×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Solar Panels Increase Home Value

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the nimby-schmimby dept.

Earth 352

blair1q writes "Venture Beat reports that a study (PDF) by Berkeley National Labs has found that homes sold in California earned a premium for solar panels. The benefit ranged from $3900 to $6400 per kW of capacity. An earlier study found that proximity to solar or wind power may also raise home values. These results contradict the arguments based on degrading home values used by putative NIMBY (Not In My Back-Yard) opponents to installing or living near such energy-generating equipment."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

352 comments

Makes Sense (5, Insightful)

DWMorse (1816016) | about 3 years ago | (#35917398)

Makes total sense. If I was looking at houses, and the prior owners had installed a hot tub, earning them a glare or two from neighbors in the process, I would also pay a little extra for that amenity too. Duh. Beneficial improvement raises value.

Re:Makes Sense (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917444)

Makes total sense.

But then the "econutters" would be right and there's a whole contingent of people out there who are going to go burn tires just to show them who's boss.

Time after time, conservationists say "we think you should X because it will save the world". Opponents say "You gaia-worshipping econutters can't tell us what to do, we're going to burn a tire just for you". Companies turn off their lights at night and discover that they are saving 25% on their electric bill. Or they recycle and discover they're saving on their raw material costs. The list goes on and on. Sure, there are some crazy suggestions out there, and sadly some of them have gotten backed by the government (like the incandescent bulb ban), when they haven't gotten completely redirected for the profit of some small group (corn-and-corn-only ethanol springs to mind, though I wouldn't be surprised to find out that GE sponsored a number of the anti-incandescent bulb legislators).

Re:Makes Sense (2, Interesting)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917584)

Time after time, conservationists say "we think you should X because it will save the world". Opponents say "You gaia-worshipping econutters can't tell us what to do, we're going to burn a tire just for you". Companies turn off their lights at night and discover that they are saving 25% on their electric bill. Or they recycle and discover they're saving on their raw material costs. The list goes on and on. Sure, there are some crazy suggestions out there, and sadly some of them have gotten backed by the government (like the incandescent bulb ban), when they haven't gotten completely redirected for the profit of some small group (corn-and-corn-only ethanol springs to mind, though I wouldn't be surprised to find out that GE sponsored a number of the anti-incandescent bulb legislators).

There's three main schools of thought for enviromentalism - the nutty Gaia-worshiping dirty hippies (who believe many crazy things against science), the Greenwashing Corporation Movement (pretending to be environmental to save money on dyes, water, etc., while diverting attention from the crazy Gaia-worshipers), and the enlightened self-interest people.

I fall into the latter camp. I think global warming is a real problem. I also won't give up driving a car, and biking to work (which is a 5.5 hour drive in my car, twice a month), or taking public transportation, or any of the other nonsensical things that hippies suggest we should do for Earth day. (Dirty hippies start with the indoctrination of the young: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfYawbcBGQ&feature=player_embedded [youtube.com]) But I don't, you know, hate the environment. I go backpacking a lot, never litter, and so forth. But I put solar on my home solely for economic reasons (the CO2 reduction is just gravy) - if I can generate power myself at half the rate PG&E charges me, why shouldn't I do it?

The right wing rejects the science behind global warming because they don't want to give up their cars.
The left wing thinks that global warming means we have to give up our cars, or suggest other similarly impractical or nonsensical things (like driving hybrids).
Both sides are wrong.

The Shaka Energy Plan: It is possible to reduce America's CO2 levels by 50%, which would meet every CO2 target imaginable (and do much better than just stabilization, which a lot of accords shoot for), simply by targeting our power generation. Replace coal and gas with nuclear (and wind and solar when economical), which won't raise energy rates. Use our gas to power public transportation, and coal to power our cars. No more foreign energy imports, and we can even pat ourselves on the heads for being good little dirty hippies for our massive CO2 reduction.

Re:Makes Sense (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917640)

[......] the enlightened [......] people.

I fall into the latter camp.

Of course you do!

Re:Makes Sense (3, Insightful)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917676)

Actually the climate scientists are pretty much saying we need 80% to 100% GHG (CO2...) emissions reductions soon to avoid potentially catastrophic warming.

Your enlightenment may be on the blink.

Also, your stereotype and cliche filter probably needs replacing.

Re:Makes Sense (4, Interesting)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917784)

Yes, climate scientists are saying we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 85% to stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we emit much more than that, we will emit more carbon dioxide per year than the carbon cycle can absorb, and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will continue to rise and the temperature will continue to rise. So we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80-90% at some point.

There is some disagreement about how much time we have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80-90% to avoid catastrophic warming (and by catastrophic, I don't mean "ZOFMG we're all gonna die!"). How long it takes us to reduce emissions will determine the concentration at which we stabilize, which will in turn determine how much the temperature rises. For example, if we stabilize at 550 ppm, we will have doubled the concentration of carbon dioxide. There is uncertainty about whether this will lead to a mere 1.5 degree Celsius increase (which isn't too bad) or a 4 degree Celsius increase (which would be pretty bad). The most reasonable course of action would be to play it safe, just in case the actual warming is on the high side of our estimates. If we start reducing carbon dioxide emissions and realize we don't need to cut them so quickly, we can always cut them more slowly. If we wait until we realize that we need to cut them dramatically or that we're already too late, then we're SOL.

Re:Makes Sense (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917702)

I think your explanation of why the right wing doesn't want to accept global warming or that it makes sense to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is because they think we'll suffer. You're essentially right in saying that we don't need to suffer at all, just change how we generate electricity.

You're missing the part efficiency plays, however. By using more efficient lighting and appliances, driving higher gas mileage cars, and living and working in buildings with more insulation, we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by simply not using as much energy in the first place. We'll hardly notice any difference, except for the different types of light bulbs or perhaps charging up the car instead of refueling it.

