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

[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

[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

[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.

"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".

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.

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.