th comments
Emily said: "wow. that's impressive...." [read]

John Laumer said: "Editor's remark: Sierra Club spokesperson has supplied the following in response to a comment... -------------------- In answer..." [read]

Cybercat said: "@Joe I think they're going off the flat gas price, rather than before or after government and state taxes. I wouldn't mind seeing another ..." [read]

Cybercat said: "There isn't a percentage for how much is generated from feeding animals other animal by-products so all the assumptions made below are part on that..." [read]

BenSchiendelman said: "Live in cities, use the public transportation, buy fruits, vegetables and grain at the farmer's markets. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Gre..." [read]

California Developers Making Solar Roofing A Standard Item

by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 08.25.07
Business & Politics (news)

lennar%20homes.jpg

It's another California trend, which, as with so many other positive environmental developments that emanate from there with San Andreas-like shocking power, we fully expect will ripple outward to other US states. "One of the central San Joaquin Valley's largest home builders is taking the alternative-energy movement a significant step forward with the announcement that it will make solar energy standard on all its new houses.

Officials at Lennar Homes said they will begin with 258 houses at their Chateau at Cathedral project in Clovis and Orchard Estates II in Reedley, and then spread the program to other projects as they come on line. Each house comes with a rooftop solar electric power system as standard equipment. The 2.3-kilowatt system, which would cost between $15,000 and $20,000 to install on an existing house, is expected to cut energy bills 40% to 60%, said Charles Schein, ma keting manager. Home buyers also get a one-time tax credit of $2,000. Lennar officials said they are not increasing the prices of the houses to absorb the additional cost but do get a break by purchasing the systems in bulk."

"...The California Building Industry Association estimates that 1,500 new solar-powered houses were built last year for about 2% of total construction." A much as 5% of new construction this year is expected to have solar power as a built in feature."

"...The SunPower system features 10 panels on a one-story house and 12 panels on a two-story home. It is part of Lennar's Solar Plus package, which also includes a radiant barrier in the attic to reflect heat, increased insulation, more efficient air conditoning and tighter ductwork."

Key driving factors are:

Homeowner desire to "do the right thing" and achieve a modest amount of independence in the face of historic grid unreliability.

State-provided incentives.

Bulk purchasing power of large developers contracting with experienced, turnkey system suppliers.

Via:: Fresno Bee, "Lennar Homes plans to install solar energy systems on all its new houses." IImage credit:: Fresno Bee.

Comments (10)

have you considered geothermal heat pumps that can both heat and cool your home, and provide you with hot water? They are a bit expensive to install (although depending on your budget, they may not be prohibitively so), but after that your heating, cooling and hot water bills are next to zero. The systems usually pay for themselves after about 3 or 4 years, depending on what your energy bills have been 'till then. You do need some yard space of a pond to put the pipes in the ground, but they can place them in the ground vertically and take up very little space. It is worth thinking about!

jump to top Adz says:

oops, my post above regarding geothermal was intended for another discussion elsewhere where somebody was considering replacing a gas water heater, however it is equally relevant here.

Instead of offering PV cells, perhaps these developers should be offering geothermal heating and cooling. Or better still, they could offer both. Add on top of that energy efficient appliances (no plasma scree TVs), some solar passive design, some low carbon concrete with flyash to reduce cement content, plantation timber, and I imagine that the houses would come very close to being carbon neutral.

jump to top Adz says:

When you consider the California tax rebates for solar this makes perfect sense. The return on investment for PV solar in California is much better than the stock market + you increase the value of your home + you have less negative impact on the environment.

