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."

Comments

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.

Re:Makes Sense

[MoonBuggy]

I was thinking precisely the same thing. It doesn't explain the older study's conclusions, though: "...an additional study conducted by the government in 2009, found that home prices were either unaffected or rose based on proximity to renewable energy sources like wind power turbines and solar panels." - unless I'm misunderstanding, that's talking about solar/wind facilities nearby, not installed on the house in question as in the Berkeley study. 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. All I can think is that maybe there's a common cause. Good conditions for power generation could coincide with desirable features for a property location, I guess.

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: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.

Re:Makes Sense

[bunratty]

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: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.

Re:Makes Sense

[PopeRatzo]

Beneficial improvement raises value.

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:Makes Sense

[ShakaUVM]

>>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

[Doc Ruby]

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:Makes Sense

[Doc Ruby]

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:Makes Sense

[Doc Ruby]

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.

vs. the alternative fuel methods

[jroysdon]

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: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.

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.

"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".

That hasn't quite been my experience

[DRMShill]

A few years ago I got a deal from Nevada Power where they paid for half the cost of a 5kwh array. It was working great until work forced me to relocate to another state. I had a hell of a time selling the place because the general public is just not technical enough to appreciate it. One potential buyer got a static shock from the carpet as is common in the dry vegas air. She actuually thought the solar power array caused it! How am I supposed to reason with that kind of stupidity?

No Kidding

[ShakaUVM]

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.

HOA bans are mostly illegal

[raygundan]

Most states have specific laws that prevent HOAs from banning solar panels.

News flash: fashion items lift house values

[Snorbert Xangox]

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:But when does it start paying off?

[jasno]

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).

My 3kw solar panels could even be worth $35,000

[skidisk]

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.

Costco Solar for $3.55:W

[Doc Ruby]

Costco is now selling solar PV systems 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.