Will requiring solar panels on new buildings reduce their overall cost?

[Mike90250]

And then there are the "unintended consequences" of conservation. Not enough $ coming in to pay for the overhead, so rates have to go up, and let's stick it to the solar folks (they are the rich ones) that can afford it.

[khanh dam]

yes Personally I think mandating more efficient insulation, AC seer values, ductwork in conditioned spaces, white roofs in hot climates is money better spent vs adding solar.

[bcroe]

For some the reason to go solar, is to allow an increase in energy use. Bruce Roe

[azdave]

Conservation measures do reduce use no question. However, some to most of the benefit is often lost when the more draconian effects of the former high electric bills are removed by the better efficiency attained by conservation and by alternate energy generation.

Silly humans and their illusions of saving. Put in a low-flow shower head and humans will take longer showers. Engineer a car with increased fuel economy and humans will move further from work and increase their daily commute. Sell a widget at WalMart for three cents less than Target and people will drive 5 miles extra to get that lowest price. Put solar panels on the roof and electric consumption goes up. Go figure.

[J.P.M.]

Silly humans and their illusions of saving. Put in a low-flow shower head and humans will take longer showers. Engineer a car with increased fuel economy and humans will move further from work and increase their daily commute. Sell a widget at WalMart for three cents less than Target and people will drive 5 miles extra to get that lowest price. Put solar panels on the roof and electric consumption goes up. Go figure.

Yea. Human's are sometimes their own worst enemies.

[J.P.M.]

yes Personally I think mandating more efficient insulation, AC seer values, ductwork in conditioned spaces, white roofs in hot climates is money better spent vs adding solar.

Not using something is almost always less costly than getting more of it. That's a lot of the reason why lifestyle adjustments leading to use reduction and then conservation measures such as insulation are almost always less costly than throwing PV at a self inflicted high electric bill, which is about the most expensive way to go about bill reduction.

[J.P.M.]

For some the reason to go solar, is to allow an increase in energy use. Bruce Roe

It most certainly is, and hail the freedom to make that choice. It's about lifestyle choices. But all choices have associated costs. Example: Living in San Diego costs me more than living in Buffalo, but I pay my money, take my choice and don't whine about what was and remains a free choice.

Rant mode on.

After speaking with and to many folks however, my suspicion is that for most folks, most of the increase in energy use after adding PV is due more, but not entirely, to ignorance born of mental and physical laziness than a conscious decision to pay a lot of upfront money to be able to be do more with electricity. To my experience, while there are some who do indeed make the choice you describe, for most it's done not so much as a willful, thought out decision as much as it's a headlong, near panic rush from self inflicted high energy bills with added push provided by the PV conmen and shills and their mostly energy ignorant treehugger shills.

Rant mode off.

[DrLumen]

We are guilty of using more since having solar installed. I don't do it much but I will sneak the t-stat down a couple of degrees. DW, sometimes come back behind me and sneaks it back up but...

By the same token we have shifted some power use to the middle of the day so we can consume what is generated instead of buying power at night.

[bcroe]

The initial reasons to go PV solar, and the long term results would make quite a study, the
players here not being particularly representative of the public. But being able to knock
heating/cooling and electricity completely off the monthly costs (no straining to conserve
more) feels pretty good, elimination of the gas bill with all its extra fees. Monthly electric
remains here, though no energy is purchased. I admit to $90 annual propane tank rental.
Bruce Roe

[jflorey2]

Will requiring solar panels on new buildings reduce their overall cost?

I doubt it. How often do you see a purchase mandated by law become cheaper for the customer than before when they had a choice?

Catalytic converters. Airbags. Fuel injection. (to name three)

[ButchDeal]

Catalytic converters. Airbags. Fuel injection. (to name three)

fuel injection and catalytic converters are not mandated. The government mandated fuel efficiency levels and emission standards. The primary means to get those results was catalytic converters and fuel injection.

these would be good examples if the requirement was to have a certain level of efficiency in the home not to require solar on them. Solar COULD be a solution but so could more insulation, more efficient heat pump etc.

[jflorey2]

fuel injection and catalytic converters are not mandated. The government mandated fuel efficiency levels and emission standards. The primary means to get those results was catalytic converters and fuel injection.

Right. That had the effect of mandating those things - and prices for them dropped as most cars started requiring them.

Requiring solar for housing will drive down prices for those systems,, in the same way that a builder reduces construction cost on subdivision homes by building 240 at once.

(That being said, I think that mandating solar on homes is a terrible idea, and will have a lot of unintended consequences.)

[ButchDeal]

Right. That had the effect of mandating those things - and prices for them dropped as most cars started requiring them.

Requiring solar for housing will drive down prices for those systems,, in the same way that a builder reduces construction cost on subdivision homes by building 240 at once.

(That being said, I think that mandating solar on homes is a terrible idea, and will have a lot of unintended consequences.)

You miss the point. The government did not mandate fuel injection and cats on cars, they mandated efficiency and lower emissions. Car companies tried different things like air injection into the exhaust etc. the fuel injection and catalytic converters is what you now see as the leading issue that solved it but other things came into play as well like overhead cams, electronic timing, more efficient automatic transmissions, CV joints replacing U-joints, front wheel drive, lighter unibody cars, aluminum engines, plastic parts, etc. etc. etc.

if you want more efficient homes then mandate THAT and let builders do different things including add solar.

[Ampster]

...Requiring solar for housing will drive down prices for those systems,, in the same way that a builder reduces construction cost on subdivision homes by building 240 at once.

(That being said, I think that mandating solar on homes is a terrible idea, and will have a lot of unintended consequences.)

One of those consequences will be community solar or some other mechanism purchased by a builder and assigned to buildings that can't put much solar on their roof. It could be a good thing or it could end up like solar roof leasing. Too soon to tell.

[jflorey2]

You miss the point. The government did not mandate fuel injection and cats on cars, they mandated efficiency and lower emissions. Car companies tried different things like air injection into the exhaust etc. the fuel injection and catalytic converters is what you now see as the leading issue that solved it but other things came into play as well like overhead cams, electronic timing, more efficient automatic transmissions, CV joints replacing U-joints, front wheel drive, lighter unibody cars, aluminum engines, plastic parts, etc. etc. etc.

I am not arguing that how the government is doing this is wise. It is not.

I am arguing that emissions requirements effectively mandated catalytic converters. Car companies said that would bankrupt them. However, once most cars needed one, prices dropped dramatically. The same will happen with solar. That's it.