Comments on: Solar industry targets new homes

Solar panels are somewhat rare now, but they will be pretty standard on new homes in the future, advocates say.

[shane--2008]

too little too late?

solar should have been a required part of new homes for the last
decade. the panels would be much better today due to the
investment, and our power situation would be infinitely better
than it is now.

...instead we got enron and oil wars. thank goodness we take
the long term view!

meanwhile, people like me who want solar can't afford it unless
they buy a new home or take out a second mortgage.

i wonder how many solar homes the money america has spent in
iraq would have bought? oh well.

[powerclam]

too far, too left...

"solar should have been a required part of new homes for the last decade."
Required? No thanks.
I'm all for solar power, but as for govt REQUIRING it, that's a hugely bad idea. Ever hear of freedom? What if I'm waiting for the efficiency to reach a point I feel to be acceptable?
What if I have concerns about the materials they're made of?
What if I think they're hideous and prefer some other roofing material?

Your other comments regarding war and economy show you to be a "liberal" crypto-fascist with no sense of proportion or respect for others.

[suyts]

I wonder

if the solar homes are the right solution. Maybe they are. If everybody thought like you, we'd never know. The people that we are fighting in Iraq would be running our country by then.

[Inetsec]

Sounds great on the surface but.......

In all honesty I have not done any research on the subject of solar panels on homes, but I have seen a few installations around town.

The proponents claim that solar is a wonderful way to cut energy costs - that I will grant them as a fact, but what about the overall cost of ownership of a home?

Insurance, the cost of re-roofing, finding a roofing company to even touch solar panels, upkeep of the panels themselves, if the home catches fire how do fire fighters fight the flames.... the list goes on.

I think there may be a reason that solar has not caught on yet that goes beyond the initial outlay.

[regulator1956]

Lousy Math

Who pays $700 per month for electricity !?!?!

My parents live in Phoenix and they top out at $300.

My house is in Southern California, so let's do my math:

The article states $105 per month extra on the mortgage to cover 30% to 60% of my needs. My electric bill is $80 to $150 for my 3,100 sq ft 1 story house - 3,500 sq ft of roof with the garage.

If my average is $120 per month, I'd save $36 to $72 per month. Of course, after 20 years, the solar panels need to be replaced and I'm still paying the $105 per month for another 10 years. The math shows I'm losing big money over time.

I realize that the cost of energy will go up, but if I dump my incadescent bulbs and get more efficient appliances, my usage will go down.

Will we put solar panels on the roof someday? Probably, but I doubt we'll do it to save money.

[Macsaresafer]

You're downplaying the cost of not adding solar.

When you say "I realize that the cost of energy will go up" you're
assuming that it will go up at roughly the same rate it's been going
up over the last 50 years. That's a huge mistake. We're nearing the
planet's maximum potential production of oil, and when we reach
that peak, production will steadily drop while demand continues to
rise. Energy costs (not just oil/gas) will rise dramatically.

[dondarko]

it's the way to go..

housing consumes as much as 60 of our grid and solar is a relatively inexpensive solution at this time (in the future it will probably be even cheaper). That would give Kyoto a thumb up their nose with a 60% reduction in emissions.

[suyts]

If only

it could deliver the promise. It has not. Solar power has been around for decades. Still nothing. Potential? Yes, delivered.... no.

[stlwest]

Will help Power Companies, payback period still too long...

If it reduces peak daytime load, then the power companies won't have to upgrade infrastructure or install new or expand present power plants.

Regarding initial outlay, if it is left up to individuals to pay money out of their pocket, you might as well forget it. Since the payback period for solar is so high, even with incentives. If I'm the guy in California and my calculations show under the best conditions that I may break even somewhere between 15 to 20 years. The solar panel might still go to 30 years, but they also might require maintenance and batteries almost assuredly would have to be replaced. Since it mainly benefits the utilities they should sponsor the low cost loans to implement.

I think sponsoring solar in the home is so much less efficient then sponsoring a big Solar Thermal plant.

What would be nice would be to have the government mandate that utilities provide renewable energy to clients who are willing to pay for it. So those who feel it is important can choose for a percentage or their entire bill to be from "clean" power generation.

Utilities with the help of government would also be wise to develop low intrest loans for energy efficiency projects. An energy analysis should be part of the selling process for homes, this would be to find truly inefficient homes and require either the seller or the buyer be required to bring the home up to a minimum benchmark.

[Button Boy]

Where are the tax incentives?

I'd like to install panels on my roof, but I am still waiting for Congress to give me a tax break. My software company has energy management software in the works, but again- no real incentives to develop it. How can I get those big government handouts like Haliburton does?

[stlwest]

Tax incentives are available for Solar - Now is the time in California

Federal has $2000 tax credit for individuals and for businesses 30% of the project cost, no cap.

http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm

For State by state incentives and loan programs for solar, as well as other programs.

http://www.dsireusa.org/

[suyts]

Why are you waiting for a

handout? If it is the cost-effective measure to take, then do so. If your company can really manage energy, then they should do so. The money will be returned if it is effective. Why should I, a taxpayer, invest MY money in something that isn't proven effective or even have the desired effect? Quit begging, get off of my teat, and do something on your own.

[Button Boy]

Tax breaks not well defined

Taken from the DOE web page (listed prior):
"The IRS will determine final tax credit amounts. As more information becomes available, it will be posted on our web site."

This makes it hard for me to justify spending $35,00+ on a solar installation when I get such a small amount back; and even that amount is not guaranteed.

[candyco]

Unfortunately, I pay almost $700 for electricity in the summer months in the house where I currently live!!! I am building a new home that I hope will be more cost efficient and am just beginning to look at solar panels.

[hansel_gretel]

Nice article. Thanks for sharing it with us. Mortgage costs are legion. For starters, one of the biggest mortgage costs is the mortgage itself, which is ample, then you have property taxes (which are ridiculous) homeowner's insurance, and then upkeep. The costs of buying a home are prohibitive, and mortgage rates don't make home ownership the easiest thing to do ? part of the ever diminishing ease of access to the American Dream. What they don't tell you is that you'll pay over twice what your home costs in interest ? how good a deal do you have now? And since the average family moves every 5 years, you'll technically never own your own home. No wonder mortgage costs send the average person running for payday loans. For more information, you can check out this link: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/08/29/mortgage-costs-1/

[hansel_gretel]

http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/08/29/mortgage-costs-

1/