Solar Panels Increase Home Value

blair1q writes "Venture Beat reports that a study (PDF) by Berkeley National Labs has found that homes sold in California earned a premium for solar panels. The benefit ranged from $3900 to $6400 per kW of capacity. An earlier study found that proximity to solar or wind power may also raise home values. These results contradict the arguments based on degrading home values used by putative NIMBY (Not In My Back-Yard) opponents to installing or living near such energy-generating equipment."

Makes Sense

[DWMorse]

Makes total sense. If I was looking at houses, and the prior owners had installed a hot tub, earning them a glare or two from neighbors in the process, I would also pay a little extra for that amenity too. Duh. Beneficial improvement raises value.

Yep

[ShooterNeo]

This is one of the reasons why it's supposed to be worth it to install solar in some places. There's heavy subsidies that bring down the cost, and electricity rates are extremely high during parts of the day in California. And you get your money back instantly when you install the panels, because if you were to sell the house the next day, the sale price would be boosted by the value of the panels.

Well, that's what they say, at least, and this article seems to prove it.

Strawman opposition destroyed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but people arguing from a NIMBY perspective have never claimed that domestic solar power degrades home values. This is simply an attempt to attribute a completely illogical and unreasonable opposition to someone.

It's likely that many NIMBY opponents have argued against wind farms based on a) their own personal taste as to what they can see outside their window, b) a perception that house prices will be affected negatively if what you see (and hear) are wind farms.

If it's their own personal taste it comes to then arguments about house prices aren't very relevant and don't contradict any arguments - if it's house prices it comes to then the study referred to in the article isn't highly precise, as it doesn't track house prices through time. You would usually only see wind farms from locations with great views, and hear them in a somewhat larger radius, hence a simple "do houses close to wind farms sell for less at this point in time" would be difficult to make accurate.

Re:Makes Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes total sense.

But then the "econutters" would be right and there's a whole contingent of people out there who are going to go burn tires just to show them who's boss.

Time after time, conservationists say "we think you should X because it will save the world". Opponents say "You gaia-worshipping econutters can't tell us what to do, we're going to burn a tire just for you". Companies turn off their lights at night and discover that they are saving 25% on their electric bill. Or they recycle and discover they're saving on their raw material costs. The list goes on and on. Sure, there are some crazy suggestions out there, and sadly some of them have gotten backed by the government (like the incandescent bulb ban), when they haven't gotten completely redirected for the profit of some small group (corn-and-corn-only ethanol springs to mind, though I wouldn't be surprised to find out that GE sponsored a number of the anti-incandescent bulb legislators).

"Property Prices" is code.

[FatLittleMonkey]

These results contradict the arguments based on degrading home values used by [...] opponents

Members of home associations that ban solar panels aren't really arguing that panels lower property prices, they're arguing "I don't want to see it". It's the same with most HA rules aimed at "protecting property values".

Re:Makes Sense

[timeOday]

For me it would be a bonus because it would mean the land is likely to remain relatively undeveloped instead of filling in with more suburbs.

Re:Makes Sense

[BasilBrush]

For me, when I pass by a wind farm, it brings a smile to my face. I'm happy that here is something being done about global warming and the upcoming energy crisis. The report suggests that feel good factor results in increased property values. Makes sense.

Re:Makes Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

[......] the enlightened [......] people.

I fall into the latter camp.

Of course you do!

Re:vs. the alternative fuel methods

[CrimsonAvenger]

It sure beats living by nukes, coal plants, tire burning plants, etc., eh?

If I were on my roof, I could see a nuclear power plant. Doesn't bother me at all.

If a coal plant were over there, I'd have moved years ago. Ditto tire-burning.

Re:Makes Sense

[presidenteloco]

Actually the climate scientists are pretty much saying we need 80% to 100% GHG (CO2...) emissions reductions soon to avoid potentially catastrophic warming.

Your enlightenment may be on the blink.

Also, your stereotype and cliche filter probably needs replacing.

Re:Makes Sense

[bunratty]

I think your explanation of why the right wing doesn't want to accept global warming or that it makes sense to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is because they think we'll suffer. You're essentially right in saying that we don't need to suffer at all, just change how we generate electricity.

You're missing the part efficiency plays, however. By using more efficient lighting and appliances, driving higher gas mileage cars, and living and working in buildings with more insulation, we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by simply not using as much energy in the first place. We'll hardly notice any difference, except for the different types of light bulbs or perhaps charging up the car instead of refueling it.

You're also off in how much we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We don't need to cut them in half; we need to reduce them by 80% or more. That's why Obama set a goal of 80% of our energy from non-emitting sources by 2035 [jetsongreen.com].

Re:Makes Sense

[presidenteloco]

Hmmm. "Eco-nutter". I'm trying to think of an equally derogatory term for those who don't value eco-system integrity and the environment.

Let's see, how about:
"Lemming" - as in those who are convinced it is fine to keep on running this way.
"Genocidal maniac" - as in those who don't mind exterminating species and decimating future human well-being and population for the sake of comfort.
"Ostrich" - as in "head in the tar sands" is clearly the best strategy.
"Bio-blivious" - as in those who can't grasp or irrationally deny that we are a biological species in the context of a complex eco-system.
"Money Eaters" - putting dollars before sense - as in those who think that money is more valuable than everything else, and are pretty sure they will be able to eat money after ecologically produced food supplies dwindle and clean water systems are used up.
"Shopbots" - uncritical zombie-like over-consumers of wasteful or harmful products of the unsustainable economy.
"Neo-convicts" guilty of environmentally criminal industrial, land development, or resource extraction acts, and of of not understanding or deliberately closing their eyes to the fact that the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.

                         

Re:Makes Sense

[TapeCutter]

Somewhere back in the late 80's the right wing recognised the coal industry were facing extinction and have reacted by conducting a major disinformation campaign to convince their followers to act against their own best interest, it has worked spectacularly well. Somewhat ironically their hero Ronald Reagan was instrumental in creating the internation cap and trade system for sulphur emmission in order to reduce acid rain, that also worked spectaularly well.