Solar Panels Increase Home Value 352
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Makes Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
[......] the enlightened [......] people.
I fall into the latter camp.
Of course you do!
Re:Makes Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, climate scientists are saying we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 85% to stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we emit much more than that, we will emit more carbon dioxide per year than the carbon cycle can absorb, and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will continue to rise and the temperature will continue to rise. So we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80-90% at some point.
There is some disagreement about how much time we have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80-90% to avoid catastrophic warming (and by catastrophic, I don't mean "ZOFMG we're all gonna die!"). How long it takes us to reduce emissions will determine the concentration at which we stabilize, which will in turn determine how much the temperature rises. For example, if we stabilize at 550 ppm, we will have doubled the concentration of carbon dioxide. There is uncertainty about whether this will lead to a mere 1.5 degree Celsius increase (which isn't too bad) or a 4 degree Celsius increase (which would be pretty bad). The most reasonable course of action would be to play it safe, just in case the actual warming is on the high side of our estimates. If we start reducing carbon dioxide emissions and realize we don't need to cut them so quickly, we can always cut them more slowly. If we wait until we realize that we need to cut them dramatically or that we're already too late, then we're SOL.
Re: (Score:3)
Those people will all be dead with everyone else due to the global warming so you can safely overlook their misguided opinions.
Since the climatologists aren't talking about end of the world stuff either, they must be misguided as well.
Re:Makes Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Makes Sense (Score:4, Informative)
>>we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by simply not using as much energy in the first place
If all of our power generation comes from CO2-free sources, cutting energy consumption won't do very much. =)
While CFLs are (much) more efficient than incandescent bulbs, CFLs produce a terrible quality of light, flicker noticeably (wave your hand in front of one), and release mercury gas at about twice the occupational hazard limit set by the EPA if you, you know, happen to drop one.
>>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.
Those two statements don't go together. Half our CO2 production is from energy, so 80% non-emitting energy sources will be only a .4 * .8 = 32% reduction in total CO2 emissions.
Re:Makes Sense (Score:4, Informative)
I just tested your assertion right here. CFLs produce perfectly decent light and don't flicker. If you bought any but the clearance sale ones in the past 2-3 years. Which I didn't, and they paid for themselves in 6 months.
Re: (Score:3)
They flicker. But then again, I can see CRT's flicker. I have an aspie son (and aspie myself) -- trust me. They flicker.
That said, there was a school for aspie/autistic special needs kids I toured a few years ago. I walked around staring at the lights. When the director asked my why I was looking at the lights I responded "Because they aren't flickering". They were CFLs. But special CFLs. Their cycle rate is so high that even *I* couldn't notice. And they cost the school a fortune.
With many distrac
Re: (Score:3)
I just waggled a pen in front of one with all the others off, and saw no distinct lines, "freeze frames" or anything like that. And I have quite acute vision.
TVs flicker at 60Hz, and cinema at 24Hz, but most people don't care.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? Do you mean LED? Also LED powered by a DC source (automobile instrument panels, brake lights, etc.) have zero flicker.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So did those in my aquarium (I've bought it used). I've just replaced the two old ballasts with a twin electronic one. No flickering anymore and much faster startup with that.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
From what I've been told, by people on the far right; the real reason that the political far right is so vitriolic towards climate change research is because they do not like anyone suggesting how they should behave. Unless, of course they are told to buy gold. Or stock up on canned goods. Or go to church. Or rally against socialists. Or pack heat. Or ignore leftists radicals like climate scientists. In those cases, they don't mind doing as others tell them, but if they are told to recycle or turn off the l
Re:Makes Sense (Score:5, Interesting)
The petrofuels compete only on the $BILLIONS a year in subsidies they get. Which you are paying.
Hybrids don't cost double what straight fuel burners cost.
You're not forced to drive a smaller slower car. The rest of us who pay for your privilege to do so are being forced to pay for it.
Greenhouse emissions are causing climate change. Climate scientists say that if we cut them by 80% over the next 10-20 years we will sufficiently slow or stop climate change.
Upping the ante with "geoengineering" is failing to learn from our arrogant mistakes building up global industry that's causing climate change.
