Government incentives are a lot lower now than when we were reading these stories two years ago, so these investments aren't quite the boon to businesses that they were.

Still they do more than break even thanks to falling installation costs, and the largest risk to this investment strategy is the possibility that the price of electricity will go down.

I think I could stand those odds.

Didn't we see this story earlier this year, with the same photo?
Our energy costs continue to rise, production costs and efficiency for solar panels and home use wind power generators continue to become more attractive as more people look to them.
I believe the whole story about Solyndra has not yet come out, and that this president did not deliberately create this problem. Look back at each of our past presidents- from BOTH parties, they have all been involved in "poor decisions" at one time during their time in office. All have been surrounded by a team of "experts" that advise them on all things... each of them has been ill advised by the experts...remember "weapons of mass destruction"?
Solar energy is an emerging technology, as with the first automobiles, people jump on the bandwagon, and fail ( for whatever reason) but we didn't walk away from the auto because of those who failed. Mr Erickson is looking forward, and this is not such a bad thing.

Not all tree-huggers are liberals, officerfriendly. The majority of tree-huggers I know are pistol-packin', church goin' Republicans. Some are even libertarians. Some even consider the term "tree hugger" to be a nice compliment, thank you. :-)

The financial math may not add up right now for solar or geothermal but in the future it will. He can put whatever he wants into his home. Maybe it is his hobby of sorts? My vehicle is not cost effective but I wanted it. The guy wanted solar panels. Have at it.

When taxpayer money is being used to help finance a manufactured battle against the taxpayer funded hysteria of global warming, all taxpayers have a legitimate voice, negative and positive.

What really gets me is how many people seem the have their heads in the sand when it comes to alternative energies. I keep seeing one trite comment after another regarding how pointless it is to even try to adopt the current technology. Yet, many articles regarding the more traditional means of energy keep pointing out the obvious.

Energy prices are going up.

Research, development, and implementation of new means of producing the energy that all of us take for granted must happen. With out such measures, we will see an ever greater increase in our cost. It is simple supply and demand. Since demand doesn't decrease when it comes to energy, supply will. And of course, the cost will go up.

I just can't understand how people will try to berate an early adopter of technology simply because they don't have the desire to do so themselves. No one is telling you to rush out and buy solar. Yet, many of you are trying to say that it is a mistake. It cost too much and it is pointless.

Yet, I would imaging most of you said the same thing about cell phones and computers. But, here we are. When will people begin to realize that before something can become mainstream, there needs to be those who are willing to try things out first despite the fact that it may be expensive or against conventional wisdom.

Without people like Mr. Erickson, none of us would be here because we would still think the world was flat.

Replacing solar panels on an existing system does not cost as much as installation. Under your scenario, officerfriendly1, assuming electricity prices remain stable (most forecasts show them rising steadily), and a full new installation (because why not at that point), and no decrease in solar technology costs (doubtful, as prices have been falling steadily) THEN the second installation is 100% paid for and produces free energy for its lifetime.
.
Remember, this is YOUR scenario. I guess I can't help it if you don't have any math skills.

Solar will work ! If Obama gives more of his Solyndra donor buddies more of our stimulus money, and Solyndra follows their old business model making solar panels at the cost of $6, then selling them for $3. Just increase the sales volume ! Alas we'll never know how it could have worked as the Solyndra execs are taking the 5th in front of Congress today.

The payback/ROI period is based on the net cost, which is not disclosed as it can vary depending on business income and taxation type (e.g. LLC, C corp, S corp), but is probably around 1/4 of that installation cost; the Focus on Energy subsidy is another 1/4. As a business the installation may be depreciated as well, which is often taken to be a compensation for maintenance costs. Additionally, after the ROI is reached, the system is actually still able to continue saving you money for years afterward.
.
I have no idea what you mean by solar panels becoming "obsolete". They should last decades, even if better technology is already available. Does your car become "obsolete" just because there is a new model every year? No, you can drive it as long as it lasts.
.
If you want, go ahead paying somebody to dig coal out of the ground and burn it for you. But don't be a concern troll about other people's choices.

actually, grandys618, the cost of installing solar has been falling dramatically since Mr. Erickson put his installation in, in part due to manufacturing and early adopters. If the combustion engine was not put into widespread use, it would not be cost effective to use. As the technology becomes more widely available and the manufacturing process becomes cheaper and more widespread. Installation costs work the same way. It is a feasible substitute for many people across the USA, and will continue to grow, much to the consternation of "head in the sand" individuals.
------
Kudos to Mr. Erickson for taking a chance and thinking about the future.

So grandy, what is Mr. Ericksons payback or breakeven point had he NOT installed the solar panels and just kept paying a utility for energy? Did you factor in the savings for the utility which burned less coal or the fact our air is a little less polluted? Some individuals can't see the forest for the trees!

Mr. Erickson is to be commended for his foresight, not only concerning his future bottom line but also on the impact energy generation has on our environment.