A thought on home energy....?

Question

If legislation was passed that required all new homes to be built with at least 1 or 2 solar panels, what would be the result on the power grid. Especially in places like California. I know it wouldn't be immediate....but I am thinking long term results. And would requiring such a thing be more of a financial burden on the buyer, or would it easily fit into a mortgage since most people don't give cash for homes outright?

And if anyone can answer, how reliable are home solar panel systems? Would they break after 5 years rendering the system inoperable without paying obscene amounts of money to repair them?

Answer 1

There is federal state and local incentives available to residents of pretty much any state. These are offered to encourage the use of renewable energy for your home and commercial business (some states offer incentives for industrial use too). These incentives aren't just for solar. They are for solar, wind, hydro, biofuel. For instance. In Arizona, one of the best places for solar energy in the countrry, Not only does the state provide enough incentives to pretty much cut a solar system down to less than half price, because of the amount of sunlight, the system will pay itself off almost twice as fast. The incentives usually add up to around 20k+

Solar panels last about 25 years or so, most places usually gaurantee the panels for 30 years.

Solar systems come in a couple different configurations.

Grid tied - This means that the house has solar power, but the home is still tied to the utility grid. This is pretty handy if you dont want to buy batteries right away (they are pretty expensive). This set up will usually greatly reduce your bill but not eliminate it. Many states also allow for whats called 'net metering' which means that a special meter is put on your house so that when your solar system is meeting the need of your home (batteries are charged or not that many lights on but you have a healthy panel set up that pulls a lot of juice) then you sell your power back to the utility company or get a credit on your bill.

Non grid tied- This is what many people think of when they think solar power. Consists of panels which charge batteries, and then feed power through a dc to ac converter to power the home. Great for homes that are in remote areas or for homeowners that want to greatly reduce or eliminate thier power bill

Many lenders will roll the cost of a solar system into the mortgage, this is called (obviously) a green mortgage.

I have more information and a link to the incentives database for all states at http://www.solarpower-home.com

Answer 2

Solar features should be required for all new houses, the cost isn't so much that it can't be folded into a mortgage, possibly with a grant to offset some of the cost. The savings on utility bills could easily offset any additional costs on a mortgage. There are new technologies that are making these systems more durable but they will require maintenance, like anything else.

Solar heat and electric should add much more to the value of a home because unlike a new kitchen or bath they save you lots of money every month rather than just sitting there looking nice.

Answer 3

I don't think that could be done in all areas of the country, simply for the fact that not every single location has the kind of money that a lot of people in California do.  A new home out there could easily cost $600,000 - without any solar panels.  New homes in the mid west might only go for $200,000 on average, making a $20,000 add on more expensive relatively speaking.  Plus solar power might not be the most efficient form of alternative energy in every part of the country....some places might be better suited for wind power or geothermal.  

I'm all for government grants and stuff to help subsidize the cost of new solar panels for anyone!  

In 2008, the polysilicon supply is supposed to be increasing a lot, and this should bring down the price of solar panels somewhat.

Answer 4

There is an entire subdivision in Sacramento, CA that was built with solar panels providing their electricity.  The builder said that it added between $18,000-20,000 to the costs of the house and the average homeowner "buys" $14 dollars of electricity every 3-4 months during the rainy season.  They have a 10 year warranty on the panels but I don't know whether the builder or manufacturer provided it.

Answer 5

This is a really good idea but would need to be subsidised in the US at present because your oil and gas costs are relatively low.

The problem is that your Government allows these fossil resources to be taken from the earth for almost nothing so that the extractors can simply charge the cost of extraction and distribution plus profit.  This takes no account of the cost of replacing the oil and gas when it runs short.  Governments should be taxing these supplies at the cost of replacing them with solar panels and then the manufacturers of solar panels would be competing on a level playing field.  Until then we need subsidised solar panels or we will use up all the cheaply available oil and gas, leaving our children with none.  Subsidised panels will also be fairer than taxing fuel needed by rich and poor alike.

Some people will argue that there is no need for subsidies because, as the cheap oil and gas runs out, solar panels will be able to compete naturally.  But the economic adjustments that will then be required will be so severe that they will lead to world wide recession, wars and social upheaval.  It is far better to make the adjustments more gradually by anticipating the need,  rather than run full speed into the stone wall.

Your question about the reliability and life of solar panels is a good one because they have been prone to failure after a few years.  But they are far more reliable now and many of the past problems were caused by somewhat amateur retro-fitting rather than the sort of professional designed in scheme you have in mind.

I hope this idea takes off.  The US needs some dramatic initiatives to improve its green image.

Best wishes