Somehow you have solar becoming the cheapest energy source in 5-10 years, but also impeding research while poor people starve the world over. No more are starving than during the generations when coal and gas were still cheap.
If you break a CFL you have to open the window and wash the area without vacuuming, not "evacuate". If you like heating with electricity from incandescents rather than burning fuel you can do so much more effectively with a $25 heater/blower on the floor than with a light bulb at the ceiling.
You really don't know what you're talking about. But we should trust your dreams of "geoengineering" to compensate for your loud, big "sexy" cars. Electric cars are faster and sexier, too.
Re: (Score:3)
You're conflating total subsidy dollars with amount of energy that's generated per subsidy dollar. Yes the oil companies get billions in subsidies. But the amount the oil companies get per unit of energy produced is peanuts compared to what developing technologies like solar and wind get [doe.gov]. It has next to no impact on the competitiveness of the petroleum industry. (Note that these are subsidies only for electr
Re:Makes Sense (Score:4, Informative)
It takes a lot of $billions to make a $trillion. Many of the $billions the petrofuel corps spend are handed to them by the US Congress. Which I'm paying so that you have cheaper gas than the $8 gallons the rest of the world has. And I'm not even counting the $billions in wars I'm helping pay so your gas supply chain stays open for business.
I have CFLs that paid for themselves in six months over 2 years ago. All but one defective one are still working. I replaced incandescents at least 10-20% more often than that, but I have yet to actually see a CFL reach its lifetime. The CFL warnings say just what I said. They don't say "evacuate" or other exaggerations like what you said.
Electric cars are already extremely fast [google.com] when they're designed for speed instead of mileage efficiency. But the fact is that most people aren't as interested in the speed as in the efficiency. But people like you who are also benefit from them.
You don't really know what you're talking about. You're just projecting from your foregone conclusions that protect your existing gasoline car.
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us live in that magical land of fairytales where it's below zero every night for about half the year, every year, with temperatures during the day being not much higher.
In a climate like this, banning small electric heaters that also give off some light is pretty hilarious.
People heating their homes with electricity (very popular in France, BTW) should not use electric light bulbs because of what?
Re: (Score:3)
The only places where resistive electric heaters make any sense is relatively mild climates where you may only need heat a few days a year, and it's not worth the cost of installing a heat pump system.
Re: (Score:3)
Cutting America's CO2 levels by 50% would merely put you in the middle of the current European pack, it's not nearly enough... We in Europe need to seriously curtail our CO2 emissions, and you guys need to double your efforts to get down to the same levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Or we could always have twice as many babies. That'd reduce per capita emissions significantly.
(Per capita restrictions are very silly.)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you say per capita restrictions are "silly"? More population equals greater pollution, no matter how little each extra person pollutes. Are we supposed to equate the US and China despite China having four times the population? Or maybe the US should restrict its total pollution levels to the levels of Sweden with 3% its population?
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, per capita China produces less CO2 than any western country, or at least they did in 2007, they may have passed Switzerland by now. The truth is the Chinese are investing more in clean tech than pretty much anyone else, but unlike the west they have a very quickly growing economy.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, based on that list, we should all strive to emit carbon dioxide like china.
Yes, please! If the US did this then its emissions would drop to less than one quarter of the current levels. I know that it is fashionable to consider China as the big bogeyman for carbon emissions (because it helps us avoid doing anything about this problem ourselves), but really they are not worse - just bigger than everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
What the longest way to 100% CO2 free power... well that's simple too. Waste as much money as possible on current expensive tech.
You're forgetting how 'expensive tech' becomes 'cheap tech'. How do they do it? Volume, volume, volume!
Re: (Score:2)
5.5 hours by car is... Irregular working conditions.
Biking to school/work is manageable for a significant portion of the populace, and is actually faster than driving in some cities.
Also Enlightened Self-interest of getting precious exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
Your enlightened self-interest only seems to go one level deep in the best case.
What you're speaking of here isn't really environmentalism, it's just common decency at most.