You're also off in how much we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We don't need to cut them in half; we need to reduce them by 80% or more. That's why Obama set a goal of 80% of our energy from non-emitting sources by 2035 [jetsongreen.com].

Re:Makes Sense (3, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917860)

Somewhere back in the late 80's the right wing recognised the coal industry were facing extinction and have reacted by conducting a major disinformation campaign to convince their followers to act against their own best interest, it has worked spectacularly well. Somewhat ironically their hero Ronald Reagan was instrumental in creating the internation cap and trade system for sulphur emmission in order to reduce acid rain, that also worked spectaularly well.

Re:Makes Sense (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35918108)

Efficiency is important. However, banning the use of Incandescent light bulbs because they're 1% efficient at generating light is stupid. The other 99% of the energy isn't lost in some magical fairy land.

My lamps happen to also heat my house, which means I don't have to have the thermostat up too high.

Re:Makes Sense (2)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917706)

Cutting America's CO2 levels by 50% would merely put you in the middle of the current European pack, it's not nearly enough... We in Europe need to seriously curtail our CO2 emissions, and you guys need to double your efforts to get down to the same levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita [wikipedia.org]

Re:Makes Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35918008)

Yes, based on that list, we should all strive to emit carbon dioxide like china.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918454)

Well yes, per capita China produces less CO2 than any western country, or at least they did in 2007, they may have passed Switzerland by now. The truth is the Chinese are investing more in clean tech than pretty much anyone else, but unlike the west they have a very quickly growing economy.

Re:Makes Sense (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918548)

Yes, based on that list, we should all strive to emit carbon dioxide like china.

Yes, please! If the US did this then its emissions would drop to less than one quarter of the current levels. I know that it is fashionable to consider China as the big bogeyman for carbon emissions (because it helps us avoid doing anything about this problem ourselves), but really they are not worse - just bigger than everyone else.

Re:Makes Sense (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918142)

There's three main schools of thought for enviromentalism

1. the nutty Gaia-worshiping dirty hippies (who believe many crazy things against science)

2. the Greenwashing Corporation Movement (pretending to be environmental to save money on dyes, water, etc., while diverting attention from the crazy Gaia-worshipers)

3. and the enlightened self-interest people.

bias? what bias?

I fall into the latter camp.

As somebody else has already said.. of course you do *pat pat*.

But I don't think you actually do. I think you fall into category number two. Let's re-state the gist of it:
pretending to be environmental to save money

Now let's look at your claims:

I think global warming is a real problem.

Alright! Admitting there's a problem is the first step.

I also won't give up driving a car

Nobody says you have to - though some may take issue with the 'gas guzzler' type. Clearly driving a car can be a necessity.

and biking to work (which is a 5.5 hour drive in my car, twice a month),

Bit of a grammar fail there. I'm going to guess that you meant you won't be biking to work, rather than not giving that up.
A 5.5 hour drive to work is a bit much. Even a 9-5 job would be pretty much undoable. But you say it's only twice a month, so I suspect this is a far cry from a 9-5 job.

or taking public transportation, or any of the other nonsensical things that hippies suggest we should do for Earth day.

I'm pretty sure the hippies - be they dirty or otherwise - suggest people take the bike or public transport, when feasible, every day. Not just on Earth day. Clearly, it's not feasible for you to bike to work. But when you need a pack of batteries, do you take the car 10 blocks down the road to a store, or do you get on the bike? That's the type of thing where taking a bike is feasible.
I also presume that public transport can't take you to work those 2 times a month, or that you have personal issues with the mode of transport (U.S. buses are quite different from the ones in Western Europe, and I'd think twice about being in a Greyhound for 5.5 hours, too.)

But I don't, you know, hate the environment. I go backpacking a lot, never litter, and so forth.

Well there's a bit of a difference between hating the environment and going out of your way to take care of the environment.
Backpacking may be enjoying the environment, but it doesn't do much for the care of said environment other than park services and the like tending to hiking routes.. but that's park services, and not you.
Similarly, I'm glad you don't litter. But when you see litter, do you pick it up and put it in a trashbin? If all you do is 'not litter'.. again, that's not doing much for the environment at all.

This covers the pretending to be environmental clause of category 2. You're not actually being environmental, but you like to suggest that you are by not going out of your way to affect said environment negatively.

But I put solar on my home solely for economic reasons (the CO2 reduction is just gravy) - if I can generate power myself at half the rate PG&E charges me, why shouldn't I do it?

And this doesn't really need a detailed exposition. This is the to save money clause of category 2 and overlaps with the earlier clause. You're not doing anything for the environment, you're doing it for the money. You say it yourself, 'the CO2 reduction is just gravy'.

To top it off, Bill, your Shaka Energy Plan is all about having zero individual, personal, responsibility (let the energy companies figure it out) or burden (won't raise energy rates). In your own words, why shouldn't you support such a plan ( having slapped your name on it aside ;) ).

Re:Makes Sense (1)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918298)

5.5 hours by car is... Irregular working conditions.

Biking to school/work is manageable for a significant portion of the populace, and is actually faster than driving in some cities.

Also Enlightened Self-interest of getting precious exercise.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918520)

Your enlightened self-interest only seems to go one level deep in the best case.

What you're speaking of here isn't really environmentalism, it's just common decency at most.

It's certainly not too bad, but I don't find it all that commendable. After all, if everybody stopped their thinking at level 1 (themselves), we'd quickly find ourselves in a crappy situation. Take for instance indiscriminately throwing trash into the river you drink from. On an individual level that works out because your contribution is small compared to the river. Yet enough people doing that can easily poison the river until the water isn't drinkable anymore. To prevent outcomes like that we must think of more than the most immediate outcomes of our actions.

