Interesting article from Chris at SolarReviews.com

[solar pete]

Hi All,

Thought I would post this link to a article that talks about solar and does it add value to a property, cheers.

http://www.solarreviews.com/news/report_finds_solar_adds_value_homes_six_states_111215/

[SunEagle]

Hi All,

Thought I would post this link to a article that talks about solar and does it add value to a property, cheers.

http://www.solarreviews.com/news/rep...states_111215/

I hope that trend goes beyond those 6 states.

[8.4]

I don't know if I would pay for a house with solar. It takes a long time to recoup. In the meantime, is the warranty transferable? I would more likely buy a house without solar and then add it on if I wanted. Solar's nice, but I think a huge majority of us are in it for the economics first, and environmental somewhere else on the list.

[J.P.M.]

I don't know if I would pay for a house with solar. It takes a long time to recoup. In the meantime, is the warranty transferable? I would more likely buy a house without solar and then add it on if I wanted. Solar's nice, but I think a huge majority of us are in it for the economics first, and environmental somewhere else on the list.

For a lot of reasons, I'd not buy a house with solar panels on it, or on the property. One reason: Any system will, in all likelihood, be improperly sized for my needs by a fair amount. If too large, I'll either overpay for excess capacity, or need to negotiate to get the price down. If too small, I'll be trying to match equipment. In either case, given what a current 10 yr. old PV system looks like and how it performs relative to a new system, and people's perceptions of worth, I'm not sure what a, say, a 10 yr. old PV system will add to the value of a house. I'd wait until the novelty of solar wears off a bit more and also see what the deal is w/tax policy before counting the solar chickens before a purchase. I'd also consider price trends. Today's 10 year old 5 kW system probably cost between $35K -$40K when new. Now I know the price curve is a lot flatter these days, but I'd bet today's 5 kW, $16K system probably won't cost $16K to replace in 10 years. That will probably have some effect on how existing solar influences housing prices.

At the end of the day, a piece of property, or anything else, is only worth what someone is willing to pay - no more.

In a few years, after the gild is off the solar lily, price premium for solarized homes may be more or less, but I'd bet the premium, or penalty, will be arrived at with a clearer eye tempered through the lens of time.

[SunEagle]

For a lot of reasons, I'd not buy a house with solar panels on it, or on the property. One reason: Any system will, in all likelihood, be improperly sized for my needs by a fair amount. If too large, I'll either overpay for excess capacity, or need to negotiate to get the price down. If too small, I'll be trying to match equipment. In either case, given what a current 10 yr. old PV system looks like and how it performs relative to a new system, and people's perceptions of worth, I'm not sure what a, say, a 10 yr. old PV system will add to the value of a house. I'd wait until the novelty of solar wears off a bit more and also see what the deal is w/tax policy before counting the solar chickens before a purchase. I'd also consider price trends. Today's 10 year old 5 kW system probably cost between $35K -$40K when new. Now I know the price curve is a lot flatter these days, but I'd bet today's 5 kW, $16K system probably won't cost $16K to replace in 10 years. That will probably have some effect on how existing solar influences housing prices.

At the end of the day, a piece of property, or anything else, is only worth what someone is willing to pay - no more.

In a few years, after the gild is off the solar lily, price premium for solarized homes may be more or less, but I'd bet the premium, or penalty, will be arrived at with a clearer eye tempered through the lens of time.

What I am starting to see are new requirements for single family homes (Boulder Colorado) of a certain square footage (> 5000) being held to being very efficient or net zero energy usage starting Jan 1, 2016.

You might see similar changes to building codes in CA and other states where this will force the big users to reduce their electric footprint.

[J.P.M.]

What I am starting to see are new requirements for single family homes (Boulder Colorado) of a certain square footage (> 5000) being held to being very efficient or net zero energy usage starting Jan 1, 2016.

You might see similar changes to building codes in CA and other states where this will force the big users to reduce their electric footprint.

I'd remark that the terms "energy efficient" and ""net zero energy" are not necessarily the same. I suppose in theory, an energy hog house could be a "zero net energy" dwelling by throwing a lot of generating equipment at it. I'm not sure how environmentally conscious not to mention cost ineffective that might be. I'd also question the logic of thinking any 5,000 ft.^2 home as energy efficient or environmentally conscious. Maybe environmentally unconscious.

In CA, new homes are built to mandated requirements that, say, 30 years ago, were considered quite eccentric (higher insulation levels, Tyvek wrapping, duct insulation, blower door testing, etc.). While more measures are possible, the physical limits of further potential use reductions are a lot closer. I've been away from it for awhile, but I suspect a lot of zero net energy homes or some such names are little more that homes built to (quite good) title 24 stds. w/solar added to the roof and a fancy title attached as a marketing tool.

