Should either some solar or wind power be required for most new homes?

[Quixote1818]

I am not suggesting the house be self sufficient but if you live in a sunny area or an area with a lot of wind, should any new homes built in these areas be required to have alternative energy built in?

Keep in mind, the cost of wind power and solar is usually paid back in around 5 years then it's pure savings after that plus it is awesome for the enviornment.

[SteppingRazor]

1. I went with the state/local law option.

Like you said, these things should be available in particularly sunny and/or windy areas. I think the governments of those particular areas are probably better suited to determine the viability of these power sources given their particular needs and resources. Federally mandated alternative energy, while enticing on its face, would probably prove unwieldy when applied locally, in my very humble opinion.

All that said, I'm definitely for a lot more use of solar and wind. :thumbsup:

[Quixote1818]

3. It does seem more like a state and local issue

I would like to see the next president show leadership and encourage local and state governments to do these kinds of things.

[kestrel91316]

10. I wouldn't be anywhere near as "unwieldy" as the societal upheavals

we will see if we DO NOTHING OF THE SORT.

[SteppingRazor]

16. Yeah, but I'm not suggesting we do nothing...

so I don't see what you're taking issue with. :shrug:

[bdamomma]

2. I am for solar and wind also.

[Quixote1818]

4. I was thinking this would have heavy oposition from the local power companies

and they have one hell of a lot of power. (no pun intended):P

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. Efficiency first

Paying attention to insulation, air changeover rate, heating/cooling system efficiency etc. Will give a payback much faster than instalation of energy generating systems such as PV or wind.

Concidering the number of roofs without snow cover I see every winter. We could use some type of national program to get the propoer levels of insulation retrofitted into existing structures.

[Quixote1818]

9. Thanks for the info. nt

[KurtNYC]

6. Title 24 in California deals at some length with

what kind of lighting goes into new homes and structures. It mandates fluorescent and occupancy sensors. It is revised periodically and will soon include LED. I mention Title 24 because your question seems to propose something that would be similar and there are somethings that can be learned from Title 24.

One is that variations in state and local laws make it difficult for architects and contractors right down to homeowners who are doing build-to-suit deals. Many national retail chains are meeting Title 24 standards across the US because it is easier than planning and operating in buildings that vary widely in how they are lit, heated, cooled etc. Economy of scale and less adminsitration.

and specifically about wind/solar - I just don't know the price to benefit numbers so have no idea what kind of burden this puts on home builders and buyers. if it is not great and ROI/pay-back on the investment is reasonable then maybe a marketplace solution is the path of least resistance.

What is the better bang for the buck - wind or solar?

[Quixote1818]

8. Here is some info on wind power money savings

Will a small wind turbine save me money?

The wind turbine typically lowers your electricity bill by 50 to 90 percent. It is not uncommon for wind turbine owners with total-electric homes to have monthly utility bills of only $8 to $15 for nine months of the year. In northern parts of the country where less air conditioning is used the bills can be very low year-round. The amount of money a small wind turbine saves you in the long run will depend upon its cost, the amount of electricity you use, the average wind speed at your site, and other factors.

Link: http://www.awea.org/faq/rsdntqa.html#savememoney


Keep in mind that some areas of the country don't get enough wind to make a small wind turbine worthwhile. Same for solar. I think local governments would have to determine if it is worth doing based on the local climate.

[KurtNYC]

14. Thanks for that

you got me curious about the price of wind:

small turbine can cost anywhere from $6,000 to $22,000 installed, depending upon size, application and service agreements with the manufacturer

but here is a problem I think:

An 80- to 120-foot tower is usually supplied along with the wind turbine !

that sounds like a huge zoning problem, I have also heard about problems with these things killing birds and bats and at that height it makes sense that they would.

On the solar side, here is an easy first step:
http://www.shoplocal.com/lid-2093206906prid-99839_-eco-all.fp

Solar panel which charges a NiCad battery all day which powers 3 LEDs after dark. There are many variations of that - $10 each

or this critter:
http://www.shoplocal.com/lid-2093207080prid-99839_-malibu-all.fp

Bigger solar panel to a battery to long cord to a bigger light - $50

[ben_meyers]

delete double post

[ben_meyers]

7. No to government mandates

Just look to Arizona's Alt-fuels debacle, well meaning but like most government programs, prone to mismanagement and corruption. While I'm not opposed to any alt-energy plans, they must prove themselves in the market.