I find it interesting that you seem to think further down regarding garbage than regarding CO2. Why do you make a distinction? What is it about littering that makes you not need an economical reason not to do it, that doesn't apply to CO2 emissions?

Re:Makes Sense (3, Insightful)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917824)

Hmmm. "Eco-nutter". I'm trying to think of an equally derogatory term for those who don't value eco-system integrity and the environment.

Let's see, how about:
"Lemming" - as in those who are convinced it is fine to keep on running this way.
"Genocidal maniac" - as in those who don't mind exterminating species and decimating future human well-being and population for the sake of comfort.
"Ostrich" - as in "head in the tar sands" is clearly the best strategy.
"Bio-blivious" - as in those who can't grasp or irrationally deny that we are a biological species in the context of a complex eco-system.
"Money Eaters" - putting dollars before sense - as in those who think that money is more valuable than everything else, and are pretty sure they will be able to eat money after ecologically produced food supplies dwindle and clean water systems are used up.
"Shopbots" - uncritical zombie-like over-consumers of wasteful or harmful products of the unsustainable economy.
"Neo-convicts" guilty of environmentally criminal industrial, land development, or resource extraction acts, and of of not understanding or deliberately closing their eyes to the fact that the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.

                         

Re:Makes Sense (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918308)

I ask you, if we find that all this pollution is holding off an Ice Age, what do we get to call you?

Re:Makes Sense (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918594)

I ask you, if we find that all this pollution is holding off an Ice Age, what do we get to call you?

If we were maintainung the status quo thn this would be reasonable. But we are not. The world is getting hotter. It is like trying to stop ourselves from getting cold by setting fire to ourselves. It is not the sane thing to do.

To suggest that we do this would put you straight into the original eco-nutter category.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918584)

But then the "econutters" would be right and there's a whole contingent of people out there who are going to go burn tires just to show them who's boss.

Still, I figure 'most' people out there are halfway sane. My installing a hot tub, or a solar electric system might not make fiscal sense for me, but if I come across a house with it I'll be willing to pay more because it's either a nice feature or it'll save me money in the future.

'Green' Features reduce or replace energy usage. I'm considering a solar hot water heater for my house, I've recommended them to my family(I'm in Alaska, they're in Florida).

What sort of increase would I be willing to pay? Depends a lot. Would that amount be more or less than what they paid? At this time - probably less. Still, estimates for a professionally installed solar electric system are around $4-6/watt, all in, so it looks like they are indeed getting most of their money back if they sell.

Which covers your butt if you put them in and end up having to sell. Heck, at those prices, if I was a developer, I'd consider installing them in the next subdivision I build.

Re:Makes Sense (4, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917504)

I was thinking precisely the same thing. It doesn't explain the older study's conclusions, though: "...an additional study conducted by the government in 2009, found that home prices were either unaffected or rose based on proximity to renewable energy sources like wind power turbines and solar panels." - unless I'm misunderstanding, that's talking about solar/wind facilities nearby, not installed on the house in question as in the Berkeley study. I can't work out why that would raise property prices; it's not like you have to take your Prius to the nearest power plant to pick up a jug of fresh-squeezed eco-energy, after all. All I can think is that maybe there's a common cause. Good conditions for power generation could coincide with desirable features for a property location, I guess.

Re:Makes Sense (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917558)

For me it would be a bonus because it would mean the land is likely to remain relatively undeveloped instead of filling in with more suburbs.

Re:Makes Sense (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917628)

For me, when I pass by a wind farm, it brings a smile to my face. I'm happy that here is something being done about global warming and the upcoming energy crisis. The report suggests that feel good factor results in increased property values. Makes sense.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918354)

Since I was a kid, wind farms brought a smile to my face. Not because of the power concerns, but because they are giant art exihbits. If they didn't do anything useful, people would rave about how cool they are and declare them "Art". A wind farm is basically a field full of giant pinwheels. How cool is that!

Re:Makes Sense (1)

RicktheBrick (588466) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918522)

The county I live in Michigan is doing everything it can to stop the windmills from being built here. They have already voted down a proposals to build the windmills offshore in Lake Michigan. The people who are mostly here only in the summer consider the windmills in the lake to be a eyesore. Now when they are trying to build them on land, they are trying to severely limit the sound and have a large area between the windmill and any other owned property. The land area will be huge if one must own all the land within a quarter of a mile of a windmill. Some people are complaining that the windmill could break and throw piece into their homes or ice could build up on the vanes and be thrown into their houses. I see that GE has a plan for better windmills which should be available at the end of this year so maybe it is better for the local energy company to wait until all the issues have been solved.

Re:Makes Sense (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918136)

Beneficial improvement raises value.

But what are you going to do when one of those solar panels fails and leaks solar radiation all over? It won't be so good for property values when there's a Level 7 solar panel disaster.

I hear there was a leak at one of the wind farms and now they're finding wind residue in the water supply over a five-mile radius.

I think we better stick with nuclear energy: Clean, Safe, and Too Cheap to Meter!

Re:Makes Sense (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918376)

Usually, though, hot tubs, pools, and other extensive "features" don't add value. They all age, are expensive to reapir, and limit the home's resale appeal to peole who want those kind of features.

The same is true of elaborate home automation or HVAC solutions. My guess is a solar power add-on that offered a substantial cut in power bills on a monthly basis with minimal maintenance costs might be a wash at best; anything less that, it's just an albatross to a buyer, something he doesn't want that will cost him money; some might even a demand a sale price discount equal to the cost of removing it.

The brand names of products or installers are also not there for these products. It's not like you buy a GE Profile solar power systems installed by the local plumbing or electrical installer. I'm sure theres good gear and installers, but because it's still growing they aren't common knowledge nor do many have a long history.

