backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by RU482.. on Apr 25 at 1:37 PM

Google says the lease price is typically less than the electric bill for the home

Installing solar panels on the roof of your home (if you have plenty of access to direct sunlight) can be an expensive proposition if you don’t have plenty of incentives available to offset the initial costs. For this reason, many people don’t even bother with tackling this “green” energy option.
 
However, Google has announced a new initiative in conjunction with SunPower Corporation. The new plan will create a $250 million fund to help finance residential rooftop solar systems.

 
The goal is to make it easier for homes across the U.S. to adopt solar energy. The fund is comprised of $100 million from Google and $150 million from SunPower. Google buys the solar panels systems and then leases them to the homeowner at a price that is usually lower than their normal electricity bill.
 
SunPower makes panels that are able to generate up to 50% more power per unit area than other panels on the market, meaning that fewer panels are needed per home. There is no indication of how much the panels will lease for or if the panels are able to provide all the power needs for the home.

Source: Google



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By sadsteve on 4/23/2014 11:18:25 AM , Rating: 3
Why would anyone do this if it's not guaranteed to be lower than their current electricity bill?

A question. Who pays installation charges? Google/Sun Power or the home owner? From readings on the web, installation costs as around a third of the solar cells cost.

If you want to lower your electric bill, put in LED bulbs and power strips for things like your TV, cable boxes, etc. Actually turn off these devices instead of letting them sleep. I cut about $50 off my monthly electric bill by doing this. I'm in California so our electric power is fairly expensive.




By drlumen on 4/23/2014 11:29:04 AM , Rating: 2
At the lowest level, people do this for the same reason they drive a Volt or Prius or ...

As to amount saved depends on your situation and conditions. If you don't get enough sun then you are still supplementing it with grid power so the bills will fluctuate. If you live in Arizona then you should save money but if you live in Seattle then it could be a different story.

Based on meteorological data and the site they can usually tell you if you will save money.

I don't have solar yet but have been researching.


By therealnickdanger on 4/23/2014 11:52:20 AM , Rating: 4
Check out the YouTube prepper channels. Some of them may be bat-sh*t crazy, but they know how to make some dirt-cheap DIY PV systems that will give you excellent ROI.


By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 1:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, there are alot of things you can do... and yes, those peppers are nuts. Aside from all the obvius things, they all seem to miss one important point. If society breaks down, and you and your family has food stockpiled, and 1000 other families in your area don't have anything to eat, guess who gets killed tonight? No amount of stockpiled weapons will keep a starving hoard away for long. Like they say, we are all 3 days of zero food away from being complete maniacs.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2014 2:42:15 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
No amount of stockpiled weapons will keep a starving hoard away for long.


Are we talking zombies here or human beings who might think twice after seeing 10 or so other people get blown away?

Still I rather be the guy with the guns and food than one without. Although I'm not one of those crazies stocking away survival rations and turning my pee into drinking water or whatever lol.


By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 5:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Are we talking zombies here or human beings who might think twice after seeing 10 or so other people get blown away "

If they are starving, there isn't much of a difference.

"Still I rather be the guy with the guns and food than one without. Although I'm not one of those crazies stocking away survival rations and turning my pee into drinking water or whatever lol."

LOL true... But if it gets to that point we are all screwed. Someone and their well armed family isnt going to keep starving hoards at bay, you will just pick a few off as they mob your house and destroy your world.

If we fall, we ALL fall, and we all fall alone. -SOAD


By Spuke on 4/23/2014 6:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you will just pick a few off as they mob your house and destroy your world.
I live in the desert, I suspect most won't come here and if they do, I'll go farther out in the desert.


By TheSlamma on 4/24/2014 8:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
look up the Visigoths and the Romans, if you think a starving nothing to lose mob i gonna be stopped. Hannibal couldn't do it but some starving peasants could.

10 of them go down? do you think they are gonna knock and all come from the front gate?


By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/2014 1:03:32 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah because the Romans had tactical shotguns, assault riffles and such....