It's certainly not too bad, but I don't find it all that commendable. After all, if everybody stopped their thinking at level 1 (themselves), we'd quickly find ourselves in a crappy situation. Take for instance indiscriminately throwing trash into the river you drink from. On an individual level that works out because your contribution i
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying it's the only way to do things. I myself have a fairly inefficient SUV because if I want to go to the mountains with my wife, my kid and my dog, there's no way all of us would fit in a Prius. That being said, wherever possible, I use public or zero-emission (walk, bike) transportation, and I think we've put les
Re: (Score:2)
>>bias? what bias?
Of course I have bias. Did my post appear too objective with terms like "dirty hippie"?
>>To top it off your Shaka Energy Plan is all about having zero individual, personal, responsibility (let the energy companies figure it out) or burden (won't raise energy rates). In your own words, why shouldn't you support such a plan ( having slapped your name on it aside ;) ).
Hey, you got it in one.
I'm firmly opposed to the environmentalist ideas that "being painful" and "good for the env
Re:Makes Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I ask you, if we find that all this pollution is holding off an Ice Age, what do we get to call you?
Re: (Score:2)
I ask you, if we find that all this pollution is holding off an Ice Age, what do we get to call you?
If we were maintainung the status quo thn this would be reasonable. But we are not. The world is getting hotter. It is like trying to stop ourselves from getting cold by setting fire to ourselves. It is not the sane thing to do.
To suggest that we do this would put you straight into the original eco-nutter category.
Re: (Score:2)
The world is getting hotter.
Yes, that's why so many Mexican crops are destroyed by cold, and that's why rains can't stop in California. Last few years were much colder than average.
Re: (Score:2)
You understand the difference between climate and weather, right?
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, that's why so many Mexican crops are destroyed by cold, and that's why rains can't stop in California. Last few years were much colder than average."
You're confusing weather with climate.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Still, I figure 'most' people out there are halfway sane. My installing a hot tub, or a solar electric system might not make fiscal sense for me, but if I come across a house with it I'll be willing to pay more because it's either a nice feature or it'll save me money in the future.
'Green' Features reduce or replace energy usage. I'm considering a solar hot water heater for my house, I've recommended them to my family(I'm in Alaska, they're in Florida).
What sort of increase would I be willing to pay? Depe
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Makes Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dual use is the answer (Score:2)
Yes, there are access roads and gates in fences and all that but it's not really a problem if it's done sensibly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't work out why that would raise property prices; it's not like you have to take your Prius to the nearest power plant to pick up a jug of fresh-squeezed eco-energy, after all.
Proximity to a harmless power plant actually improves your supply of power. Long transmission lines have a higher chance of failure.
In part this matches the original idea about solar panels. The cost of energy is expected to rise (or you can say that the value of currency is expected to continue dropping.) This means that th
Re:Makes Sense (Score:5, Funny)
But what are you going to do when one of those solar panels fails and leaks solar radiation all over? It won't be so good for property values when there's a Level 7 solar panel disaster.
I hear there was a leak at one of the wind farms and now they're finding wind residue in the water supply over a five-mile radius.
I think we better stick with nuclear energy: Clean, Safe, and Too Cheap to Meter!
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, though, hot tubs, pools, and other extensive "features" don't add value. They all age, are expensive to reapir, and limit the home's resale appeal to peole who want those kind of features.
The same is true of elaborate home automation or HVAC solutions. My guess is a solar power add-on that offered a substantial cut in power bills on a monthly basis with minimal maintenance costs might be a wash at best; anything less that, it's just an albatross to a buyer, something he doesn't want that will cost
Re: (Score:3)
A $10,000 system with no battery backup can yield you about $500 a year in energy savings.
As you say... 20 year pay back.
But... then that $500 is tax free so if you are working, it's effectively double the actual return ($1000 a year).
But then... energy costs since the early eighties have risen from 5.5c/kwh to 12.5c/kwh to 15c/kwh. (Get just a little bit careless and you can be looking at 24c/kwh).
And then a solar system reduces your most expensive energy usage first.
