Yes, we all receive light and heat from the sun free of charge, but the cost of converting that energy into electricity that can run our televisions, computers and video game systems as well as charging all of our on-the-go devices has up to now been almost prohibitively expensive.
According to the Scientific American article "The No-Money-Down Solar Plan," "Installing a rooftop array of solar panels large enough to to produce all the energy required by a building is the equivalent of prepaying an electric bill for the next seven to 10 years - and that's after federal and state incentives."
Some companies have come up with a solution: provide the panels free of charge, then bill the customer for power as it is used. Even though the consumer still has a monthly fee, solar power would be cheaper by the kilowatt-hour than grid-provided electricity as well as offering a negligible carbon footprint.
As SolarCity co-founder Peter Rive puts it, " This is a way to get solar without putting any money down and to start saving money from day one. That's a first."
SolarCity is the largest installer of household solar panels to undertake the system. They lease the panels to customers but there is no charge for the power produced. The overall effect is a highly reduced monthly bill because when the sun isn't out, customers still need utility-provided electricity. The total of the monthly lease and power bill is lower than a pre-panel power bill alone.
Berkeley and Boulder have taken similar strides. Using municipal bonds, they give out loans to residents who want to buy and install solar panels and the city is paid back over the course of 20 years via the homeowners property tax bill. This, again, still winds up costing less than a traditional utility bill.
Using Berkeley as a model, 10 states have already adopted similar programs even though the example is only two years old. And with the Waxman-Markey climate bill passing, the option for cities to do so would become federal law.
Although to current cost of solar panels is still high, it is dropping and forecasters predict grid parity within the next decade (meaning creating enough solar panels to energize the same amount of homes and businesses would cost the same as systems still in place).
But with fossil fuels increasing 3 to 5 percent a year over the last decade and the cost of solar panels falling by 20 percent each time its insulation base doubles, it seems it's only a matter of time before even the most conservative of homeowners will see the advantage of solar.
If you can't make them care about the environment, hit them in the spot they most certainly do care about: their wallet.
According to the Scientific American article "The No-Money-Down Solar Plan," "Installing a rooftop array of solar panels large enough to to produce all the energy required by a building is the equivalent of prepaying an electric bill for the next seven to 10 years - and that's after federal and state incentives."
Some companies have come up with a solution: provide the panels free of charge, then bill the customer for power as it is used. Even though the consumer still has a monthly fee, solar power would be cheaper by the kilowatt-hour than grid-provided electricity as well as offering a negligible carbon footprint.
As SolarCity co-founder Peter Rive puts it, " This is a way to get solar without putting any money down and to start saving money from day one. That's a first."
SolarCity is the largest installer of household solar panels to undertake the system. They lease the panels to customers but there is no charge for the power produced. The overall effect is a highly reduced monthly bill because when the sun isn't out, customers still need utility-provided electricity. The total of the monthly lease and power bill is lower than a pre-panel power bill alone.
Berkeley and Boulder have taken similar strides. Using municipal bonds, they give out loans to residents who want to buy and install solar panels and the city is paid back over the course of 20 years via the homeowners property tax bill. This, again, still winds up costing less than a traditional utility bill.
Using Berkeley as a model, 10 states have already adopted similar programs even though the example is only two years old. And with the Waxman-Markey climate bill passing, the option for cities to do so would become federal law.
Although to current cost of solar panels is still high, it is dropping and forecasters predict grid parity within the next decade (meaning creating enough solar panels to energize the same amount of homes and businesses would cost the same as systems still in place).
But with fossil fuels increasing 3 to 5 percent a year over the last decade and the cost of solar panels falling by 20 percent each time its insulation base doubles, it seems it's only a matter of time before even the most conservative of homeowners will see the advantage of solar.
If you can't make them care about the environment, hit them in the spot they most certainly do care about: their wallet.
No comments:
Post a Comment