[kestrel91316]

12. What's so problematic about simply requiring it in building codes

for new construction? That's not a "government program" - it's a requirement just like doors and windows.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. I'd rather focus on incentives to incorporate alt power into existing housing

and to retrofit for increased energy efficiency.

It's not a bad idea to encourage the same for new housing but placing the emphasis there encourages one of the most wasteful notions in our society, that new (usually bigger) houses are better than updating existing stock. Very little of the existing housing in this country isn't conducive to retrofit.

[greenman3610]

13. this is already happening, per the market, in some areas

http://news.com.com/Solar+industry+targets+new+homes/2100-11392_3-6187964.html


Integrating a 2.5-kilowatt solar system into a new home will add about $13,000 to $15,000 to the cost of the home, after rebates and credits, he said. On a 30-year mortgage with an interest rate of about 6.75 percent, the system would add about $105 per month to the cost of the mortgage but would cover 30 percent to 60 percent of the home's electrical needs, he said.

Homeowners in California's warmer climates, however, can expect to pay $115 a month or more on electricity if they don't have solar panels. In the hotter months, during which air conditioners are used the most, it could take $700 or more to power a house in the area. Solar panels could thus be a bargain. Plus, the additional mortgage interest associated with the solar panels can be deducted at tax time, Nitzkin noted.

"So when does the payoff occur? I say the first month," he said.

Solar panels are the new granite countertops, according to attendees at the PCBC (originally named the Pacific Coast Builders Conference) here this week. Fifteen years ago, granite countertops were an exotic, upscale option. Now it's nearly impossible to find a new or remodeled home that doesn't have stone counters. (The new status symbol for counters are those made from recycled paper).

The same will happen with solar, at least according to solar advocates, and in some ways, their optimism is founded.

To begin with, a survey conducted this month by Roper found that 90 percent of Americans think that solar electricity should be an option for new construction. That's up from 79 percent the year before.

"The average person is now starting to think of solar as a mainstream solution," said Ron Kenedi, vice president of the Solar Energy Solutions Group at Sharp Electronics, the world's largest solar-panel manufacturer.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Absolutely Not.

Maybe 10-15 years down the road when the technology is better, more commonplace and cost effective but until that time it should be stricly up to the homeowners choice.

[Quixote1818]

17. It is cost effective in many areas

I know wind power pays for its self in about five years then it pure profit. Of course it depends on how windy the area is. If it's not windy then it probably is not cost effective. I imagine solar power pays for its self in about the same amount of time in sunny areas. If its an area with little wind or sun then it's probably not a good idea and not cost effective. I am talking about areas where it is.

If people knew they were going to save money in the long run, most everyone would be for it. In my opinion it's a no brainier. The only problem I see is making the technology look more attractive. I can see how someone would not want wind or solar if they didn't like how it looked, or if it broke zoning laws.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. Sorry. But I Still Say Absolutely Not.

It should be left up to choice.

And just because it might pay for itself in five years doesn't mean the family buying the house has the up front extra money to pay instead of a little bit more each month for an electric bill.

Sure, in 5 years they may come out ahead. But people ain't concerned with 5 years ahead. They're concerned with how much of a loan I can get right now and what kind of house can I afford. Mandating that the same house will cost more for these people, without their being able to choose otherwise, is just quite simply a bad idea right now. I understand you feel differently, but that's where I stand.

[Quixote1818]

22. What if solar and wind was the norm and someone wanted to require gas and electric?

Right now gas and electric homes are the norm only because that is how houses have been built for 100 years. What if houses were originally built with solar and wind power for the past 100 years and someone came along and said "We are going to make you use gas and electricity!". Sure it's bad for the environment and it will cost you more in the long run, but from now on ALL houses will be built with gas and electricity.

If it were turned around people would be going ballistic but because we are use to gas and electricity people are use to the norm!

You see, it's all based on perspective.

The least state and local government should do is require all developers to offer gas, electric, solar and wind power. If they offered all four then people would at least have a real choice.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. I Found Your Analogy To Be Irrelevant. But I Do Agree With Your Last Statement.

You said : "The least state and local government should do is require all developers to offer gas, electric, solar and wind power. If they offered all four then people would at least have a real choice. "

I agree with you. They absolutely should have that choice and I find nothing wrong with making sure alternative energy sources are available readily to the public.

I'm just against mandating it as the way the house has to be built from the get go.

[Quixote1818]

27. I actually think you are correct and we also agree on the final point.

Developers won't start offering solar and wind power unless they are forced to or until the demand causes them to, which may happen naturally in a few years.