A geek or a solar power guy may pay a premium, but I think most home buyers would not pay any premium for a house with solar power. Yet; I think some kind of home generation technology will probably become a necessity eventually.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918464)

If home generation technology ever becomes a necessity our power delivery infrastructure will have failed. In which case there will be bigger things to worry about than the housing market.

vs. the alternative fuel methods (3, Interesting)

jroysdon (201893) | about 3 years ago | (#35917412)

It sure beats living by nukes, coal plants, tire burning plants, etc., eh? Even a natural gas power generation plant isn't nice to live by. Plus, you don't have to worry about the neighbors being noisy.

Re:vs. the alternative fuel methods (0)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917576)

Plus, you don't have to worry about the neighbors being noisy.

Cemetery's have that perk too!

Re:vs. the alternative fuel methods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917726)

Plus, you don't have to worry about the neighbors being noisy.

Cemetery's have that perk too!

No they don't. Always with the Taps those cemetery's.

Re:vs. the alternative fuel methods (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917592)

I sure wouldn't mind living near a geothermal power plant like most Icelanders do. Instead of just electricity, you can also get piped-in waste heat, and who wouldn't want this [google.com] in their backyard? :) Most power generation methods's waste causes long-lasting environmental or health problems. Geothermal's waste causes health spas. ;)

Re:vs. the alternative fuel methods (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917906)

How convenient to ignore the dark underbelly of geothermal [dailymail.co.uk].. apocalyptic indeed.. you'll never see a coal plant do that.. This [ouramazingplanet.com] is what happens when you hand it over to BP.

Re:vs. the alternative fuel methods (1)

Kizor (863772) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918048)

No, that's the dark underbelly of having huge-ass volcanoes around. As long as there's no solution to that, possibly involving enormous straws, folks are pretty much stuck with it. Volcanic geothermal power is a fully positive method with painful prerequisites.

Thanks for the pictures, though.

Re:vs. the alternative fuel methods (3, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917650)

It sure beats living by nukes, coal plants, tire burning plants, etc., eh?

If I were on my roof, I could see a nuclear power plant. Doesn't bother me at all.

If a coal plant were over there, I'd have moved years ago. Ditto tire-burning.

Re:vs. the alternative fuel methods (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917872)

It sure beats living by nukes, coal plants, tire burning plants, etc., eh?

If I were on my roof, I could see a nuclear power plant. Doesn't bother me at all.

In most of the world, I'd agree with you. I'd be perfectly happy to live next door to nukes if I lived in the eastern 3/4ths of the country, or most of Europe or...a lot of other places. As we just saw in Japan, though, the Pacific Rim/ring of fire may not be the best place for your nuclear plants. And Berkeley is very much on an active fault line. If I lived in Berkeley, I think I'd have strong reservations about living next door to nukes.

Right after the Japan quake/tsunami, the news folks tried to tell us that California's two existing nuclear plants should be no cause for concern, because they're rated for a 7.0 and a 7.5, respectively. Um, guys? We just saw a 9.0 in Japan--two orders of magnitude greater than our margin of safety here. How am I supposed to be reassured? (Not that I live close enough to either plant to worry, but still...)

Re:vs. the alternative fuel methods (1)

the gnat (153162) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918418)

If I lived in Berkeley, I think I'd have strong reservations about living next door to nukes.

Fortunately, the voters of Berkeley passed a law back in 1986 declaring the city a "nuclear-free zone", which guarantees that we will continue to get our electricity from hippie-friendly sources such as wind and solar. . . and gas and oil, of course (don't know about coal - I hope not). They even have signs announcing their moral purity at various roads into the city. True story: a couple of years ago, the public library's book scanners needed servicing, but the company that made them had recently been bought by 3M, which does nuclear power work elsewhere. As a result, the library was semi-crippled until the city council could pass an emergency waiver allowing 3M to fix the scanners.

(That said, of course I agree with you - I live and work almost on top of the Hayward Fault. The two reactors used for consumer electricity are far to the south, however, where AFAIK there isn't a history of catastrophic earthquakes. There are actually a couple of smaller reactors near the Bay Area, at least one of which is in Livermore, but these are relatively tiny and used for research purposes.)

Re:vs. the alternative fuel methods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35918540)

I'd rather live by a nuclear plant and have electricity on cloudy days.

Yep (3, Insightful)

ShooterNeo (555040) | about 3 years ago | (#35917430)

This is one of the reasons why it's supposed to be worth it to install solar in some places. There's heavy subsidies that bring down the cost, and electricity rates are extremely high during parts of the day in California. And you get your money back instantly when you install the panels, because if you were to sell the house the next day, the sale price would be boosted by the value of the panels.

Well, that's what they say, at least, and this article seems to prove it.

Re:Yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917616)

That's what they say. There are plenty of companies selling and installing solar panels in Califonria.

These companies will use Federal and State credits which allow you to lower the TCO. Considering the energy savings, the amortized cost also drops. All of these are wonderful until you think 10 years into the future. In ten years, the solar panel technology will get better and cheaper. In the mean time, the solar panels installed today may fail. The "lifetime" warranty applies only to the company that performs the installation which can easily go bankrupt as they are often resellers or subcontracting outfits.

I'd love to install a solar panel system but I don't see the cost benefit YET. Installers get their money, the sales guy gets their money and the solar panel people get their money up front and in full. Me? I have to pay for it all or most of it and I won't reap the reward until another economic cycle.

I know one guy who has solar panels and a wind turbine in his backyard but he is also in East Texas with a large plot of land. Me? Suburban guy with .2 acres and three computers + lights.

