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?
but the only question no one seems to answer, is how much would it lower energy demands if all systems were grid tied?
More Pages:
- Solar Panel: When Connecting Solar Photovoltaic Panels To The Grid? (1/9/2012)
- Solar Power Eco-Development Engineering Questions…?
- Solar Panel: Anyone Know Where I Could Access Solar Panel And Wind Generator For Small Home From Reliable Supplier? Thanks? (11/14/2011)
- Solar Energy: Energy And Cost Savings Of Solar Panels? (7/19/2011)
- Solar Energy: Is Solar Energy The Solution To Oil Independence? (7/10/2011)
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
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.
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
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.