What probably has not changed is the difference in use patterns and attitudes about how energy is used in a home. I can't point to documentation so I'm out on a limb here, but I seem to recall studies of identical, side/side homes w/same fam. size in each often resulting in very different energy use for each dwelling. A lot of home energy use or reduction of it starts with attitude.

What has changed, in spite of all the hoopla about energy conservation, is the average amount of energy used by households in the U.S. It's gone up. Steadily.

To the extent there is any connection between the perception of what a commodity costs (in this case electricity) and how much it's consumed, I'd wonder what that says about what folks think about how much they pay for electricity, or if their ignorance masks their awareness ?

[SunEagle]

I'd remark that the terms "energy efficient" and ""net zero energy" are not necessarily the same. I suppose in theory, an energy hog house could be a "zero net energy" dwelling by throwing a lot of generating equipment at it. I'm not sure how environmentally conscious not to mention cost ineffective that might be. I'd also question the logic of thinking any 5,000 ft.^2 home as energy efficient or environmentally conscious. Maybe environmentally unconscious.

In CA, new homes are built to mandated requirements that, say, 30 years ago, were considered quite eccentric (higher insulation levels, Tyvek wrapping, duct insulation, blower door testing, etc.). While more measures are possible, the physical limits of further potential use reductions are a lot closer. I've been away from it for awhile, but I suspect a lot of zero net energy homes or some such names are little more that homes built to (quite good) title 24 stds. w/solar added to the roof and a fancy title attached as a marketing tool.

What probably has not changed is the difference in use patterns and attitudes about how energy is used in a home. I can't point to documentation so I'm out on a limb here, but I seem to recall studies of identical, side/side homes w/same fam. size in each often resulting in very different energy use for each dwelling. A lot of home energy use or reduction of it starts with attitude.

What has changed, in spite of all the hoopla about energy conservation, is the average amount of energy used by households in the U.S. It's gone up. Steadily.

To the extent there is any connection between the perception of what a commodity costs (in this case electricity) and how much it's consumed, I'd wonder what that says about what folks think about how much they pay for electricity, or if their ignorance masks their awareness ?

I have to agree that for some reason the consumption of electricity by the home owners has gone up yet the industrial and commercial consumption has gone down.

It is pretty much a trend across most of the US that we as a Nation are consuming less then we did a few years ago which has slowed down the need for the POCO's to build more generating plants.

Most of the lower consumption is probably due to higher efficient lighting, motors and HVAC equipment, but lowering the electric bill is still a big motivator toward lower consumption.

That is unless the homeowner has installed a "free energy" generating system.

That seems to be a reason that consumption seems to have resin instead of going down.

[sensij]

The EIA consumption data don't really show much of a trend since 2007, mostly driven by regional differences (some up and some down, mostly flat) and not uniform national data. When coupled with the growing US population, also evidenced by an increasing residential electricity customer base, to me it paints a picture of convincingly *decreasing* per capita residential energy consumption.

Is there some other data out there I should be looking at that tells a different story?

[J.P.M.]

The EIA consumption data don't really show much of a trend since 2007, mostly driven by regional differences (some up and some down, mostly flat) and not uniform national data. When coupled with the growing US population, also evidenced by an increasing residential electricity customer base, to me it paints a picture of convincingly *decreasing* per capita residential energy consumption.

Is there some other data out there I should be looking at that tells a different story?

Probably, but I don't know of one. I suppose regional differences, and how results are reported and interpreted can make for differences in how the data is perceived.

[J.P.M.]

The EIA consumption data don't really show much of a trend since 2007, mostly driven by regional differences (some up and some down, mostly flat) and not uniform national data. When coupled with the growing US population, also evidenced by an increasing residential electricity customer base, to me it paints a picture of convincingly *decreasing* per capita residential energy consumption.

Is there some other data out there I should be looking at that tells a different story?

Probably, but I don't know of one. I suppose regional differences, and how results are reported and interpreted can make for differences in how the data is perceived. As in: What's up with the residential use data from energy only providers ?

[sensij]

Probably, but I don't know of one. I suppose regional differences, and how results are reported and interpreted can make for differences in how the data is perceived. As in: What's up with the residential use data from energy only providers ?

Yes, that is a slice of data showing a very strong trend. From the definitions:

Full-Service Providers sell bundled electricity services (e.g., both energy and delivery) to end users. Full-Service Providers
may purchase electricity from others (such as Independent Power Producers or other Full-Service Providers) prior to
delivery. Direct sales from independent facility generators to end use consumers are reported under Full-Service Providers.

Energy-Only Providers sell energy to end use customers; incumbent utility distribution firms provide Delivery-Only Services
for these customers.