Re:Yep (2)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917772)

Well, I looked in to it myself. The best case scenario is you DIY, half for the fun of tinkering with it. If you DIY, and get the panels from sunelec.com (the cheapest place I have found so far), and install them yourself (all but the last step - get an electrician to sign off on your wiring and do the final connection to the grid) it's a pretty good deal. You'd break even in 5 or 6 years at 10 cents a kilowatt hour.

Re:Yep (1)

dch24 (904899) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918120)

sunelec.com? You're getting taken in. Sorry you bought from them! (If that's what you did.)

Try googling for "3x6 DIY solar cells"

Re:Yep (2)

Pstrobus (149491) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918134)

In ten years, the solar panel technology will get better and cheaper.

Yes, and ten years from then they will be even better and cheaper, so what? If you don't do something because it'll be even better in th future, you do nothing today. So, while you could be offsetting some of your energy costs now and for ten years into the future, you are instead paying the same While-U-Wait.

Strawman opposition destroyed! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35917438)

Sorry, but people arguing from a NIMBY perspective have never claimed that domestic solar power degrades home values. This is simply an attempt to attribute a completely illogical and unreasonable opposition to someone.

It's likely that many NIMBY opponents have argued against wind farms based on a) their own personal taste as to what they can see outside their window, b) a perception that house prices will be affected negatively if what you see (and hear) are wind farms.

If it's their own personal taste it comes to then arguments about house prices aren't very relevant and don't contradict any arguments - if it's house prices it comes to then the study referred to in the article isn't highly precise, as it doesn't track house prices through time. You would usually only see wind farms from locations with great views, and hear them in a somewhat larger radius, hence a simple "do houses close to wind farms sell for less at this point in time" would be difficult to make accurate.

Re:Strawman opposition destroyed! (0)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917608)

The strawman never saw it coming. They never do.

Think of the strawmen, people! Thousands, nay, millions of scarecrows being massacred constantly by unscrupulous argument tactics! Murderers and probably also child rapists walk our streets, unpunished for their crimes against these defenseless innocents!

Re:Strawman opposition destroyed! (1)

kf6auf (719514) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918344)

I have heard it argued by a realtor that solar panels do not increase the value of the home as buyers tend to underestimate the remaining lifetime of the product. Of course, that was anecdotal and not a study with stated error bars.

Re:Strawman opposition destroyed! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35918592)

That was my first thought too. There is absolutely no comparison between a house with solar panels on it, and a house next to a wind farm.

Re:Strawman opposition destroyed! (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918654)

Sorry, but people arguing from a NIMBY perspective have never claimed that domestic solar power degrades home values. This is simply an attempt to attribute a completely illogical and unreasonable opposition to someone.

My HOA has a restriction against solar panels, with a justification/explanation that it would lower the values of nearby homes.

My anecdote beats your "never" and I win.

Cost to install (2)

meza (414214) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917448)

The article mentions an avarage cost of $5000 to install 1 kW of solar, so it seems like a pretty good investment overall.

Re:Cost to install (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917588)

5k WHERE....?

I have been pricing this sort of thing out. Try more along the likes of 15k per KW. It would cost you 12-14k just for the panels. Not including all the extra hardware and install costs.

WITH subsidies you might get there. 30% fed btw. Many states also have them.

Re:Cost to install (1)

Kentari (1265084) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917634)

Your pricing is way outdated. Pricing here in Belgium runs from 3 to 5 Euros per Watt peak installed including inverter. The pricing is mostly depending on the type of panels (cheap Chinese or high efficiency panels) and contractor. I just looked into it, these are actual values of offerings for household installations of 3 kW. This price is actually inflated by heavy subsidies (tax benefits and green power certificates for 20 years of 330 euros per MWh produced) driving up demand massively.

Re:Cost to install (1)

raygundan (16760) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918320)

Where the heck are your numbers from? In the US, full price for our 7kW system, installed, before any subsidies was $40k, or $5700/kW. This was two years ago, and used high-efficiency panels rather than the cheapest per kW, and things have gotten a bit cheaper since on top of that. That number includes everything. I don't think $5k per kW is unreasonable at all.

Re:Cost to install (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918386)

About the same here. Pre-subsidy cost for our 10kW/h system was $55000. Post-subsidy is $17000.

(Subsidies include writing off tax rebates and SRX credits.)

Re:Cost to install (2, Informative)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917622)

It's closer to $6k per kW in my next of the woods (that's why I paid), but I'm sure you can find a company to do it for $5k. I went with a company that had done some installations in my neighborhood, though, and had a pretty good reputation.

If you don't want to pay the money up front, you take out a loan, and use the monthly savings on your power bill to pay off the loan. As long as you're paying more than 24c/kWh you'll run a net positive balance, and end up with a solar system of your own after 10 years.

There's companies that will actually do this for you - they'll install the system on your house for free, and then just sell you the power out of it. Here in California, if you're running in the high tier power rates, it's a good investment. They also lock in your power rate at a fixed price, whereas PG&E tends to raise rates one or twice a year. There's really no downside to doing this, unless you're planning on reducing your power consumption and/or expect PG&E to lower their rates in the future.

Re:Cost to install (1)

DarkTempes (822722) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917810)

Too bad electricity only costs me ~$0.08/kWh in Louisiana...

Re:Cost to install (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35918080)

Unlikely to stay that price over the 25 yr warranty of polysilicon modules, which will pay for themselves at 0.08/kwh if you install it yourself and pay an electrician for the hookup.

Re:Cost to install (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35918076)

As long as you're paying more than 24c/kWh you'll run a net positive balance, and end up with a solar system of your own after 10 years.

And there's the problem with affording green technology. I currently pay 4c/kWh.