Anyway, I just can't see any realistic scenario where our society collapses and people are reduced to starving mindless zombie savages.

If we can survive 8 years of Obama, we can get through anything.


By atechfan on 4/23/2014 4:47:17 PM , Rating: 4
Smart preppers don't tell everyone else they have food stockpiled. Plus, most preppers live in rural settings. I'm with reclaimer on this one. Better the be prepared and not have to use it than to be caught with you pants down if things get bad.


By Concillian on 4/23/2014 6:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At the lowest level, people do this for the same reason they drive a Volt or Prius or ...


Living in the Bay Area, The people I personally know who drive a Leaf or plug in hybrid do it because they get a sticker with the car that lets them drive in the carpool lanes without a carpool, and that saves them significant time on their commute.

People are definitely not buying solar panels for that reason.


By Rukkian on 4/23/2014 11:48:51 AM , Rating: 2
The difference is, there is no guarantee that it will eliminate your energy bill. If the lease is the same as your current energy bill, and you still have to buy a decent amount of power, then you are not saving anything.

Depending on the details, this would probably be good for some people, and might help adoption, but it will really matter what type of lease rates happen.


By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 11:53:32 AM , Rating: 1
"The difference is, there is no guarantee that it will eliminate your energy bill. If the lease is the same as your current energy bill, and you still have to buy a decent amount of power, then you are not saving anything."

Still not hard to grasp. The upfront cost of solar can either be up front or you make payments. Once its paid off, your bill is definitely significantly lower. It's not going to be a perfect for everyone, but it certainly makes sense for some. Now, with programs like this is makes sense for even more people.


By someguy123 on 4/23/2014 12:55:24 PM , Rating: 3
What are you talking about? These are leases. There's nothing indicating that google will just let you have the panels when your lease expires. Hell there isn't even any info about how installation costs are handled. When your lease expires you may be left with the cost of installation and no solar panels without signing up for another lease. If there isn't a guarantee of costs being lower during lease then the only selling point is "greenness".


By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 12:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
I am talking about the difference in buying upfront or paying monthly. Agreed, there is no info above on how it works and anyone with a 1/2 a brain would certainly read the details prior to signing up to anything.

To me, if its an ongoing lease with no ability to own at the end, then no. Not for me, but I am not making that assumption either way.


By Spuke on 4/23/2014 2:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
The solar panels themselves are really cheap. A pallet of 10 305W panels costs $2800. Mounting rails are ~50 cents per foot. Wiring can be a little pricey depending on panel configuration. Maybe a couple grand. Grid-tie inverter is going to be $2-$3k. You're really paying for labor and permits (plus some bend over fees). If you can DIY this and pay an electrician to check/sign off on your work and maybe do the grid-tie part, you can save thousands.


By atechfan on 4/23/2014 4:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
For me, the real benefit of panels is to be off grid, so grid tie-in wouldn't be necessary. Of course, that requires a substantial battery array too. I've seen that done with discarded car batteries though.


By Spuke on 4/23/2014 6:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For me, the real benefit of panels is to be off grid, so grid tie-in wouldn't be necessary.
This is how I'd like to do it but it's much harder to accomplish in practice. I wouldn't use old car batteries as they're not suited to continuous deep cycling. The cheapest battery bank would be some Costco or Walmart 6V's but if you want longevity and good warranty's, Rolls Surrette 2V's are the way to go (and yes they're really expensive).


By atechfan on 4/24/2014 5:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
I know they are not the best option, but they are often free, which is why they get MacGuyvered into service.


By superflex on 4/23/2014 2:59:05 PM , Rating: 1
Who gets the federal tax credit?
My guess is the lessee gets the shaft and the corporate lessor gets the taxpayer funded spoils.
Perfect plan for Obama's Free Shit Army and his crony capitalists.


By Mint on 4/23/2014 1:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of silly line of argumentation is this? There's no guarantee that sticking with your current utility will be cheaper than home solar either. In fact, it's rather unlikely that you're going to see your rates drop.

