Why? What actually killed it?

Do you mean that you can't meet 100% of your demands, or it can't be done for some other reason?

You could reduce, but not eliminate, the demand for purchased energy. Would that be unacceptable? Is there not a net metering programme there?

For me the big deal is usually demonstrating payback. I'm in British Columbia and my solar experience is only with single family homes; on and off grid.

There was no big cost analysis with off grid homes. You need power, or you don't. It's just another category in the budget and the cost decisions are about balancing desires and cost.

With grid-connected homes, we don't even try to sell it now. Nearly all our customers have mortgages to pay for their new house and factoring in the interest paid makes it much less attractive.

A few years ago, low interest rates and high energy costs made it an easier sale. If you were in the position of having money in the bank, you could get a better return on that money by upgrading your home to save energy. Of course it could only scale as large as the cost of improvements.

Even then, a lot of homeowners didn't intend to own the home long enough to realize the returns, and I don't think small solar systems improve resale value. The feeling in the office is that if you're planning to resell, the money is better spent on the kitchen.

> Why? What actually killed it?

I think the parent was saying the solar was too heavy for the roof to support. The physical structure of the building was not strong enough.

Thanks! If the guy with pinkie ring won't stamp the plans, it's not going anywhere.

> Even then, a lot of homeowners didn't intend to own the home long enough to realize the returns, and I don't think small solar systems improve resale value. The feeling in the office is that if you're planning to resell, the money is better spent on the kitchen.

Not at today's power prices. A typical kitchen will easily cost as much or more than solar and solar ROI is about 20 to 25% right now, no kitchen will come even close to adding that kind of value to a house. If you can afford to do both, do both, but if you have to choose solar is #1 from an investment perspective (assuming you already have a kitchen...).

That's a nice return. Where I am (BC) we can do net metering but no longer get paid the surplus and I think our power costs are at the lower end of things.

Being in a rain forest doesn't help. Don't get me wrong, the summers are as bright as anywhere else, but the cloudy winters are brutal if you want sunshine.

If it's financed with a mortgage that's another thing to consider.

I just don't ever hear solar come up in conversations about resale. I've heard a couple Realtors mention that energy efficient design is something coming up most often. The big questions are still about the area and how many bed/bath rooms there are.

>(assuming you already have a kitchen...).

You can always get a second kitchen....a summer kitchen.