In 10 years, energy costs could double
vs. the alternative fuel methods (Score:4, Interesting)
It sure beats living by nukes, coal plants, tire burning plants, etc., eh? Even a natural gas power generation plant isn't nice to live by. Plus, you don't have to worry about the neighbors being noisy.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure wouldn't mind living near a geothermal power plant like most Icelanders do. Instead of just electricity, you can also get piped-in waste heat, and who wouldn't want this [google.com] in their backyard? :) Most power generation methods's waste causes long-lasting environmental or health problems. Geothermal's waste causes health spas. ;)
Re:vs. the alternative fuel methods (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
If I were on my roof, I could see a nuclear power plant. Doesn't bother me at all.
In most of the world, I'd agree with you. I'd be perfectly happy to live next door to nukes if I lived in the eastern 3/4ths of the country, or most of Europe or...a lot of other places. As we just saw in Japan, though, the Pacific Rim/ring of fire may not be the best place for your nuclear plants. And Berkeley is very much on an active fault line. If I lived in Berkeley, I think I'd have strong reservations about living next door to nukes.
Right after the Japan quake/tsunami, the news folks tried to tel
Re: (Score:2)
If I lived in Berkeley, I think I'd have strong reservations about living next door to nukes.
Fortunately, the voters of Berkeley passed a law back in 1986 declaring the city a "nuclear-free zone", which guarantees that we will continue to get our electricity from hippie-friendly sources such as wind and solar. . . and gas and oil, of course (don't know about coal - I hope not). They even have signs announcing their moral purity at various roads into the city. True story: a couple of years ago, the public
Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I looked in to it myself. The best case scenario is you DIY, half for the fun of tinkering with it. If you DIY, and get the panels from sunelec.com (the cheapest place I have found so far), and install them yourself (all but the last step - get an electrician to sign off on your wiring and do the final connection to the grid) it's a pretty good deal. You'd break even in 5 or 6 years at 10 cents a kilowatt hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Try googling for "3x6 DIY solar cells"
Re: (Score:2)
??? Are you serious? Sunelec is a credible retailer that sells a working, packaged product. Sure you could solder together your own panels...just like you could manufacture your own computer case instead of buying it from newegg.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In ten years, the solar panel technology will get better and cheaper.
Yes, and ten years from then they will be even better and cheaper, so what? If you don't do something because it'll be even better in th future, you do nothing today. So, while you could be offsetting some of your energy costs now and for ten years into the future, you are instead paying the same While-U-Wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman opposition destroyed! (Score:2, Insightful)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
My HOA has a restriction against solar panels, with a justification/explanation that it would lower the values of nearby homes.
My anecdote beats your "never" and I win.
Cost to install (Score:3)
The article mentions an avarage cost of $5000 to install 1 kW of solar, so it seems like a pretty good investment overall.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's closer to $6k per kW in my next of the woods (that's why I paid), but I'm sure you can find a company to do it for $5k. I went with a company that had done some installations in my neighborhood, though, and had a pretty good reputation.
If you don't want to pay the money up front, you take out a loan, and use the monthly savings on your power bill to pay off the loan. As long as you're paying more than 24c/kWh you'll run a net positive balance, and end up with a solar system of your own after 10 years.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad electricity only costs me ~$0.08/kWh in Louisiana...
Re: (Score:2)
"It's closer to $6k per kW in my next of the woods (that's why I paid), but I'm sure you can find a company to do it for $5k. I went with a company that had done some installations in my neighborhood, though, and had a pretty good reputation."
That's close to what mine cost ($80K for 12.5 KW). Even in summer with all 3 air conditioners running, my electric meter is still running backwards. Even it winter it's usually generating more power than we're using, expect on dark overcast or rainy days.
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase is "neck of the woods". Just sayin'.
As long as you're paying more than 24c/kWh you'll run a net positive balance, and end up with a solar system of your own after 10 years.
Holy crap! Who pays that much for electricity? I'm in Dallas, and I just locked in a rate of 8/kWh for the next 12 months. I can't imagine paying 24/kWh, not when we typically use about 2000 kWhs in a month.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where the heck are your numbers from? In the US, full price for our 7kW system, installed, before any subsidies was $40k, or $5700/kW. This was two years ago, and used high-efficiency panels rather than the cheapest per kW, and things have gotten a bit cheaper since on top of that. That number includes everything. I don't think $5k per kW is unreasonable at all.
