Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Most states have specific laws that prevent HOAs from banning solar panels.
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.
There's companies that will actually do this for you - they'll install the system on your house for free, and then just sell you the power out of it. Here in California, if you're running in the high tier power rates, it's a good investment. They also lock in your power rate at a fixed price, whereas PG&E tends to raise rates one or twice a year. There's really no downside to doing this, unless you're planning on reducing your power consumption and/or expect PG&E to lower their rates in the future.
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).
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
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.
>>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.
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.
--
make install -not war
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 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.
--
make install -not war