backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 122 comment(s) - last by hubajube.. on Feb 28 at 1:48 PM

SunPower's SunTile solar energy collectors lie flush with the home's roof line.
Buyers of new solar-powered homes could see their energy bills cut in half, builders say

One of the nation's biggest home builders has plans to go solar. Miami-based Lennar Homes said its homebuilding division in San Ramon, California, will install solar panel power systems in all of its new homes in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Lennar made the announcement during the opening of a new all-solar housing development in the Bay Are suburb of Danville. The "Milano at Monterosso" community is the first of three solar-powered housing projects that Lennar plans to open in the Bay Area this year. Lennar representatives said the company will also construct 650 solar homes in the California town of Roseville, north of Sacramento.

The "standard" solar package for homes in the Danville development is based on a roof-mounted solar electric system from PowerLight, a subsidiary of SunPower Corp. In its promotional video and related materials, SunPower boasts that homeowners will experience savings of 40% to 50% on their energy bills as a result of installing its PowerLight Sun Tile solar energy system. The company also notes that homes such as those in the Milano community employ a variety of energy-saving technologies, as well. These include double-pane windows, high-performance insulation, low-wattage lighting systems and other features.

Lennar and SunPower are participants in the California Energy Commission's New Solar Homes Partnership, a 10-year, $350 million initiative to promote solar power in new residential construction projects. The program is part of a statewide plan to install 400 megawatts of solar power in the next decade. Homebuilders are being offered incentives of $2.60 per watt for systems they install, while home buyer are eligible for a one-time credit of $2,000 off their federal taxes.

Lennar is not the only Bay Area builder emphasizing solar homes. Home builders such as Centex have also integrated solar power into new residential developments there, but Lennar is the first to promise installation of solar systems in all of its new homes in the region. 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Its too soon for solar...
By daftrok on 2/27/2007 2:21:24 AM , Rating: 1
Its too soon for solar to be available to households. They need to mass produce it for business and manufacturing companies first. The benefits will be more if used there. For now there are 4 things people can do for their homes: Buy CFL light bulbs, get double pane windows or get the special laminate that keeps heat from escaping the home and heat entering, wrap your water heater with the special blankets during winter, and insulate your home (get special filters, etc.). These four things can cut down your home electricity usage by 15-20 percent and are a lot cheaper. Another thing you can do is to get energy efficient air conditioners and even garage door thresholds: http://www.skymall.com/shopping/detail.htm?pid=102... At this time solar energy for the household is too expensive for most people. Mass producing them for manufacturers and other major structures (Wal-Mart, Fast food restaurants, malls, movie theatres) would benefit much more.




RE: Its too soon for solar...
By Marlowe on 2/27/2007 3:16:14 AM , Rating: 5
I absolutely disagree! Someone should have done this years ago! The sooner it gets wide adoption the better! When it first starts to get mass produced the prices will fall and even more contractors would hopefully follow. This is as good a start as any.

You know, our family has a small, old cabin up in the mountains with no connection to the power grid. A couple of years ago we installed a system with a small solar panel (about 1x2 feet) hooked up to a controller and a couple of car batteries in paralell. We also put up 12-volt lighting in the cabin, so now we have lights all day and night the whole year.

If this is possible here in above-the-polar-circle Norway I really don't understand why a similar system couldn't be installed in normal houses! And no, the cost is really not a good excuse :) Firstly, its initial cost would just be a tiny percentage of the entire houses, and second you would save on, eliminate or invert your electricity bills :)


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By daftrok on 2/27/2007 4:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
I would rather have major companies invest in using this first to bring the price down before bringing it to the masses. Businesses use much more energy than households and the benefits of solar will be greater there. And you stated a tiny percentage? Solar panels cost roughly 30-40 thousand dollars (to fully power your house a la solar would reach the near 80 thousand) making this a VERY significant percentage. At this time it would be easier (and cheaper) to just use the energy tips and let the businesses use solar to bring down the cost for households.


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By Thrasherlife on 2/27/2007 5:32:36 PM , Rating: 1
$30-40k is around 5% of the price of a home in these areas of California so I'd say its a small percentage.


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By hubajube on 2/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Its too soon for solar...
By Justin Case on 2/27/2007 8:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of business has enough roof area to power all its production line? If there's one segment where solar really isn't an option, that's industry. Industry will always need external power supplies. As will large cities. Homes are the prime candidates for full solar power (large roof area, low power consumption).

And since when does the use of anything by businesses bring down the cost for consumers? If anything, it's always been the other way around. Look at pro graphics cards, for example. Did they get cheaper? No, it was the consumer cards that got faster, simply because there was a much bigger volume and more competition.


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By Calin on 2/28/2007 2:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
Industries use a lot more energy - but they have also a lot less area where they could install solar panels. Homes would use much less electricity, and have available a higher surface for electricity generation.
As an example, a huge office building, 10-stories tall, will have a tenth of its floor surface available for solar panels. In moderate latitudes (45 North, let's say), the angle of the sun reduces the effectiveness to some 70%. Meanwhile, a house (single story) would have a higher proportionate area of solar panels per usable space, and the roof would be better directed to sun.
Even so, the cheapest way to use solar energy would be solar water heaters (but not necessarily so useful all year long)


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By Grast on 2/28/2007 10:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
daftrok,

The economics of solar power for homes is a complex issue. In California, the price of solar is expensive due to state rebates (acctually raised the price), mandated state licensed installers (in order to qualify for electrical rebates and on-the-grid systems), and price gougeing.