Re:Cost to install (1)

Jerrry (43027) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918366)

"It's closer to $6k per kW in my next of the woods (that's why I paid), but I'm sure you can find a company to do it for $5k. I went with a company that had done some installations in my neighborhood, though, and had a pretty good reputation."

That's close to what mine cost ($80K for 12.5 KW). Even in summer with all 3 air conditioners running, my electric meter is still running backwards. Even it winter it's usually generating more power than we're using, expect on dark overcast or rainy days.

"Property Prices" is code. (4, Insightful)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917452)

These results contradict the arguments based on degrading home values used by [...] opponents

Members of home associations that ban solar panels aren't really arguing that panels lower property prices, they're arguing "I don't want to see it". It's the same with most HA rules aimed at "protecting property values".

Re:"Property Prices" is code. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917508)

Spot on. With this report in hand, they'll start arguing that solar panels improve home value too much and it will be unfair to your neighbors.

Homeowner Associations are the bane of actual homeowners everywhere, and if it wasn't for the fact that your choices are to either live on a ranch in the middle of Texas or drop trou, take it up the ass like a man, and live in a homeowner-association-owned dwelling within 30 miles of a city, I wouldn't touch an HA with a 10 foot pole. As it is, I'll just rent and not pretend like I own the place. At least I can shop around for an apartment complex with a landlord who isn't a 70 year old ninny with nothing better to do than nitpick every last little deed restriction.

Re:"Property Prices" is code. (1, Interesting)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917532)

>>Members of home associations that ban solar panels aren't really arguing that panels lower property prices, they're arguing "I don't want to see it"

Fortunately, here in California, it's explicitly illegal for HOAs to ban solar panel installations. They can hem and haw all they want (my HOA demanded to see the plans before "approving" installation), but they cannot stop you from putting it in, no matter what the CCNRs actually say.

To be fair, there's issues with some solar panels (highly reflective chrome surfaces can shine brilliant light into other people's houses, creating a nuisance), but most installations these days are a nice black matte,

Re:"Property Prices" is code. (1)

AfroTrance (984230) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917880)

There are reflective PV solar panels? I thought they would all be black matte, considering this absorbs the most light.

Re:"Property Prices" is code. (1)

raygundan (16760) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918338)

The cells are mostly pretty dark-- but there's lots of cells on a panel, and they're often octagonal and have gaps in between. SunPower, for example, has two nearly identical product lines-- one where the gaps between the octagonal cells are just silver-colored aluminum, and one where the panels are a uniform black. A lot of people prefer the look of the latter, but it reduces efficiency somewhat both due to the layer that makes it all a uniform color and because the extra heat absorbed makes them work less effectively.

HOA bans are mostly illegal (3, Informative)

raygundan (16760) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917538)

Most states have specific laws that prevent HOAs from banning solar panels.

That hasn't quite been my experience (3, Interesting)

DRMShill (1157993) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917466)

A few years ago I got a deal from Nevada Power where they paid for half the cost of a 5kwh array. It was working great until work forced me to relocate to another state. I had a hell of a time selling the place because the general public is just not technical enough to appreciate it. One potential buyer got a static shock from the carpet as is common in the dry vegas air. She actuually thought the solar power array caused it! How am I supposed to reason with that kind of stupidity?

Re:That hasn't quite been my experience (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917474)

How am I supposed to reason with that kind of stupidity?

By coercing them to be eligible for a Darwin Award.

Re:That hasn't quite been my experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917478)

Just show them the door and hope they aren't so stupid they fall on their way out.... It's for the best anyway, they likely would have destroyed that equipment eventually.

Re:That hasn't quite been my experience (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918360)

assure her it wasn't the solar panels, just a little residue ionization from the above ground nuclear tests of decades past.

No Kidding (4, Informative)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917520)

No kidding - you put $30k in on a solar system and that raises house prices? Because people don't need to pay extortionate power rates? What a weird concept.

The fact of the matter is, California has the highest power rates in the nation (I'd assign blame in equal parts to NIMBYs, environmentalists, PG&E, the PUC, and our legislature). Running air conditioning in the summer will kick you up into Tier 5 rates, which are currently around 50c/kWh. Getting a four digit power bill for one month is enough to convince even the most ardent anti-environmentalist of the value of solar.

If you run the numbers, rooftop solar has a levelized cost of about 24c/kWh. So it's worth it to build out capacity to meet however much power you use in the higher tier rates (Tiers 3 through 5). You don't necessarily want to run your power bills to zero (Tiers 1 and 2 are subsidized by the higher rates), but if you do, PG&E will write you a check at the end of the year. (How much has yet to be determined.) Schwarzenegger got that pushed through at the end of his term of governor - before that, PG&E would just pocket any excess capacity you generate.

I actually just had solar put in and finally turned on a couple weeks ago. It's nice running a net positive balance with PG&E, though it's still too cool for air conditioning.

Re:No Kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917762)

It is worth it now, since the Gov got that bill passed. When we installed solar about 5 years ago we planned it out to for a net output of 0, since over-producing only benefited PG&E. When we sold that house the solar was a huge bonus in San Francisco. Who really wants to pay PG&E anything? Plus, since the buyers weren't planning on running servers and bunches of computers (like I was), I'm sure they get a tidy little check from PG&E from our solar installation.

Correlation != causation (1)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917552)

People who have money put in solar panels. People who have money ALSO live in rich neighborhoods. Who knew?

Re:Correlation != causation (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917604)

People who have money put in solar panels. People who have money ALSO live in rich neighborhoods. Who knew?

That's what I was wondering. Do these tend to be in newer houses? Houses that have had other improvements?

Did the study correct for such effects?

Re:Correlation != causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35918028)

There are statistics methods to verify whether it's cause/consequence or not. If the researchers didn't consider this, fine, criticize them for being idiots, but don't assume that simply because it could be nothing more than correlation it has to be and you're the only one competent enough to notice it.