You make a decision based on the information at hand.

The reality is that the public is going to pay for incentivizing home solar, but I can't fault people for skirting our grid's flawed pricing scheme.


By Nutzo on 4/23/2014 12:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
Generally, in California, installing solar panels only make sense if your electric bill is over $150/month, and over $250/month in the summer. And that's assuming you qualify for all the tax brakes/rebates. That's with the highly progressive tiered rates, that start at $.14/kwh and grows to $.34/kwh

Even then, it will take years to break even.

Even though my house/roof would be perfect for panels (south facing, no trees shading it), they still make no sense for me. Due to my effort to make the house more energy efficent, my normal bill is around $60, and it averages around $150-$200 during the hottest few months of summer.

Then there's the problem of putting 1000+ pounds of additional weight on your roof (can lead to more damage during an earthquake), and the potential for leaks when they install all the mounting hardware.


By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 12:20:56 PM , Rating: 3
"Even then, it will take years to break even."

It's always a "chicken and egg" thing. KEeping with the farm theme, why would a farmer buy a cow for $500 to make milk he sells at at $2 a day... Because eventually it will give him more money than without the cow. It's called investment.

Agreed though it doesn't fit for everyone. I would consider it now but we are thinking about moving soon. If I were in my house where I planned to stay for a long time, I would go for it. In AZ, we have 335+ days of fully sunny and 120+ of those are ridiculously high energy usage for the AC in the hot months.


By bug77 on 4/23/2014 12:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but cows have been around $500 for a while and will stay there for a while longer. Meanwhile, waiting to install solar panels, pretty much guarantees you'll pay a lower entry fee later.


By Mint on 4/23/2014 2:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
Solar panels have come down so far in price that most of the cost is now installation and supporting hardware (brackets, inverters, wiring, etc). Price drops are going to slow down now.

I'd say a bigger worry is cashing in on incentives while you can, and getting in on as much net metering as possible.


By M'n'M on 4/23/2014 2:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
Let me add another worry. If enough people in any 1 region adopt this too quickly, the utility company will have to respond ... and that might not be in a good way. It would seem that less people on the grid is a good thing and it is until the sun doesn't shine for long enough. Then those people who went (mostly) off-grid are all going to come back on. Where's that juice going to come from ? It won't come from the big baseload plants that supply it (relatively) economically and environmentally now.

No, it'll have to come from quicker reacting plants, such as NG turbines. And that means building more of them or some other technology. So the move to make people go solar, become semi-independant of the grid, better be matched by improvements in the grid or there will be trouble on the 2'nd cloudy day. And even going solar won't mean you won't pay for those improvements eventually, one way or another. (just as the roads must be paid for even if everyone goes to EVs)


By bug77 on 4/23/2014 3:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
Solar panels are still below 20% efficiency. If someone makes a 50% efficiency version (currently possible in the lab), you'll get a lot more power using a lot less panels. That's cost saving, too.


By Labotomizer on 4/23/2014 12:34:21 PM , Rating: 5
I'm in Texas and I'm there with you. Summer is brutal on electricity. 3,000 square foot, one story house and I'm looking at ~350/month in the summer. If I knocked that down to $150/month with solar and then another $100 or so with better attic insulation it's a very, very good deal. And I'd have no bill in the winters. Sounds awesome to me.

I'm certainly no flag waving Prius driver by any stretch, but if I can obtain better efficiency that ultimately benefits both myself and the environment? Sign me up.


By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 2:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yup... We have had $400 months here for a much smaller 2200 sq. ft. house. Freegin ouch. The only thing that burns more is the pavement.


By Spuke on 4/23/2014 2:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
Our bills are much like Nutzo's and our house is 2000sf. I looked at leased solar and came to the same conclusion as he did. Where I would really save some loot is if I could ditch the propane furnace and use electric instead with solar and wind (windy area where I live). Both installed by pros are still in raep you in the ass mode even though the equipment is considerably cheaper now than 10 years ago when I first looked.


