Houston solar power

[sifuwong]

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/kho...y.632e380f.html

[editor]

Hot on the heels of the Houston wind power announcement, the mayor is going to make another energy announcement on Monday.

This time, it's solar power. I know a lot of you were skeptical about the wind announcement. Maybe the involvement of BP Solar will give it more credibility around here. Maybe not.

Anyway, as part of the announcement panels will be unveiled for powering two city buildings. I don't know if it makes them 100% solar, or just partial. We'll have to wait until Monday to find out.

[Subdude]

But on the other hand:

Solar advocates trying to look on bright side

High costs, lack of support at various levels cloud its future

By PURVA PATEL

Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

"Solar electric is still rather expensive. Unfortunately, the state of Texas doesn't have the same level of incentives that California and several other states do."

Solar advocates say high costs, a lack of incentives and resistant homeowners associations are clouding the nascent industry's future in the state.

At stake is an opportunity for the state, already a major player in the oil and gas industry, to have a prominent role in the growing $10.6 billion global solar energy market, a May report by the state comptroller's office says.

Advocates concede solar is not the end-all solution for the state's energy needs. High costs still keep the technology inaccessible to many consumers, though opinions differ on just how long that will last, given the rapidly rising cost of conventional energy sources. But incentives and rebate programs to help consumers realize a faster payback on their investments would help, solar advocates say.

A typical solar electric system for a home can cost between $20,000 to $29,000.

Link to full Chronicle article

[editor]

This just in...

------------

Mayor Bill White Unveils City Solar Energy Projects

Mayor Bill White today unveiled two solar-energy demonstration projects which

will help provide power to city buildings and are part of Houston

[tanith27]

Yeah, maybe now they will start off with financial incentives to help us along. The same company that donated these solar panels...according to them it would cost me a grandiose $50,000 USD to set up a system that would save me a whole $38 off my monthly bill.

Hmmm....somehow the math doesn't quite work for me at this point.....

[editor]

Yeah, maybe now they will start off with financial incentives to help us along. The same company that donated these solar panels...according to them it would cost me a grandiose $50,000 USD to set up a system that would save me a whole $38 off my monthly bill.

Hmmm....somehow the math doesn't quite work for me at this point.....

Well, if Obama really does let Hillary fix the health care crisis (again), then you should have no problem living another 109 years so you can break even.

[RedScare]

Yeah, maybe now they will start off with financial incentives to help us along. The same company that donated these solar panels...according to them it would cost me a grandiose $50,000 USD to set up a system that would save me a whole $38 off my monthly bill.

Hmmm....somehow the math doesn't quite work for me at this point.....

Sounds like you got ripped off (well, potentially, at least). The system installed on the City's buildings has a street price of $64,000, and would produce 1,000 kWH, or roughly $120 a month in electricity. It includes 40 solar panels in the array. How many were you quoted, out of curiosity?

http://app1.kuhf.org/houston_public_radio-...s_id=1213032208

[editor]

Maybe the city building has more roof space and could use a different (cheaper/less efficient) panel than one for a home with a small roof that would have to put out more power per square foot.

Just a theory.

[infinite_jim]

Despite a lack of incentives, what is typical of the cost to benefits for using a solar power to supplement your current usage over the long term?

edit: Given the expectation of rising natural gas prices.

Anyone familiar with this deal?

http://www.power-savetv.com/index.html

[Subdude]

Note dupe topics merged.

[crunchtastic]

The cost to add solar to existing homes is prohibitively expensive for most people, but why not incent builders and new home buyers? Solar should be becoming routine on new builds. Especially here, where so much is built on prairie where you've got no obstruction. Regardless of what builders would day on how it would price them out of a market, or some usual propaganda, I believe that with good design, you could make the price work, and that homebuyers would be willing to forego some square footage or overpriced cosmetic upgrades for the benefit of solar. This nonsense about the suburban-gestapo HOAs not approving solar panel installs for aesthetic reasons, how ridiculous is that.