"Property Prices" is code. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
>>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"
Fortunately, here in California, it's explicitly illegal for HOAs to ban solar panel installations. They can hem and haw all they want (my HOA demanded to see the plans before "approving" installation), but they cannot stop you from putting it in, no matter what the CCNRs actually say.
To be fair, there's issues with some solar panels (highly reflective c
Re: (Score:2)
The cells are mostly pretty dark-- but there's lots of cells on a panel, and they're often octagonal and have gaps in between. SunPower, for example, has two nearly identical product lines-- one where the gaps between the octagonal cells are just silver-colored aluminum, and one where the panels are a uniform black. A lot of people prefer the look of the latter, but it reduces efficiency somewhat both due to the layer that makes it all a uniform color and because the extra heat absorbed makes them work le
HOA bans are mostly illegal (Score:4, Informative)
Most states have specific laws that prevent HOAs from banning solar panels.
That hasn't quite been my experience (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Market to geeks and do it early.
No Kidding (Score:5, Informative)
No kidding - you put $30k in on a solar system and that raises house prices? Because people don't need to pay extortionate power rates? What a weird concept.
The fact of the matter is, California has the highest power rates in the nation (I'd assign blame in equal parts to NIMBYs, environmentalists, PG&E, the PUC, and our legislature). Running air conditioning in the summer will kick you up into Tier 5 rates, which are currently around 50c/kWh. Getting a four digit power bill for one month is enough to convince even the most ardent anti-environmentalist of the value of solar.
If you run the numbers, rooftop solar has a levelized cost of about 24c/kWh. So it's worth it to build out capacity to meet however much power you use in the higher tier rates (Tiers 3 through 5). You don't necessarily want to run your power bills to zero (Tiers 1 and 2 are subsidized by the higher rates), but if you do, PG&E will write you a check at the end of the year. (How much has yet to be determined.) Schwarzenegger got that pushed through at the end of his term of governor - before that, PG&E would just pocket any excess capacity you generate.
I actually just had solar put in and finally turned on a couple weeks ago. It's nice running a net positive balance with PG&E, though it's still too cool for air conditioning.
Why isn't there any solar air conditioning? (Score:2)
In places where it costs a fortune to run air conditioning on electricity surely it's worth cutting out the middle step and just get a bit of solar heat to do the work? It's not as if you need a reverse cycle for warming in the tropics and subtropics.
There's plenty of solar thermal h
Correlation != causation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People who have money put in solar panels. People who have money ALSO live in rich neighborhoods. Who knew?
That's what I was wondering. Do these tend to be in newer houses? Houses that have had other improvements?
Did the study correct for such effects?
News flash: fashion items lift house values (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not surprising, but not that encouraging either. If you pay for a bit of fancy landscaping and planting around your house before you sell it, you can often improve your house resale value by much more than the cost of the work. Solar also offers a warm glow of righteousness far out of proportion with energy generated.
Where I live (50km south of Canberra, Australia), we're paying ~20 of your Earth cents for a kWh during the day around here, so if you assume 7kWh per day from a 1kW solar installation (not that hard here, as we get a lot of sun), it takes 14 years to earn back $3900. Electricity will certainly go up in cost during that time, but I wonder whether you wouldn't be better putting $4000 into some safe-ish investment and concentrating on reducing your energy usage instead.
For years, I was holding out for Nanosolar or First Solar to get domestic panels out at somewhere nearer to $2/kW and without so much embodied energy in the panels, but they don't look to be interested in domestic sales. Until then, the only reason that panels are cheap in Australia is because of very high government regulated feed-in tariffs and purchase subsidies, which are just middle-class welfare masquerading as a renewable energy policy.
Until the government killed the program, there were businesses here doing energy efficiency assessments to see if houses qualified for interest free government loans to improve energy efficiency or install solar systems. An interview I heard with one assessor gave the impression that most houses had considerable inefficiency to rectify before it made any sense installing generating capacity. New Australian houses are still much less insulated than new houses in northern Europe or North America, rely too much on resistive electrical heating for the house and for the hot water supply, and the current fashion for building faux-Mediterranean rendered boxes with no roof overhang guarantees high cooling costs in summer. Old Australian houses often had no (as in, ZERO) insulation in them. Visitors from northern Europe are amazed at how uncomfortable and slapdash many of our houses are.