By marvdmartian on 4/24/2014 8:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
All three of you guys are either getting buttraped on your price per kilowatt hour, have the most energy inefficient houses in Texas, or simply need to raise your thermostat temperature a bit in the summertime!

I live 2 hours drive north of the Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex, in an 1800 square foot house that was built in 1971. Still has single pane windows, and original insulation in the walls and attic. My thermostat is set at 68 in the winter, and 78 in the summer.

Using Champion Electric as my provider, I'm locked in at 9 cents per kilowatt hour, for 2 years. My highest electric bills, in the summertime, might reach ~$150. And that's with me taking ZERO steps to decrease "vampire" loads, which would probably knock it down another 10%.

Personally, I looked into getting solar, a few years ago, when I first bought my house.....and it would have cost me the same (or more) per month as my electricity from the grid, with a 17 year payoff.....at which point, I likely would have had to replace nearly everything in the system, since the solar panels would be outdated and inefficient, and the batteries likely would have needed replacement.

In other words, the only benefit to me getting solar, when I can buy electricity that cheap, would be the warm, fuzzy feeling of being "green".


By Nutzo on 4/24/2014 11:25:24 AM , Rating: 2
My house was built in the mid 70's, and I've installed dual pane windows, added insulation, ect.

The problem is the high cost of electricity in California. They use a tiered rate structure, the more you use, the higher the rate. Rate starts at 14 cent/kwh, and climbs to 34 cents/kwh, almost 4 times your rate. Last month I used 422 KWH, bill was $65. At your rate of 9 cent/kwh it would have been $38. My worse bill last year, during a major heat wave, was $231. Under your rate it would have only been $95

Even though my house is larger at 2500 sq feet, I'm using significantly less power, while paying alot more.


By marvdmartian on 4/24/2014 2:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, sorry. My comments were geared more toward Labotomizer, and the two replies between his remarks and my own.

So far as California goes, you can at least partly blame your electricity prices on the tree huggers, who make it darn near impossible to build new power generation plants there, and VERY expensive for those that are built to operate. I worked at the biomass power generation plant, in Tracy, California, from 1990 to 1991, and we were constantly having to work at keeping the smokestack emissions clean enough to keep Cal-EPA happy.

Since California then has to "import" energy into the state, during heavy usage periods, the consumer is going to pay more for heavier usage. Just a fact of life, I'm afraid.


By RU482 on 4/25/2014 1:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
In your scenario, I'd have to think that the space between the solar panel and your roofing could potentially provide some savings as well. You're basically getting an sun umbrella for a good portion of your roof.


By jtemplin on 4/23/2014 12:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
Surprise, surprise; people are motivated by things other than just money!


By atechfan on 4/23/2014 1:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
I would assume that Google would be paying the installation fee, since they will own the panels and lease the use of them to the homeowner.


By ven1ger on 4/23/2014 7:23:39 PM , Rating: 3
Solar panel installation charge is handled by the leasing company. Maintenance is also handled by the leasing company.

Basically, if you lease, the only fee you pay is the monthly charge which is usually at a set rate at the time of installation what you currently pay your electricity and that will be set for the next 20 years or whatever your lease is good for.

Any rebates, tax incentives goes to the leasing company.

I do not recommend leasing for the average homeowner. The reason is that if you own your home and you lease solar panels, you no longer own your roof. If you were to ever sell your home, the buyer would have to agree to the leasing agreement with the solar leasing company. If you have net metering, any additional electricity credited would go to the leasing company, leasing company usually has an agreement with the electic company to be compensated for the additional electricity. If for some reason your electrical needs exceeds the generated electricity from the panels for the month, the home owner will have to pay the electric company the difference.

The ROI on solar panels + tax credits is about 4-8 years, depending on your costs and tax credits. Panels are usually warrantied up to about 20-25 years. So after the ROI, you'd enjoy many years of free electricity. If you lease, the leasing company will become your utility company for the life of the panels.