Sorry, but I'm tired of seeing this stupid "correlation is not causation" meme (although, to be fair, there are quite a few shitty papers that skip things they shouldn't).

Has nothing to do with NIMBY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917564)

NIMBY is about some big ugly power generation plant, not properly and tastefully installed panels on the roof.

Also, there is no increase in equity unless you ignore subsidies. Without them, solar would be the dopiest investment a homeowner could make.

News flash: fashion items lift house values (3, Interesting)

Snorbert Xangox (10583) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917574)

This is not surprising, but not that encouraging either. If you pay for a bit of fancy landscaping and planting around your house before you sell it, you can often improve your house resale value by much more than the cost of the work. Solar also offers a warm glow of righteousness far out of proportion with energy generated.

Where I live (50km south of Canberra, Australia), we're paying ~20 of your Earth cents for a kWh during the day around here, so if you assume 7kWh per day from a 1kW solar installation (not that hard here, as we get a lot of sun), it takes 14 years to earn back $3900. Electricity will certainly go up in cost during that time, but I wonder whether you wouldn't be better putting $4000 into some safe-ish investment and concentrating on reducing your energy usage instead.

For years, I was holding out for Nanosolar or First Solar to get domestic panels out at somewhere nearer to $2/kW and without so much embodied energy in the panels, but they don't look to be interested in domestic sales. Until then, the only reason that panels are cheap in Australia is because of very high government regulated feed-in tariffs and purchase subsidies, which are just middle-class welfare masquerading as a renewable energy policy.

Until the government killed the program, there were businesses here doing energy efficiency assessments to see if houses qualified for interest free government loans to improve energy efficiency or install solar systems. An interview I heard with one assessor gave the impression that most houses had considerable inefficiency to rectify before it made any sense installing generating capacity. New Australian houses are still much less insulated than new houses in northern Europe or North America, rely too much on resistive electrical heating for the house and for the hot water supply, and the current fashion for building faux-Mediterranean rendered boxes with no roof overhang guarantees high cooling costs in summer. Old Australian houses often had no (as in, ZERO) insulation in them. Visitors from northern Europe are amazed at how uncomfortable and slapdash many of our houses are.

Re:News flash: fashion items lift house values (2)

j-beda (85386) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917886)

Where I live (50km south of Canberra, Australia), we're paying ~20 of your Earth cents for a kWh during the day around here, so if you assume 7kWh per day from a 1kW solar installation (not that hard here, as we get a lot of sun), it takes 14 years to earn back $3900. Electricity will certainly go up in cost during that time, but I wonder whether you wouldn't be better putting $4000 into some safe-ish investment and concentrating on reducing your energy usage instead.

7kWh x $0.20 x 365 = $511/year. That looks like 7.63 years to get to $3900. To "match" that, your $3900 would need to be invested to get a 13.1% yearly return in order to generate $511. 13% is not easy to come by.

One often overlooked factor for energy saving or generating investments is that money saved is equivalent to a tax-free income. If you take your $3900 and manage to get a return of $511/year you would have to pay taxes on that income. I don't really know what the average tax rate is in Australia, but Wikipedia seems to indicate that for every dollar earned over $3700, it is 30% (15% at $6k, 30% at $37k, 37% at $80k and 45% at 180k). Assuming your income is between $37k and $80k, you actually need an investment return of $730 so that when you pay your 30% ($219) you are left with the desired $511. $730 is a bit more than 17.1% of $3900 by the way.

I gather that solar water heating is the real way to make a "safe" investment for most moderate climates like the USA. The systems are very simple and relatively inexpensive. Even in upstate NY, estimates are that 50% of one's water heating can be provided by a solar system. Particularly for those who heat their water with electricity those can be pretty significant cost savings.

But as you say - before any new system is installed, caulking of cracks and insulation (with maybe some shade tree planting for the long term) has an even quicker return on investment.

Re:News flash: fashion items lift house values (1)

Snorbert Xangox (10583) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918020)

Where I live (50km south of Canberra, Australia), we're paying ~20 of your Earth cents for a kWh during the day around here, so if you assume 7kWh per day from a 1kW solar installation (not that hard here, as we get a lot of sun), it takes 14 years to earn back $3900. Electricity will certainly go up in cost during that time, but I wonder whether you wouldn't be better putting $4000 into some safe-ish investment and concentrating on reducing your energy usage instead.

7kWh x $0.20 x 365 = $511/year. That looks like 7.63 years to get to $3900. To "match" that, your $3900 would need to be invested to get a 13.1% yearly return in order to generate $511. 13% is not easy to come by.

One often overlooked factor for energy saving or generating investments is that money saved is equivalent to a tax-free income. If you take your $3900 and manage to get a return of $511/year you would have to pay taxes on that income. I don't really know what the average tax rate is in Australia, but Wikipedia seems to indicate that for every dollar earned over $3700, it is 30% (15% at $6k, 30% at $37k, 37% at $80k and 45% at 180k). Assuming your income is between $37k and $80k, you actually need an investment return of $730 so that when you pay your 30% ($219) you are left with the desired $511. $730 is a bit more than 17.1% of $3900 by the way.

D'oh - thanks for spotting my arithmetic screwup. Serves me right for posting in haste. And you have a great point about how the savings work out w.r.t. marginal tax rates. Consider me corrected...

I gather that solar water heating is the real way to make a "safe" investment for most moderate climates like the USA. The systems are very simple and relatively inexpensive. Even in upstate NY, estimates are that 50% of one's water heating can be provided by a solar system. Particularly for those who heat their water with electricity those can be pretty significant cost savings.

