Agreed, but tandem silicon-perovskite panel production is starting to come on-stream already. Most of the initial output is going straight to solar farms at this stage, but if it's yielding a 30-50% increase on current generation panels then it may well be worth upgrading in the coming years. I think similar may apply re sodium battery tech, particularly if the tech's ability to operate in a wider temperature range makes it feasible to replace smaller attic-based installations constrained by weight with larger, outdoor-sited installations.
How much are Solar Panels worth
- Thread starter cremeegg
- Start date
I don’t think anyone is ignoring maintenance costs — it’s more that, in practice, they’re both uncertain and typically quite low relative to the overall investment. Of course, components can fail over time, but there isn’t strong evidence of widespread or predictable high-cost failures, especially within the first decade. That makes it difficult to assign a meaningful figure to maintenance in a payback calculation, beyond acknowledging it as a potential but relatively minor risk.
It’s similar to any long-term investment — you factor in known costs and accept that some variables can’t be precisely predicted. What matters is that the core economics still stand. If a system has already paid for itself (or largely done so), a later repair cost doesn’t invalidate the return; it just marginally reduces it. In reality, the bigger financial risk I see is not maintenance, but poor system design — for example, undersized or overpriced installs that limit generation and extend payback unnecessarily.
Exactly. I just replaced my gas boiler (unfortunately!
) and future potential hardware costs didn't even factor. It's overkill to focus on appliance-specific risks imo. Sure, have a rainy day fund that covers the potential of some stuff in your home breaking at some point. I don't see why solar needs to specifically be separated out as if it's an inevitability.It makes sense when doing ROI calculations as is happening here. To ignore maintenance or upkeep costs distorts the figures.
I disagree, they never mention maintenance costs or even acknowledge that they will have future costs, anytime I have seen anyone talk about payback.
Not as insignificant as you seem to imply, in your words an inverter is approx 2k, my whole system is costing 8k, so if my inverter went after the 5 year warranty it would 25% of total cost to replace, I would say that is quite significant!! Even if it went in year 15 or 20 for that matter, it is still a cost!
I do realise that it is very hard to predict, but as these systems are seen as an investment (as opposed to anything else you purchase i.e. fridge / car / boiler
etc) then this should be taken into account, this is just prudent.. I think. Obviously you dont.. and thats fair enough..I still think you are completely overstating it on the maintenance front, it's a valid point but chances of incurring significant costs are remote. The vast majority of installs are issue and maintenance-free, and if they work as designed, maintenance costs are insignificant. I do agree that a lot of people and the companies selling solar underestimate the payback period. Something that's never considered is what happens if FIT tariffs disappear or drop significantly, as has happened in other jurisdictions. This is far more likely to impact the payback, and no one talks about it.
It’s absolutely talked about on forums, maybe not this one but there’s at least one dedicated thread on boards about dynamic time-of-use tariffs, which is actually what happened in other jurisdictions when fixed 24hr FiT rates were abolished. But whether your optimal profile is self-consumption or export, get as many panels as you can and a battery that’ll get you through 80% of the days in the year and you’ll probably be fine. Because many of those jurisdictions have periods where usage is free or you can even be paid to consume on the odd occasion.
We’re not talking maintenance or upkeep, which would be things like an annual service or expected part replacements. Most of the debate has been what-if’s about low probability events. As I said before, sure, have a general household rainy-day fund for an appliance failing or emergency car repairs or yeah, an inverter needing replacement, that kinda thing. But it’s overkill to work it into your solar payback calculations - I mean, which year would you even put it in, how would you account for inflation, etc, etc.
You’re a household, not a FTSE500. Don’t needlessly overcomplicate it.
Component failure in the first few years is a low probability, not zero so it should be factored in accordingly. It would be standard practice to include expected cost times the probability of the event in ROI calculations. Most providers recommend a full system check every 2-3 years and that panels are cleaned once or twice a year to maintain optimum performance.
As I have repeatedly said, solar is seen as an investment therefore this needs to be taken into account, everything else you repeatedly mention is not (car, boiler,fridge)... not sure why you keep bringing them up, your not making any point!
The debate has been about maintenance - which covers everything, I just used inverter as an example to make a point!
Why do you think working a possible 2k expense - inverter (25% of total cost of investment) as overkill, whether this occurs in year 5, 10 or 15 doesnt really matter.. and all the other expenses that will occur! your still of the opinion that you can leave your system with absolutely no maintenance for 10+ years?
Last edited:
Every one of those capital items has a utility value, just like solar does. A car saves you time as it's (generally) more convenient than public transport, and certainly more flexible and comfortable. A boiler heats your home, some are more efficient or reliable than others and can justify a premium. A fridge stores food so that it last longer than it otherwise would. The difference is we've been conditioned to take them as givens, things that you just go and buy, but solar is new and therefore needs corporate levels of spreadsheetery.
My point has repeatedly been made - there's almost zero ongoing maintenance (not even cleaning tbh, our roof pitches and frequency of rain across all seasons generally sees to that!), and a hardware failure may happen but it's not even that likely. I have said sure, cover it under your household rainy day fund. But you're far more likely to dip into that fund for a car repair which nobody, and I mean nobody, considers when they're buying their 45k sticker-price car that it's really a 47k car in case it needs a 2k repair down the line.
As I said above, I don't disagree with this in principle @Leo - add up all your household capital equipment replacement costs by the probabilities of each suffering a failure and you've got.... a household rainy-day fund.
I just disagree that the calculations for residential solar need to be put under a level of scrutiny that isn't really applied to all the other capital purchases. It's overkill. You're probably just as likely to be ahead on your payback due to another Ukraine invasion or closure of the Hormuz strait or whatnot spiking the price of electricity that you won't be paying, than you are to suffer a major equipment failure outside of warranty but before the system has paid for itself.
And most solar owners will guide you that payback is currently around 6-7 years.