I think installing solar on every house especially in regions which have the weather to support is a great idea. Just to give you an example: A 8K solar system on your house will typcially generate enought power to remove from your bill all the components of the house except the air conditioner. I have personal friends which in the middle of summer are paying $13-20 a month for electricity. In the winter, they are paying nothing and sometimes depending on the weather getting money back.

The issue is your point of the large cost of solar systems, 30-40K. You are correct that is too much. I believe since the state is messing with the free market already by offering 12-15K rebates which by the way simple raize the price not lower. The state should mandate the profit margin for state licensed installers. The would lower the cost with the exception of hard physical cost and hopefully make solar more economical for home owners. However, I have a better idea.

Regardless of the economics in california if a system was to cost 15-18K for a 6-8k solar system, the owner could recoup their costs in 10 years. Plus take pride (equal smug alert, hheehehe) in knowing their helping the environment.

In regards to Lennar, the solar systems are only 2.5K systems. Absolutely worthless and just a marketing gymic to get home owners in due to slowing new home sales.

Later...


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By StevoLincolnite on 2/27/2007 7:47:46 AM , Rating: 3
To soon? I think not, luckily Australians know the benefit of Solar, And Wind Power (At least in South Australia) Alot of public places like toilets etc. Are becoming self cleaning, And are solar powered, I know at one time there was some talk about solar panels on every street light, A multi million (Billion?) dollar wind farm was built here as well, Solar Panels aren't actually that expensive, For a 12v Car Battery charger (It charges car battery's ;)) Costs about 20 bucks. It gives the car enough charge to jump start.
I know people who have solar Power on they're homes and sometimes they actually get paid money, As the solar panels energy goes back into the grid, Mind you they are very energy conscious, Now It may become compulsory to have energy efficient globes here in Australia.


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By TomZ on 2/27/2007 10:24:31 AM , Rating: 2
Solar and wind are fine for generating small amounts of electricity. But to power a home requires a $30-40K investment in solar cells and related equipment, which is quite a bit different than your $20 example. I think this illustrates the real problem - it's not a question of will or desire on the part of consumers, but it is a problem of economics. Most families simply cannot afford such an investment.


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By qualme on 2/27/2007 10:58:37 AM , Rating: 2
This is California right? Average house costs $500,000 right? $30-40k is a mere drop compared to that.


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By TomZ on 2/27/2007 11:02:38 AM , Rating: 3
The relative cost has nothing to do with its acceptance. The acceptance is tied to the number of years to "break even" from the investment. After all, even folks buying $500K homes can probably think of other things to do with that money.


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By qualme on 2/27/2007 11:55:26 AM , Rating: 3
maybe use the $10k wallpaper instead of the $15k wallpaper or the $20k faucets instead of the $30k ones. value is subjective and who can say if solor panels will raise the value of a house more than the current faucet fad.

all i'm trying to say is that acceptance has nothing to do with cost, it has everything to do with what is currently "fashionable".


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2007 1:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
But a $40K solar system won't power your home entirely, not even close to it. It'll simply allow you reduce your utility bill somewhat. And that $40K isn't a one-time cost either. Solar systems also require maintenance and, for solar cells, degeneration and total replacement every 15-20 years.


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By RogueSpear on 2/27/2007 2:18:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But a $40K solar system won't power your home entirely, not even close to it.

I'm not certain how you arrive at this conclusion, but some folks I've known for years in Florida spent $30K - before rebates and incentives - and for most of the year they are actually generating a surplus of electricity. This is with air conditioning and all of the other common conveniences. Additionally they do heat their water with a seperate solar system that is specifically made for that purpose.

I don't know the brand name of panels they purchased or the contractor that performed the installation, but the setup is pretty impressive. And when the power goes out they usually don't even realize it.


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By TomZ on 2/27/2007 2:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
Most existing homes don't use electricity for heat and hot water - most use natural gas or heating oil (especially in the North). So that makes an upgrade to an existing home even more costly if you want to convert entirely to solar.

If you are building a new home, then you can design it to be all-electric; however, in that case it pushes out your break-even time since, e.g., natural gas is cheaper per BTU than electricity.


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By RogueSpear on 2/27/2007 2:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
Where I live in the northeast, yes we use natural gas for heating, hot water, oven, etc. Where my Mom and this couple with the solar installation live in Florida, natural gas is not an option. The closest thing would be propane I believe.


RE: Its too soon for solar...
By ttowntom on 2/27/2007 2:36:49 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but I call BS on this. There's no way in the world that's true, not even with a system costing twice as much. The batteries alone for a system large enough to power a house during the night would cost more than $30K.

Here's a link to a solar system estimator. A 5kW system costs, before rebates and incentives, $35,000. The estimated savings is $423/year. That's $35/month off a $200/month power bill.

http://www.srpnet.com/environment/solar/home/calcu...

5KW might sound like a lot...but thats peak power production. Evening, mornings, and during storms/cloudy weather, it'll be considerably less. At nighttime, it'll be zero, of course.

With a $30K system, your friends might generate a small amount of surplus power for a couple hours a day, during part of the year. The rest of the time, they'll be sucking deeply from the grid.


RE: Its too soon for solar...