Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Linux-Is-Best t1_j5h5ius wrote

1st, if you go with solar panels in the future, be sure to buy and not lease.

The whole point of having solar panels is to either reduce or remove your energy cost, and many of these solar companies want to just give you another monthly bill with a lease agreement. Additionally, many homeowner insurance policies will not cover the damage or repair to both your solar panels or roof, while you are leasing solar panels. That means if they're installed wrong or some freak weather happens, you're stuck with the cost to fix everything. Lastly, many of those credits, rebates, and tax incentives only apply if you are buying solar panels, not leasing.

39

OandKrailroad t1_j5ju617 wrote

I agree and disagree. Wish I had bought outright, and own the system, but I chose to lease them. It’s 70$ a month, and I haven’t had to pay for electricity over that since the system got installed. It’s not a great option, but 70$ on a lease is better than $500

3

Linux-Is-Best t1_j5jyc07 wrote

  • $500 x 1 payment = 500

-vs.-

  • 70 x 12 months = 840 x 2 years = 1,680 x 2 more years = 3,360 x forever = $$$

No, I think buying is your more affordable option. It's just the upfront cost seems to catch people. One is an endless money pit, while the other is a short-term loss with a long-term gain.

6

OandKrailroad t1_j5krdyy wrote

Where is this guy only paying $500 a year?

My electric bill used to be ~$200/month. Now it’s $70. It’s good savings as far as I’m concerned. I could have saved more but buying but I’m still saving something.

1

Linux-Is-Best t1_j5kss2r wrote

I'm sorry, but I cannot tell if you are intentionally misleading, or you are misunderstanding, or you are comparing apples to oranges (honestly).

$500 1x payment for the 1 solar panel. It would cost more since ideally, you would want more panels and the other equipment, plus installations. Compared to your reoccurring $70 monthly lease fee, which would be forever, adding accumulatively over time.

1

OandKrailroad t1_j5kuuyd wrote

Ahhh. My bad. I thought your 500$ payment was for the bills mentioned by OP not for buying a panel. I totally agree that buying outright is the better option, I just didn’t want to make that investment. With the lease, the solar company maintains them and replaces broken panels, which to me is worth it for the convenience. For most people in most scenarios, I’d advocate ownership. At the very least DONT choose Sunrun as a provider.

2

Linux-Is-Best t1_j5kvd8k wrote

> At the very least DONT choose Sunrun as a provider.

On this, I agree. I have heard so many horror stories concerning that company. I recall a whole Facebook group of peer support, with people talking about their experiences. The big problem was the company used a lot of 3rd party contractors and the results of that experience varied widely.

2

haitiandev OP t1_j5hkh6g wrote

u/Linux-Is-Best thank you for this information. I think I should drop the solar option as it has too many complications. Great input though!

2

Linux-Is-Best t1_j5hojxx wrote

> u/Linux-Is-Best thank you for this information. I think I should drop the solar option as it has too many complications. Great input though!

Buying solar panels isn't complicated. The complication comes when you lease them. Although, the upfront cost is a bit more when buying, and that sometimes does discourage folks. However, the long-term savings and the added value to your home are worth it.

9

langjie t1_j5kzlop wrote

+1. go to energysage to get more local quotes. buy and don't lease. ask for cash prices for apples to apples comparisons

4

knowslesthanjonsnow t1_j5hzy4y wrote

Unless they break my roof?

1

Linux-Is-Best t1_j5i2qes wrote

> Unless they break my roof?

Nope, not even then. Many insurance companies seem to right off any responsibility if you lease solar panels. That said, even if installed correctly, should you experience normal wear or weather-related damage, they seem to still stiff the consumer if you happen to be leasing panels. The reasoning is that it's not your property that is associated, so they expect the company you are leasing to handle it. But many of those leased companies have a clause waving responsibility. Some people have tried fighting such things, but you're talking about lots of legal costs and time in the process.

4