Solar energy costs differ

Mercury News ^ | 11/28/05 | Paul Rogers

[NormsRevenge]

Interested in solar power?

How much you'll pay in city fees to put solar panels on your home depends on where you live -- and some fees around Silicon Valley are so high they are placing a cloud over renewable energy, according to a new study.

Saratoga, for example, charges $95 for a permit to install solar panels on a house. Yet in Los Gatos, two miles away, city planners will sock a homeowner with a $1,287 bill for a permit to install the same system.

The findings come from a survey of 40 cities in San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Benito counties by the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club.

``There's a huge gap in what various cities charge,'' said Carl Mills, a Milpitas technical writer who helped compile the survey. ``Something is very wrong.''

Silicon Valley may seem like the perfect region to embrace solar power, with lots of high-income, technologically savvy, environmentally friendly residents. High fees send the wrong signal, Mills and other solar supporters say -- especially when rising natural gas prices are sending electric bills soaring, global warming is on the increase and America's reliance on Middle East oil is growing.

In addition to high fees, in some towns delays, red tape and bureaucratic hassles also are making it harder to go solar, the survey found.

Sierra Club volunteers phoned 40 municipal building and planning departments over the summer and asked how much it would cost to install a typical solar-panel system on a house. They chose one that would cover 320 square feet, with the solar panels installed flush to the roof, generating 3 kilowatts, and costing $27,000.

[saganite]

I have considered solar for my house in the past but every time I look at the economics I decide not to do it. The return on my investment would exceed my remaining lifespan and add nothing to the value of my home. I've decided that solar is for those folks wanting to make a statement with money to burn. That ain't me.

[Quick1]

That's fine, it's your decision. My statement was merely that for some people, it's not all about the bottom line, and that spending the extra dough might be worthwhile. I don't have them on my house now, either, but when I have the money to build my own, I am going to make sure to look into alternative energy, especially solar panels (although who knows how much good they'll be up here in MN).

[NormsRevenge]

If it's good enough for the British and Europe and Japan,, why not America?

Build more nukes!

[Condor51]

***although who knows how much good they'll (solar) be up here in MN.***

STOP! Save your money.
Solar is useless¹ especially in places like Minnesota -- and the rest of Northern climates (above 38⁰ latitude IIRC) for that matter.

1- Unless you want to turn the solar panel frames into big flower pots or use them to plant tree seedlings. (semi kidding)

[JasonC]

Go right ahead. But you aren't helping anyone but the contractor who puts it in. You are not saving resources, net, for the whole society. Only when something does so and is adopted on a mass basis because of it, does a new technology make a real difference.

[longtermmemmory]

It seems the biggest problem right not is regulation and tax/fees.

Perhaps what needs to happen is laws which make solar panels exempt for ANY homeowners association rules and regulations, put a cap on a permit not to exceed $100.00 across the board, and .... make the cost of the solar panel system come off two years worth of property taxes.

I like the last one best.

[wita]

...and all of your explanation explains the concept of technology before its time, a concept of all rabid environmentalists and part time economists suffering from lack of common sense and schooling. The need for something before it is economically feasible, is offset to the degree necessary by what they call government subsidy, and normal people would call theft or economic slight of hand.

[saganite]

Your property taxes must be outrageous. It would take 20 years at my current tax rate to pay for even a modest solar system.

[Fee]

There are pigmented solar panels that come in other colors other than silicon purple. Was developed by DoD for concealment and is now entering the builders market to meet architectual and esthetic needs. I do not think one should put solar panels on a house to recoup high energy costs. I see it more as an emergency power source if power goes out over a long period of time (i.e Hurricane, Earthquake, or other major diseaster). Beats a generator which needs gasoline and operates for 4 to 6 hours before it needs refueling. The problem is if you add $ 27000 value to your property, the property taxes will go up.

[LIConFem]

A permit to install solar panels...

A permit to install solar panels...

A permit to install solar panels...

A permit to install solar panels...

Nope, no matter how many times I say it, it still doesn't make any sense.

[jiggyboy]

I think that price is about right for an installed system. The panels themselves are in the $4.50 per watt range, there's a $1000 inverter in there somewhere, maybe $2000 in a bunch of big batteries, and some "misc". Then you have to get it all together.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

1) The system would be more efficient if it was tilted to approximately 40 degrees, close to perpendicular to the suns rays as possible.
2) Since one of the greatest costs in a warm climate involves cooling, better building design--adjusting building orientation to avoid heat gain, increased insulation, use of window products that reflect sunlight and reduce heat transmission, use of design suited to local climate--may result in reduced electrical costs. (E.G. a Cape Cod home in the Sonoran desert makes no sense.)
3) Like any product, the unit cost decreases when your total production increases. The more homes that use solar the greater the production, more widespread technical knowledge required to install and maintain, and the lower costs will eventually become.
4) Since sunlight is free, it makes sense to continue to develop systems that utilize sunlight. We have come a long way since Edison. We aren't done yet and the United States has many exceptional engineers.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Why the hell should somebody have to pay the city any sum to put solar panels on HIS OWN HOUSE?

[VOA]

This is beyond idiotic. People should be getting tax breaks for investing in
renewable energy, not paying for permits.

Actually, it's very Californian.

At the height of the energy crunch a few years ago, some naive soul
bought a wind generator, hoping to put it up in a fairly isolated region
of the Inland Empire (northeast of metro Los Angeles).

But NO! The civil authorities descended like hungry vampires and eventually
made installation impossible by invoking all kinds of arcane rules/regs.

I was suprised that The Los Angeles Times actually documented this
prime example of Democratic central planning.