years. Not many safe/guaranteed investments that will reliably return 8% these days. And as utility rates will no doubt rise over time, savings in future years will be greater.
Yes the people selling solar systems all factor in aggressive future electricity increases, it's best to also see how it looks with more conservative rate increases. By my calculation in a reply above with the interest free solar loan it's an 8% return over 14.3 years.
It will be interesting to see if this will make natural gas a more attractive source of residential heating as the price has remained relatively stable over the past 20 years.
The push for electrification seems like it relies on us metaphorically drowning in excess cheap electricity and want somewhere for it to go but right now the opposite it happening.
There’s also the argument to be made (this has manifested in other countries) that as gas usage wanes and more homes electrify, nat gas costs will increase as the infrastructure costs are spread among fewer and fewer people
> There’s also the argument to be made (this has manifested in other countries) that as gas usage wanes and more homes electrify, nat gas costs will increase as the infrastructure costs are spread among fewer and fewer people
This has kinda wonky incentives though - if your fixed costs for gas are high but your marginal costs remain low and for whatever logistical reasons you can't cut the gas connection entirely, then your motivations are to move as much of your heating load over to gas as possible.
I'm currently facing this dilemma when it comes to my new water heater purchase. The $/kJ actually delivered into the water difference is so significant despite gas being less efficient that I'm probably going to switch to gas. Electricity has gotten so expensive that even with an efficiency advantage it still loses on the order of $500-800 per year.
Is gas actually less efficient? I haven't had to work out the math myself yet, but there are some very salient variables - e.g. what's the energy source of the electricity? If it's a natural gas power plant, you're looking at like 30-60% efficiency of gas->electricity in the first place. Are you looking a at a heat pump heater? If so, how much of its energy would be pulling heat from the house that needs to be replaced by the home's heating supply anyway?
This is the kind of thing where a carbon tax is great for sorting out the pricing to match the externalities.
You might be right, I'm just talking about "last mile" efficiency. I get electricity at $/kWh and gas at $/therm and then an electric heater is x% at converting that electricity into hotter water and a gas heater is %y. From what I can find y < x for water heaters on the market. But even despite that my $/therm is so low that it still comes out ahead.
> ”Are you looking a at a heat pump heater? If so, how much of its energy would be pulling heat from the house that needs to be replaced by the home's heating supply anyway?”
Heat pump water heaters pull heat from the outside. Usually with a split outdoor unit, just like normal A/C and heat pump systems.
I’ve also seen models where the entire system (integrated storage cylinder for the heated water) is installed outdoors, but those are presumably meant for more mild climates.
In any case, they certainly don’t pull heat from inside the house.
Heat pump dryers don’t cool the room either because they work in a closed loop. There’s no external vent removing hot air to the outside like a conventional dryer. So they pull heat from the room but also put it back in the room, and the overall effect is to warm up the room slightly.
I skimmed the article (so forgive me if I'm off.) It appears to reference non-US markets and the parent was assuming US (my assumption).
AFAIK, the US has a mid-long outlook of gas oversupply. EU's market is broken and has 3x the price (c.f. Henry Hub v. TTF). I haven't seen any major forecasters predict reaching parity anytime soon. Hence, LNG export projects keep getting (over-)built to chase the arbitrage.
That doesn't make any sense. Bitcoin miners get wealth from people buying Bitcoin, not from electricity customers. Same for AI. It's a wealth transfer from electricity customers to electricity producers if anything.
Most likely most of the increase is just temporary though. Electricity supply will increase to meet the sudden and unpredictable increase in demand.
Which to me is funny, when the electricity prices will clearly not rise when there is solar energy production from said panels. But might in other times.
I think the argument is that on average people are buying heat pumps and EVs faster they are installing solar panels but it’s not completely convincing though, power stations can be added.
Further north where I am solar can only ever be a small component of total electricity generation due to the dark snowy cloudy winter months with close to zero solar generation for weeks on end.
The issue for me with batteries is that in the summer I can produce in a day much more than I can use, and in winter I consume a lot and barely produce anything. This is where net metering steps in- I can ‘store’ all of my excess summer consumption in the grid in summer and get credit for it in winter.
A cheaper smaller system right sized for summer consumption with a battery would have my second best option, but for me never showed any potential payback due to the fixed costs of installation and the extra battery costs.
The point of my original post was that I’ve seen a much greater ROI on my own heatpump than solar, even though I don’t regret the solar installation. I wasn’t making any claims about sustainability/scalability of solar, just showing how it worked for me.
My comment was regarding net metering policy, not solar itself. Solar is great, and even better (for you) if you have net metering. But it’s not sustainable or scalable for utilities to keep offering net metering, and ultimately it creates wrong/distorted market signals: an incentive to generate more electricity when it’s abundant and to use more when it’s scarce.