I think a local law based on the amount of sun or wind an area has, requiring developers to offer more than just electric and gas, would be the way to go. Those purchasing the house would cover the cost if it was more, leaving no extra burden on the developer. It would be a win, win for everyone.

[rucky]

18. Incentives, yes. Subsidies, yes.

and once it's readily and cheaply available, tax the hell out of the conventional methods.

[shanti]

19. definitely!

when my son and his wife buy their first home, they plan to make it solar. we've discussed it before and he tells me that the solar panels are very expensive.

[porphyrian]

20. Maybe not for individual homes, but definitely for all new housing developments.

Developers buy a chunk of land, cram as many houses as they can on it in the smallest amount of time, bribe whoever it takes to get the paperwork done, sell the entire lot and get out. They almost never care what it is as long as they make bank on it, and that's why most American cities are so shittily laid out. If we require them to include solar and/or wind energy production with each housing division, a cost they can and will pass on to the buyer, they'll do it. And people will buy them, because it will lower the energy costs in the neighborhood.

[NewJeffCT]

26. there is a development like that that has started in CT

It's over 55 housing, but if it works there, I can imagine it will spread beyond that. I should have my parents take a look at it, but I don't think they want to move out of the home they've lived in for the last 35 years.

[porphyrian]

28. Cool, I hope it does.

And I've already tried to argue parents out of a long-term house before and failed, so good luck with that.

[NewJeffCT]

29. well, moving after 35 years is tough

and, my parents are both in their mid 60s, so are pretty set in their ways. Heck, moving after 35 months is tough, let alone 35 years.

But, the way I try to explain it to my parents is that their home is over 50 years old now. The furnace/boiler was replaced in the 1980s, I think. Though, they've done a lot of work in the last 8-10 years (new roof & installed central air), there are plenty of things that can need repairing that can pop up over the next 5-10-15 years that will likely not occur in a new house. (i.e., the tile floor in their kitchen won't last forever and is 20 years old now...) They could literally move to a new house and live there for the rest of their lives and not have to do much in the way of maintenance.

[porphyrian]

30. Yeah.

Yep. Heh, good luck, whatever happens. ;)

[SteelPenguin]

24. Well if it was, there would have to be educational subsidies

My parents just built a retirement home in Nevada where it's sunny for them more than 300 days a year. They made the house very energy efficient, to the point where it opens at night to cool the house, and closes in the day. They rarely have to use their air conditioners at all to keep the house cool. They also wanted to have solar panels to supplement, or even take over all their energy needs.

This is in Nevada where you'd think where it'd be ripe for it.

Their builder didn't know how to install it, the one company who installed solar panels didn't know how to work with builders to have it go in new houses (they said to build the house, and then they'd come install, rather than have it actually built into the house...the literally said they'd come and tear up the roof later, rather than work with the builder directly)

After months of trying to get people to return his calls, and the couple who did, to actually work with his builder he gave up.

So here's my point. It's all well and good to say it should be required, which from certain angles looks like a great idea, in certain areas, but the plain truth of it is that most builders of homes have no idea how to install these things into new home construction, and there isn't a wealth of information for them to find out how. If we're going to require it, we'd need to take into acccount that it's a new technology that most people have no idea how to put it in a house.

If the law were passed today, new home construction would essentially cease for who knows how long.

[NewJeffCT]

25. Tax incentives for improving efficiency

I would definitely support tax incentives for purchasing & installing alternative energy sources, be it wind or solar. I would also support incentives for homeowners to improve on their current systems as well - purchasing a more efficient HVAC system, improving insulation, high-efficiency appliances, CF lights, etc.

Right now, I'm not sure it is a good idea to require new homes to have wind or solar power - certain parts of the country may not be windy/sunny enough to support a home. And, while my fairly new home gets a decent amount of wind because it's on a bit of a hill, I doubt my fairly small yard has room for any sort of wind device unless I knock down a few trees in the conservation area.

[chaska]

31. Some live perfectly well without electricity. We would all benefit...

from a long backpacking trip. I've spent over a year of my life on living in the woods while on backpacking trips. I like to go for a couple of months at a time when possible. You'd be surprised how much happier you are living that way than in civilization.

Rediscover the natural world. It's good for you.

[Chemical Bill]

32. How hard is it to write passive solar heat into the code?

Photovolteics and wind generation should be addressed with code, and tax incentives.

Bill