Cost of installation, permits, dealing with the electrical company, etc, can have costs of installation for 10-12 panels in the $15-25K range, and that would be a smaller about 2 bedroom house. Larger homes, would have to be scaled up and cost proportionally.

While there are DIY kits for installing solar, this is not for your average person. There are many companies that have sprung up within the past 5 years that offer cheaper installations/panels but one has to be wary of many of these cheaper alternatives because there has been concern of cheaper substandard materials being used in many of these panels, causing them to fail within a few years.

I am no fan of leasing solar, but I do understand that for some homeowners it may look attractive but I've always argued against it if the homeowner can look at other ways to finance getting solar via home equity loans, solar loans, etc.


By Solandri on 4/24/2014 3:24:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why would anyone do this if it's not guaranteed to be lower than their current electricity bill?

Because electricity prices vary considerably across the nation.. In some places the lease cost will be lower than your electricity bill. In some places it will not.

quote:
A question. Who pays installation charges? Google/Sun Power or the home owner? From readings on the web, installation costs as around a third of the solar cells cost.

The company leasing the panels usually pays for installation. Most of these programs hinge on Federal and state subsidies for solar power. You (the homeowner) lease the panels at-cost or slightly higher, and thus get electricity without the up-front purchase price of the panels. The leasing company has to pay the up-front costs, but most or all of it is recompensed by the subsidies. And the amortized up-front costs are paid back by the homeowner. It essentially acts like a loan/mortgage, except there's a great big cherry on top for the leasing company in the form of subsidies.

Of course the loser in this is the taxpayer paying for those subsidies. For the program to make fiscal sense, the price of solar power has to be cheaper than other electricity sources, and the only reason it's not being adopted is because of the high up-front costs. Unfortunately, that's not the case. PV solar is still (best case) about 2-3x more expensive than conventional power sources and even wind. So unless you can argue that the cost of pollution from coal plants exceeds the value of the electricity they're generating (i.e. coal is supposedly a net drain on the economy - an extremely dubious proposition), solar is still a net money loser. Except in a few extreme situations (desert southwest, Hawaii).


I love the contrast between Apple and Google.
By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 10:19:12 AM , Rating: 5
Things like this mirror their software and hardware divisions.

Green initiatives.
Google: Has a program to bring clean power to the people
Apple: Has a program to bring clean power to a whopping 1.8% of its overall footprint (the data centers)
http://www.dailytech.com/Quick+Note+Apple+Invites+...

Hardware.
Google: We make hardware to work with everyone.
Apple: I make hardware to work with ME!

Software.
Google: We make software to work with everyone.
Apple: I make software to work with ME!

Yet somehow Apple gets all the praise and press. Go figure.




By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 11:54:53 AM , Rating: 4
The point was quite apparent.


By atechfan on 4/23/2014 4:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
Why even bring my name into this discussion? I was defending Google in this article. A little reading comprehension might be in order. Now I'm a pro-Apple troll? I thought I was a MS homer. Get your insults straight, at least.

I don't hate Google. I think Android is inferior to the alternatives, and I'm no fan of Google's lack of respect for IP, but I don't have a knee jerk anti-Google stance on every issue.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2014 5:43:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think Android is inferior to the alternatives


Well then you're an idiot. You not liking something doesn't make it "inferior". Inferior products don't dominate vast world-wide markets, fyi.

quote:
Now I'm a pro-Apple troll?


You bring up my reading comprehension? Read it again, or Retro's post for a more detailed explanation of basic English sentence structure.

quote:
but I don't have a knee jerk anti-Google stance on every issue.


Dude like 90% of your posts are attacks on me for being pro-Google. How freaking anti-Google can you get?


By atechfan on 4/23/2014 5:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
Telling you specifically that you are wrong is anti-Google? I was not aware that you were Google. Now your crying every time Google gets attacked makes more sense.