Or, is it a supply chain issue? Not enough solar array production yet for builders to use the technology on a larger scale?

[TheNiche]

The cost to add solar to existing homes is prohibitively expensive for most people, but why not incent builders and new home buyers? Solar should be becoming routine on new builds. Especially here, where so much is built on prairie where you've got no obstruction. Regardless of what builders would day on how it would price them out of a market, or some usual propaganda, I believe that with good design, you could make the price work, and that homebuyers would be willing to forego some square footage or overpriced cosmetic upgrades for the benefit of solar.

Whether it is government, the builders, or consumers opting for solar panels mounted on homes, consumers ultimately do pay for it, whether directly or indirectly. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

If consumers buying new homes are forced to pay for solar panels along with the home itself, then in order to make adequate risk-adjusted rates of return on their investment, builders will have to raise prices. At higher price points, fewer households can afford the same quality of home, inducing them to either forgo some other aspect of consumption or to not buy the home. And because a higher price point thins the pool of buyers, it is bad for builders...and just that they stand to lose doesn't mean that they aren't correct to point it out.

It would seem as though if government really wants to back solar power with return on cost being a primary consideration, there are far better methods than to force PV upon individual households.

[Subdude]

The cost to add solar to existing homes is prohibitively expensive for most people, but why not incent builders and new home buyers? Solar should be becoming routine on new builds. Especially here, where so much is built on prairie where you've got no obstruction. Regardless of what builders would day on how it would price them out of a market, or some usual propaganda, I believe that with good design, you could make the price work, and that homebuyers would be willing to forego some square footage or overpriced cosmetic upgrades for the benefit of solar. This nonsense about the suburban-gestapo HOAs not approving solar panel installs for aesthetic reasons, how ridiculous is that.

Or, is it a supply chain issue? Not enough solar array production yet for builders to use the technology on a larger scale?

A huge part of the problem is that the tax incentives for solar have been inconsistent. If I'm not mistaken they expire at year end and Congress hasn't been able to bring itself to renew. On the other hand Germany, not known for its sunshine, has a huge photo-voltaic industry that has resulted from their renewable energy law. In a climate like Texas I can see some justification for more active promotion of solar. Yes, of course, that could end up costing consumers, but then so do things like fire codes. The bottom line is that solar won't be widely adopted without strong and consistent incentives to do so.

[crunchtastic]

If consumers buying new homes are forced to pay for solar panels along with the home itself, then in order to make adequate risk-adjusted rates of return on their investment, builders will have to raise prices. At higher price points, fewer households can afford the same quality of home, inducing them to either forgo some other aspect of consumption or to not buy the home. And because a higher price point thins the pool of buyers, it is bad for builders...and just that they stand to lose doesn't mean that they aren't correct to point it out.

Missing my point a little. Let's forget aobut incentives. For the same, say $300,000 house, I think there is a healthy market of homebuyers who would opt to spend the same amount on a slightly smaller home, or a home with fewer cosmetic bells and whistles, to get the benefit of solar. I'm talking about design solutions, not forcing solar on anyone as an expensive add-on. Make an innovative, attractive product with solar. If solar costs 30K grand, make some smart design decisions elsewhere to make room for that 30K. Regular old people on budgets who remodel their kitchens make the same type of cost decisions every day. Surely a builder could do the same, and still provide an attractive product.

I'd think it depends on if there's enough solar panel technology 'stuff' in production to build on that large a scale.

.

[TheNiche]

Missing my point a little. Let's forget aobut incentives. For the same, say $300,000 house, I think there is a healthy market of homebuyers who would opt to spend the same amount on a slightly smaller home, or a home with fewer cosmetic bells and whistles, to get the benefit of solar. I'm talking about design solutions, not forcing solar on anyone as an expensive add-on. Make an innovative, attractive product with solar. If solar costs 30K grand, make some smart design decisions elsewhere to make room for that 30K. Regular old people on budgets who remodel their kitchens make the same type of cost decisions every day. Surely a builder could do the same, and still provide an attractive product.