So I guess some people have an option to buy energy from a specific source, any pay their Poco to deliver it? The increasing trend a sign of increasing deregulation or a healthier market for alternatives, perhaps?

[SunEagle]

The EIA consumption data don't really show much of a trend since 2007, mostly driven by regional differences (some up and some down, mostly flat) and not uniform national data. When coupled with the growing US population, also evidenced by an increasing residential electricity customer base, to me it paints a picture of convincingly *decreasing* per capita residential energy consumption.

Is there some other data out there I should be looking at that tells a different story?

I agree that numbers don't lie. Based on those websites it looks like the US is consuming less per person then it did a few years ago.

Maybe I have taken the input from a minority of people that have stated they have increased their electrical usage into believing it was a much higher percentage than actual.

I wonder if those reports included the power consumed by home owner's from their pv generated sources or was it just from POCO generated power.

[J.P.M.]

Yes, that is a slice of data showing a very strong trend. From the definitions:

Full-Service Providers sell bundled electricity services (e.g., both energy and delivery) to end users. Full-Service Providers
may purchase electricity from others (such as Independent Power Producers or other Full-Service Providers) prior to
delivery. Direct sales from independent facility generators to end use consumers are reported under Full-Service Providers.

Energy-Only Providers sell energy to end use customers; incumbent utility distribution firms provide Delivery-Only Services
for these customers.


So I guess some people have an option to buy energy from a specific source, any pay their Poco to deliver it? The increasing trend a sign of increasing deregulation or a healthier market for alternatives, perhaps?

Maybe my post was off topic, but it was not an attempt at refutation of any data, or your presentation. Rather, it was meant as an implied reference to how any data, even as one of your references seems to be at odds with what you write, can be dissected, reassembled and re- or mis-interpreted, sort of after Kiplings's admonition to "hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools."

People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, and usually willing to latch onto whatever reinforces their view of reality.

FWIW, such distinctions between energy only and delivery only service providers, etc., doesn't seem to me to be helpful to this side bar discussion of what I thought was a discussion of rates of increase residential electricity use.

BTW, I can and did read what's at the bottom of the information and understand it. Please don't presume to think or imply I'm a complete moron.

[sensij]

Maybe my post was off topic, but it was not an attempt at refutation of any data, or your presentation. Rather, it was meant as an implied reference to how any data, even as one of your references seems to be at odds with what you write, can be dissected, reassembled and re- or mis-interpreted, sort of after Kiplings's admonition to "hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools."

People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, and usually willing to latch onto whatever reinforces their view of reality.

FWIW, such distinctions between energy only and delivery only service providers, etc., doesn't seem to me to be helpful to this side bar discussion of what I thought was a discussion of rates of increase residential electricity use.

BTW, I can and did read what's at the bottom of the information and understand it. Please don't presume to think or imply I'm a complete moron.

Whoa, I wasn't presuming or thinking anything like that! You asked a question... "What's up with the residential use data from energy only providers ?" I assumed that this, like most of these matters, was something with which you were much more familiar than I. It took some time to find a specific data set that was broken out by provider, and once I found it, I could see a trend that may have led to your question. Not knowing what an energy only provider was, I searched through more of the EIA site until I found a definition. I didn't know it was on the bottom of something easy to find, the definition I found was buried in an annual report. Anyway, having found the data, and read enough to at least get a superficial understanding of what slice of the market the data was representing, I attempted to answer "what's up?"

Really man, no conflict was intended here. I didn't get that you were making a point about data spinning, I'm sorry I missed it.

[J.P.M.]

Whoa, I wasn't presuming or thinking anything like that! You asked a question... "What's up with the residential use data from energy only providers ?" I assumed that this, like most of these matters, was something with which you were much more familiar than I. It took some time to find a specific data set that was broken out by provider, and once I found it, I could see a trend that may have led to your question. Not knowing what an energy only provider was, I searched through more of the EIA site until I found a definition. I didn't know it was on the bottom of something easy to find, the definition I found was buried in an annual report. Anyway, having found the data, and read enough to at least get a superficial understanding of what slice of the market the data was representing, I attempted to answer "what's up?"

Really man, no conflict was intended here. I didn't get that you were making a point about data spinning, I'm sorry I missed it.

Fair enough. For my part, I probably could have been less obtuse about where I was going and stayed on topic. If you feel my remarks were over the line, I apologize, but I took your text explanation as a bit condescending and therefore, unwarranted.

I'm moving on.

Add: As another example of presumption. I'm presuming you're truthful, including, what seems to me anyway, your presumptive comment about your opinion of our relative knowledge levels in R.E. related matters. However, the accuracy of that presumption seems to be itself a presumption on your part, and in any case, and IMO anyway, probably relative to, and dependent on the particular area. Just sayin'.

The usual take what you want rant applies.