I've called out your stupidity on way more subjects than just Google, like when you tried to claim only the USA has the right to free speech.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2014 6:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Telling you specifically that you are wrong is anti-Google?


I'm never wrong, haven't you learned that yet?

quote:
I've called out your stupidity on way more subjects than just Google, like when you tried to claim only the USA has the right to free speech.


Like when you used Canada as an example, which basically made Free Speech illegal? LMAO oh man that was classic! Just...hahaah.

Way to prove me wrong! GG.


By Spuke on 4/24/2014 1:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just...hahaah.
LMAO!!


By atechfan on 4/24/2014 5:28:39 AM , Rating: 2
You gave me an example of a law that was repealed because it violated the constitutional right to free speech. I replied with a court case from the US that basically said the US constitution no longer applies. So your example from Canada showed a move towards greature free speech, whereas my example from the US showed a move towards restrictions on free speech.

The USA consistently scores lower than several other western nations on freedom issues. But keep telling yourself you arethe land of the free. Hiding your head in the sand is how you got to where you are now.


By atechfan on 4/24/2014 5:40:47 AM , Rating: 2
Before you ask me for proof USA rates low, check this out:
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,10...

47th place.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/2014 4:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You gave me an example of a law that was repealed because it violated the constitutional right to free speech. I replied with a court case from the US that basically said the US constitution no longer applies.


Except the Supreme Court ruling was SUPER narrow in scope and focus.

The Canada Speech Codes were so devastatingly vague and wide-open, one could be punished simply for saying things someone else didn't like. Government mandated censorship on a mass scale. Thought Police!

But hey why let logic and reason get in the way. Continue on with your nationalistic smear campaign, by all means.


By atechfan on 4/23/2014 5:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and BTW, Google didn't dream up this concept. There was no thinking outside the box here. Google has more resources, and may be able to do it more efficiently than SolarCity, but they were definitely not the first to do it.


By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 5:37:33 PM , Rating: 1

Here you go again with reading comprehension issues. I am getting a totally different conversation than you here...

Now I'm a pro-Apple troll?

Read it again. He mentioned you separately from the pro Apple trolls. You [stop] and the pro Apple trolls don't seem to get what Google does. It just seems to go right over your heads.

I don't hate Google. I think Android is inferior to the alternatives. Yet you poop all over it in every article. Your anti Google/android sentiment if obvious and uneducated. You attack vendor related issues (like Sambloat's lag) and blame the OS, or security issues on a 3+ year old version and act like its happening today, but lets not get into that, as its a totally different thread.

"Oh, and BTW, Google didn't dream up this concept. There was no thinking outside the box here. Google has more resources, and may be able to do it more efficiently than SolarCity, but they were definitely not the first to do it."

There is that comprehension thing again. Reclaimer said "this is just another case of Google taking the initiative and thinking outside-the-box to solve a problem."

He didn't say Google dreamed it up, he didn't say they did it first he said they are "thinking outside the box to solve problems" and there you go, crapping all over something that no-one said .

Serious question here... Is it just that you are pissed at reclaimer so you start arguments out of nothing, or are you really not comprehending English? A little of both?


By atechfan on 4/23/2014 5:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Read it again. He mentioned you separately from the pro Apple trolls. You [stop] and the pro Apple trolls don't seem to get what Google does. It just seems to go right over your heads.


Quote him right if you are going to try to disprove me with a quote, or you end up looking like an idiot. he said "and the other pro-Apple trolls", implying I was one, along with others.

quote:
He didn't say Google dreamed it up, he didn't say they did it first he said they are "thinking outside the box to solve problems" and there you go, crapping all over something that no-one said .


Thinking outside the box implies that they thought of something no one else did. It is not outside the box if someone else did it before you. Not my fault you are too stupid to understand that. But whatever, you and reclaimer continue munching on the Google knob.


