US$40K was the cost when Chuck did it in 2003. Now we're talking about US$7000 over 25 years, which is US$23 a month. US$23 a month is not "well outside of the typical person's price range" in the US.
If you want to "save up for your kids", the way to do it is to invest your money in the investments that have the highest ROI, as long as you have enough liquidity to weather emergencies. Pay off your 23% credit card before your 17% credit card, pay off your 17% credit card before you start putting up solar panels that will have a 16% internal rate of return, and put up the solar panels before you buy the cold can of beer with its 0% ROI.
Twenty years from now, you'll be drinking your beer on the porch and sending your kids to college, while your typical American loser neighbors are whining about their credit card and electric bills.
> US$40K was the cost when Chuck did it in 2003. Now we're talking about US$7000 over 25 years, which is US$23 a month.
Chuck is replacing a $2000 inverter in just 10 years. If your emergencies include "fixing the damn solar panels that you bought", that's your own damn fault.
In any case, when middle-class Americans start buying solar en masse, I'll admit I'm wrong. But for now, I'm going to bet you that this is a luxury that is not cost-effective for the typical middle-class American.
It ain't like a Washing Machine, Refrigerator or Water Heater. I'll tell you that much.
It ain't like a washing machine in 2016, which everyone already has one of. It ai very much like a washing machine in 1916, when not many people had one yet, in that the year-over-year growth rate in installed solar panels is at about 26% (http://www.economist.com/news/business/21696941-solar-power-...).
An inverter that cost $2000 ten years ago now costs $400. (Amazon has a Bestek 2000W inverter for US$140 right now; three of these can supply more than what my house is wired for.) Even if you did have to buy a new $2000 inverter every 10 years, that's US$17 a month.
It's true that financing the up-front investment is a difficulty, and that's why Solar City is doing such great business. But as the component cost drops, accelerating both the IRR and the up-front investment size, that's less and less of a problem.
If you do want to bet on it, I imagine you can buy stock or long-expiry call options in coal-mining companies (BTU is in penny-stock territory right now because they filed for bankruptcy a couple weeks ago, and ACIIQ is too because they filed for bankruptcy in January), or puts on SCTY and Enel Green Power. This is a terrible idea and will lose you money, and you should not do it.
Because you refuse to calculate, you are doomed to talk nonsense.
> It's true that financing the up-front investment is a difficulty, and that's why Solar City is doing such great business
On the contrary. SolarCity hasn't made a profit and their stock has tanked. It seems like solving the up-front cost issue is difficult.
Widespread deployment of Utility-scale Solar will harm SolarCity and their customers (who have entered into long-term purchase agreements). If Widespread Solar LOWERS prices in the long term, then SolarCity dies.
Good for the world of course, but SolarCity's bets are on the wrong side of progress IMO.
If you want to "save up for your kids", the way to do it is to invest your money in the investments that have the highest ROI, as long as you have enough liquidity to weather emergencies. Pay off your 23% credit card before your 17% credit card, pay off your 17% credit card before you start putting up solar panels that will have a 16% internal rate of return, and put up the solar panels before you buy the cold can of beer with its 0% ROI.
Twenty years from now, you'll be drinking your beer on the porch and sending your kids to college, while your typical American loser neighbors are whining about their credit card and electric bills.