The costs sited in the article must consider some of the tax incentives, otherwise the cost is low even for buying systems in bulk.

jsbarrie

jump to top John Barrie says:

2300 Watts is 40% to 60% of the energy use in air conditioned, California homes? I am doubtful about that... They better not have a 500 Watt power supply on that PC that they are viewing this site with...

jump to top David Rochlin says:

Look I'm all for the so-called renewable energy but right now PV systems aren't financially sound investments. Maybe if you live in Nevada or Arizona where cloud cover isn't an issue but in most other states where there are clouds and such the cost of a PV system that just does 30% of your typical consumer home's power is going to run in the $20K range to install. If you took that and put it in the bank you'd make more money than the 27 years of savings would take to just break even - including the 'tax benefits' that the governments offer.

I've been doing the math and watching every month on my electric bill to see if I could find a cost effective way to just offset 30% of my power. It's not possible economically, and ads 0 resale value, if not a negative.

jump to top Tom BOucher says:

2300 Watts is 40% to 60% of the energy use in air conditioned, California homes? I am doubtful about that...

Average insolation (CA) = 5.7
Avg daily output of a 2.3 kW system = 13.1 kWh
Per month = 399 kWh
Avg residential electricity consumption (CA) = 576 kWh
2.3 kW system % of avg consumption = 69%

Looks like they gave understated estimates actually.

jump to top Anonymous says:

It is a nice idea to have a pv power option for homes, but I wonder how cost effective it is. Most PV systems take a decade or two to pay back their cost. I think it would make more sense to make all the new houses have solar water heaters which typically pay back in less than 3 years, and have install much more insulation and better quality insulated windows, both of which can pay off very quickly. In other words for about 5k you can cut the energy consumption of a house by maybe 25%, or you can spend 20k and generate 50% more power for the house to consume.


jump to top Michael says:

Look I'm all for the so-called renewable energy but right now PV systems aren't financially sound investments. Maybe if you live in Nevada or Arizona where cloud cover isn't an issue but in most other states where there are clouds and such the cost of a PV system that just does 30% of your typical consumer home's power is going to run in the $20K range to install. If you took that and put it in the bank you'd make more money than the 27 years of savings would take to just break even - including the 'tax benefits' that the governments offer. I've been doing the math and watching every month on my electric bill to see if I could find a cost effective way to just offset 30% of my power. It's not possible economically, and ads 0 resale value, if not a negative.

I feel like we've been transported back to the 1970s with that comment.

jump to top Anonymous says:

Michael, you have a valid point that there are a lot of other much cheaper/easier things that can be done before you install PV. In fact, all forms of conservation should be done before PV is done. However, solar is sexy right now, and its a lot more visible than an extra foot of insulation in the attic.

jump to top Doug [TypeKey Profile Page] says:

This message is for all the posts. I work in the solar energy field and do this is as a living. If there was ever a way for everyone to "do their part" toward helping the environment this is it! You eliminate alot of wasteful and harmful emissions which are killing lives around the world, at an very scary rate. To give you a better understanding, by buying a small 9KW system, roughly $20K from my company it will be equivalent to removing 3.6 cars for 30 years off the roads, OR planting 5.2 acres of trees.

Now to the financial aspect.
Did you all know that California has an incentive to pay for 30% of your purchase. YES, 30%. Your $20K system is now 14K. You all need to act quick because this money available isnt going to last very long...

If your bill is $300 your system is going to run you around 26-30K, depending on which brand you want, plus you a $2000 tax credit. $300 x 360(30 years)= $108,000. Your system cost only 25% of the total. Thats not including the FACT that electricity rates are being RAISED every year. The past couple of year the increase was OVER 30% EACH YEAR!

Think about....
You save $
You pay no electric bill ever again....
Your system is partially paid for for California Solar Incentive.
You will feel good about keeping the air clean.
You will feel good that people in Africa can use the natural resources made for them because your not contributing to GLOBAL WARMING....
And finally......
Your Creating more jobs for Americans.....

UK, Canada, Germany and all of Europe is on board switching to solar. And the amazing thing is they get as much sunlight as we do in California......

If anybody wants to hear more info about this....
Call my cell 310-626-3719

I love this and can show you documentation on everything I wrote.....

jump to top Mo says:

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

th ads
th top picks
th ads