I'd think it depends on if there's enough solar panel technology 'stuff' in production to build on that large a scale.

.

Hmmm. You should've approached me in private with a confidentiality agreement that has a non-compete clause. Now I'm going to make gazillions of dollars, and I'm only going to buy you a drink (or two if I'm feeling generous). Mwahahaha!

No, actually its a pretty thin market for single-family homes. Solar makes more sense when it can be installed and maintained on a large scale, for instance as a key design feature of a large building.

[crunchtastic]

Hmmm. You should've approached me in private with a confidentiality agreement that has a non-compete clause. Now I'm going to make gazillions of dollars, and I'm only going to buy you a drink (or two if I'm feeling generous). Mwahahaha!

No, actually its a pretty thin market for single-family homes. Solar makes more sense when it can be installed and maintained on a large scale, for instance as a key design feature of a large building.

Or perhaps my container condos! So far, yes, the accessible single family home market has been limited to smallish developements in CA, and I think FLA. Still, it would be nice to see your average tract home builder branch out a little. I understand the economics but don't get why it couldn't work from a marketing perspective.

Why are builders so bad at concepting and marketing? It's the same ole, same ole. Carmela Soprano faux med, HHN 'urban' and the 'It All Looks The Same, But I Don't Care Because I Need A House and a Neighborhood Pool for 170k. ' There's a market for more choices, I'm sure of it. At the lower price points, isn't it just cladding and finish work, for the most part, to distinguish one box from another?

You gotta make people want it. I mean, if marketing can make people want a meal at Cheesecake Factory, why not solar?

[editor]

Whether it is government, the builders, or consumers opting for solar panels mounted on homes, consumers ultimately do pay for it, whether directly or indirectly. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

You are correct, though it's a lot easier to swallow if the cost is rolled into a mortgage at the outset rather than into a second mortgage or a home equity loan down the road.

[RedScare]

So far, yes, the accessible single family home market has been limited to smallish developements in CA, and I think FLA. Still, it would be nice to see your average tract home builder branch out a little. I understand the economics but don't get why it couldn't work from a marketing perspective.

You gotta make people want it. I mean, if marketing can make people want a meal at Cheesecake Factory, why not solar?

Actually, a development in far north Spring is doing this very thing. Energy computers, efficient appliances and solar panels. They claim a 40% savings on utilities over a standard house. Editor posted about it.

[TheNiche]

Or perhaps my container condos! So far, yes, the accessible single family home market has been limited to smallish developements in CA, and I think FLA. Still, it would be nice to see your average tract home builder branch out a little. I understand the economics but don't get why it couldn't work from a marketing perspective.

Why are builders so bad at concepting and marketing? It's the same ole, same ole. Carmela Soprano faux med, HHN 'urban' and the 'It All Looks The Same, But I Don't Care Because I Need A House and a Neighborhood Pool for 170k. ' There's a market for more choices, I'm sure of it. At the lower price points, isn't it just cladding and finish work, for the most part, to distinguish one box from another?

You gotta make people want it. I mean, if marketing can make people want a meal at Cheesecake Factory, why not solar?

On account of that it is tangible collateral, real estate is probably one of the most highly leveraged classes of investment there is. That means that gains and losses are multiplied many times over, and even a relatively minor element of the business plan that does not work out can throw the entire deal off.

With that in mind, developers like to go with a product that is tried and true, and to the extent that they innovate in terms of marketing, it is in the way that Randall Davis does...by appropriating the iconography of exotic and 'superior' cultures for marketing materials and advertising, or just by changing up the facade. The moment that the product itself is made less than perfectly comparable with competitive product, it sends up red flags all over the place and among all the different stakeholders, and overcoming those requires some pretty intensive research, consulting, and legwork that most developers haven't got the time or budget for. Even then, if it is something that a GC hasn't done before, there's a fair chance that they'll screw up the first couple of times they try, so there may be a need for greater oversight in the construction process or to pad the budget just in case something goes awry.