Re: (Score:2)
You know your comment is just BEGGING for an "eh, convict labor...what do you expect" remark...
Re: (Score:3)
Where I live (50km south of Canberra, Australia), we're paying ~20 of your Earth cents for a kWh during the day around here, so if you assume 7kWh per day from a 1kW solar installation (not that hard here, as we get a lot of sun), it takes 14 years to earn back $3900. Electricity will certainly go up in cost during that time, but I wonder whether you wouldn't be better putting $4000 into some safe-ish investment and concentrating on reducing your energy usage instead.
7kWh x $0.20 x 365 = $511/year. That looks like 7.63 years to get to $3900. To "match" that, your $3900 would need to be invested to get a 13.1% yearly return in order to generate $511. 13% is not easy to come by.
One often overlooked factor for energy saving or generating investments is that money saved is equivalent to a tax-free income. If you take your $3900 and manage to get a return of $511/year you would have to pay taxes on that income. I don't really know what the average tax rate is in Australia, b
Re: (Score:2)
One often overlooked factor for energy saving or generating investments is that money saved is equivalent to a tax-free income.
Don't trumpet that fact too loudly or the taxman will find a way to call cost savings "income" and tax you on it.
Yep (Score:2)
"A solar panel. That's just what we [drbukk.com] need to fix this place up, Daisy Mae".
My 3kw solar panels could even be worth $35,000 (Score:4, Informative)
I put panels up 6 years ago and they save roughly $2,000/year in electricity here in California ( my previous three years before panels were $6100; I've spent $300 over the last 6 years on electricity).
A prospective home owner knows they won't have to pay that $2000/year on electricity, so if they pour that into a 4% loan, they can borrow an extra $35,000 for that roughly $160/mo savings.
So to see a story say that my panels should be worth between $10K-$20K to a home buyer makes total sense.
Not Surprised (Score:3)
I just completed construction on a new house and went out of my way to put a hefty solar system (30 panels, ~6.6kwh) on it. I absolutely, positively, in every single way love it!
Ferretman
Common sense (Score:2)
People would not want to have a huge array of solar panels near them, but having solar panels on the roof is fine. Picture a quarter acre worth of solar panels taking up space next door to you to provide power to your neighbor....doesn't seem very attractive, so it lowers the surrounding property values. If your neighbor has solar panels on the roof, that won't generate that negative reaction.
Costco Solar for $3.55:W (Score:5, Interesting)
Costco is now selling solar PV systems [costco.com] including a 5060WDC for $18K, or $3.55:W. $5.50:W increased home value sounds like a good way to nearly double your investment in solar, even before the subsidies cut the cost to $2:W or less, tripling it or better.
SHould be REQUIRED on new homes (Score:3)
By requiring this, it will also make these places NOT compete against for-closed places. That later part is very important. The reason is that it prevents new homes from competing.
Re: (Score:3)
Hawaii already requires solar water heating [getsolar.com] on new homes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
30K for how much? I paid 11.5K for 3kw.
Also, instead of thinking about paying it off, think about it as an investment. The premise being, you get your cash back when you sell your home.
I get a 12% annual return on my solar investment. That'll improve as energy gets more expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Spend 30k now only to have to wait ten years to break even? By then, you'll probably be in another house, in another city.
I don't know that a 10% tax-free return on investment is anything to sneeze at. It also seems less volatile that most equities - the downside risk is that your local power costs are perhaps going to dramatically decrease? If the summary is has any validity, it seems as though moving is not much of an issue as the house value would have increased to offset some or all of the investment.
Re:But when does it start paying off? (Score:4, Informative)
Check out the solar lease deals. I just signed up with Sun Run to install solar on my house. They own the panels, and I don't pay them anything up-front. They get the rebates, and then sell me discounted electricity from my panels. They also maintain the system. If I move, the system gets transferred to the new owner(assuming they have good credit, which is a safe bet if they're buying my house).
Re: (Score:3)
By then, you'll probably be in another house, in another city.
Thus the whole point of this article - that you can generally recover the costs of the installation if you end up moving.