John Daysh,
Not ever producing workable solutions is no solution ! With the resources wasted on Green Energy thus far we could have cleaned up the Planet by now.

Here is where it all comes down to the bottom line.
My system is a 1KW solar system facing almost due north.
Facing about 20 minutes west of due north.
It was installed in 2010.
In early January 2014 I measured its output as 500 watts.
My latest bill shows that from 28/5/25 to 27/8/25 92 days it
produced 43.78 Khwhrs for which I was paid $2.19 !
Nowhere near the traditional cup of coffee !

A couple of days ago a solar salesman rang me to sell a system.
I explained that my likelihood of being able to buy enough coffee
to make it worthwhile is close to zero. He hung up he knows its a con.

My son has a large flat roof on which he installed lots of solar cells.
He has a few large sealed lead acid batteries which he got
2nd hand for near enough for nothing.
He has since bought an electric car and it charges his car so $0!
The cost of replacing all those cells after 20 years will for most
like me be a dead loss.
There is one possibility, all those big solar farms will be replacing
their panels in 20 yrs so you might be able to fill your backyard
with them just for the taking.

Bezza,

What you’re describing isn’t “the bottom line on solar,” it’s the bottom line on a 1 kW system from 2010 limping along in 2025.

Modern systems are 6-10× bigger and twice as efficient.

Panels degrade at 0.5%/yr, not the 90% drop you’ve seen - so your issue looks like hardware failure, not proof that “solar is a con.”

Feed-in tariffs were never the main benefit. The real saving is avoided grid power, that’s why your son’s EV charges for “$0.”

Calling replacement at 20 years a “dead loss” ignores the 15-20 years of ROI already banked. I had solar installed last year (16 panels) and they've already paid for themselves. My plug-in hybrid car costs me less in fuel than my garden tools.

If anything, your son’s experience is the real “bottom line”: when sized right and self-consumed, solar + storage delivers massive value.

Your old system sounds more like a museum piece.

Hardly John and the loss is 50%. No more room on the roof for more panels.
It is the feed in tarrif that is the problem.
Even if there was no loss where could I get a cup of coffee for $2.56.
As perhaps you know they are planning on charging for the KWHr you
feed into the grid.
They want us to buy them coffee !

You’re still measuring with the wrong ruler, Bezza.

//It is the feed in tariff that is the problem… where could I get a cup of coffee for $2.56…//

Feed-in tariffs were always a bonus.

The real benefit is what you don’t buy from the grid. A modern 6-10 kW system saves thousands a year on bills - far more than a “cup of coffee” trickle-back. That’s why your son’s EV charges for “$0.”

//Hardly John and the loss is 50%…//

That’s still 100× worse than expected. Panels degrade about 0.5%/yr. If yours really lost 50%, that’s hardware failure, not normal solar. Holding up a broken 2010 system as “proof” solar doesn’t work is like holding up a busted Nokia flip phone to prove smartphones are a con.

//As perhaps you know they are planning on charging for the KWHr you feed into the grid.//

Yes, some networks are trialling export charges at peak times only. The idea is to encourage self-consumption and storage, because the grid isn’t a free infinite battery. But even under those rules, solar + batteries still comes out massively ahead.

The bottom line hasn’t changed: modern, functioning systems slash bills. Yours didn’t - not because “solar is a con,” but because it’s old, undersized, and clearly failing.

G'day John,

"because it’s old, undersized, and clearly failing." I believe we have a number of Old Farts on the Forum with that very problem!