By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 6:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
I know what he wrote and it's clear to me what he meant. You, and the pro Apple trolls. It wasn't hard to get and I dont think anyone here would call you a "pro Apple troll", especially reclaimer. Most of your posts at this site are with him, as if you are just PO'd about something and looking to get at him. On that note, you missed the Q at the end. Serious question here... Is it just that you are pissed at reclaimer so you start arguments out of nothing, or are you really not comprehending English?


By atechfan on 4/24/2014 5:35:04 AM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer brought up me in this thread, not the other way around. You are proving to be just like him, as soon as you are proven wrong, you change the goal post and start making other accusations. I don't specifically target him, but I do target stupidity. Not my fault that he has the lion's share of it on this site. For example, the Apple share price discussion was staying pretty civil, then he came along and called Apple users fags, but no reason I can see except he is pissed off Apple is still doing so well.


By retrospooty on 4/24/2014 8:11:15 AM , Rating: 2
"Reclaimer brought up me in this thread, not the other way around. "

OK, he did bring you up in this thread, but I do see you dogging him alot lately, thus the reason I asked the question. You usually harp on him and either twist, or completely misunderstand the point and then argue your twisted/misunderstood point to death. You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder with his name on it. He really pissed you off didn't he?

"You are proving to be just like him, as soon as you are proven wrong, you change the goal post and start making other accusations."

'scuse me? Where did you prove me wrong? All I did was point out that you (as usual) are missing the point attacking something that isn't the point and that you do it alot.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2014 5:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
Let's call Solar City what it is; a tax write-off for Elon Musk.

Google didn't create this concept, of course. But they look like the only ones who are actually serious about following through on it.


By atechfan on 4/23/2014 6:00:25 PM , Rating: 3
Unlike you, I don't go all stupid every time Musk's name is mentioned, so I decided to check on your claim that SolarCity is not serious. They have done over 68,000 installations so far. Maybe small potatoes to what Google hopes to accomplish, but hardly sounds like someone who isn't serious about the business.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/2014 6:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
Wow you seriously just CANNOT comprehend what you read or understand the context of it. I suggest some night classes at your local community college to clear that right up, it would do you a world of good.


By retrospooty on 4/23/2014 8:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
RE: I love the contrast between Apple and Google.
By Spuke on 4/24/2014 1:12:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I suggest some night classes at your local community college to clear that right up, it would do you a world of good.
LMAO!! OMG you vs atech is just friggin funny as hell!


By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/2014 12:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
lol maybe for YOU. You try and talk to this guy and see how fast your bottle fills up hehe.


SolarCity
By Guspaz on 4/23/2014 11:35:01 AM , Rating: 3
So, basically, they're just copying SolarCity's business model.




RE: SolarCity
By atechfan on 4/23/2014 1:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
Why not? It isn't like Musk has the rights to either solar energy or the leasing model of business. Why can't Google attempt the same thing? With Google's buying power, I am sure they have at least as much chance of success at this as SolarCity.


RE: SolarCity
By esteinbr on 4/23/2014 4:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yup SolarCity already does this. My Parents and a couple of our neighbors have done it already.

http://www.solarcity.com/residential/


Solar panels are ugly.
By kamiller422 on 4/23/2014 1:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
I would use solar panels if they weren't so ugly. The pictured house is already ugly. Solar shingles look a little better.




Consumers
By KFZ on 4/23/2014 1:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly where we should be focusing: integrating power generation into the home. Massive grids of panels and wind turbines are costly in many ways and can't produce energy on demand.

This is a much better path than coming down on utilities and demanding they produce a chunk of their energy from such renewable sources. Heck, with enough consumers out there net-metering, utilities could just draw the mandated renewable energy from consumers and tell the flipping environmentalists to buzz off.




Moar Debt
By superflex on 4/23/14, Rating: -1
RE: Moar Debt
By xti on 4/23/2014 1:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
if you live in a city with the incentives, installing panels on your roof is very affordable....well under $10k easily.

if that number scares you, then you shouldn't own a home, and probably aren't Google's target market either.

so this is all moot. (cow's opinion!)


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki