Interesting article from Chris at SolarReviews.com

[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]

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.]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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/