But as you say - before any new system is installed, caulking of cracks and insulation (with maybe some shade tree planting for the long term) has an even quicker return on investment.

Yes, after stopping up cracks and installing insulation, solar water heating is the best thing that we can do here in Australia as well - using thermal solar energy to supplant electrical resistive heating is incredibly appropriate. For places without enough sun, there are air-to-water heat pump hot water systems which make more sense than resistive heating for the coastal regions of Australia; they aren't much good for winter in the high country though - we get down to -8 deg C at night, which is nothing compared to lots of Europe and North America, but much lower than the coastal areas. I suspect that the higher humidity at the coast may help a bit too with how much heat you can extract from the (above-freezing) air.

It depends on exactly how its done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917594)

If the panels are installed as shingles (rubber shingles with a PV layer on top, covered by a plastic protective cover), then the whole roof creates power, but its not an eyesore. If its just a backyard full of panels (much like an industrial site), then it is a site, and the backyard is useless for barbeques, lawn darts, touch football, etc. It all depends on how its done. In general though, 5 kW of panels on the roof, plus geothermal heat/cooling are pretty 'hidden' and can add thousands to the value of a home, because you save thousands in annual costs, and you are 'green'. Even a small (5' diameter) windmill in the back yard might not be too much of an eyesore, depending on where you live, etc. Going green doesn't have to be painful, its just that the tree huggers and oil companies insist that it be painful; the first in a "suck it up its good for you" sort of way, and the latter in a "don't do it, oil is your friend" sort of way.

But when does it start paying off? (1)

Khoa (935586) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917630)

Spend 30k now only to have to wait ten years to break even? By then, you'll probably be in another house, in another city. But, I do agree. Solar power should have been installed since day one. Next generations of city planners and engineers will have to (when the oil wells run dry) go "F, maybe this was a good idea after all."

Re:But when does it start paying off? (2)

dubbayu_d_40 (622643) | more than 2 years ago | (#35917862)

30K for how much? I paid 11.5K for 3kw.

Also, instead of thinking about paying it off, think about it as an investment. The premise being, you get your cash back when you sell your home.

I get a 12% annual return on my solar investment. That'll improve as energy gets more expensive.

Re:But when does it start paying off? (2)

j-beda (85386) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918014)

Spend 30k now only to have to wait ten years to break even? By then, you'll probably be in another house, in another city.

I don't know that a 10% tax-free return on investment is anything to sneeze at. It also seems less volatile that most equities - the downside risk is that your local power costs are perhaps going to dramatically decrease? If the summary is has any validity, it seems as though moving is not much of an issue as the house value would have increased to offset some or all of the investment.

Re:But when does it start paying off? (3, Informative)

jasno (124830) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918208)

Check out the solar lease deals. I just signed up with Sun Run to install solar on my house. They own the panels, and I don't pay them anything up-front. They get the rebates, and then sell me discounted electricity from my panels. They also maintain the system. If I move, the system gets transferred to the new owner(assuming they have good credit, which is a safe bet if they're buying my house).

Re:But when does it start paying off? (2)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918656)

By then, you'll probably be in another house, in another city.

Thus the whole point of this article - that you can generally recover the costs of the installation if you end up moving.

NIMBY (Not In My Back-Yard) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917686)

You really shouldn't use an acronym if you feel that your target audience doesn't know the meaning of the acronym.

AND I CAN MAKE A MILLION BY SELLING $1 for 50cent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35917938)

Wake me when slashcraptacluar isn't so fucking retarded.

My 3kw solar panels could even be worth $35,000 (4, Informative)

skidisk (994551) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918328)

I put panels up 6 years ago and they save roughly $2,000/year in electricity here in California ( my previous three years before panels were $6100; I've spent $300 over the last 6 years on electricity).

A prospective home owner knows they won't have to pay that $2000/year on electricity, so if they pour that into a 4% loan, they can borrow an extra $35,000 for that roughly $160/mo savings.

So to see a story say that my panels should be worth between $10K-$20K to a home buyer makes total sense.

Need to look at cost versus value (2)

Mud_Monster (715829) | more than 2 years ago | (#35918490)

According to the article, if the home owner spends $20,000 to install solar panels on the home, the house is worth $5,500 more. This means the owner still loses $14,500 due to the purchase. Not really winning in my book.

Solar panels vs. power company shares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35918648)

If you live in an apartment, and would rather leave power generation to the pros, consider power company shares.

They pay dividends. You and a lot of other people have to pay the power company or DIY. Sometimes you can't DIY. I rent, so I can't. Shares are the only way for me to "generate my own power" without going to extraordinary measures that would probably upset the landlord. :)

My average gas+electric is less than $100, but let's say you burn $100/mo on average. If you live in California, you can buy enough PG and E shares to pay that electric bill for about $30,000.

Of course, stocks are risky; but you can "insure" the dividend stream with an option collar, or average into it. Choose your risk mitigation strategy with the click of a mouse.

Comparing this with panels is tricky. You generate with a mix (but some utilities have "green source" programs where you pay more for assurance of green. Of course, you have to trust them...).

I assume you can insure your panels as part of a homeowners policy. Not sure how that compares to options.

You have to buy the panels all at once. You can average into utilities, or even buy a utility from a different region, or buy a ute that you think is being run better than your local, or buy several different ones.

Your solar panels will depreciate. Unless there is a catastrophe of truly biblical proportions, or another Enron incident pushes the company into bankruptcy, your shares are likely to appreciate. It's hard to say where the shares will go, nothing is risk free. OTOH, the panels are certain to weaken and fail. The inverters and other hardware will fail too.

To reiterate, shares are the only option for most renters. If you really want to have panels some day, consider selling your ute shares to fund them... but you might decide getting checks from the power company is more fun.

Now, procede to condemn me as evil in 4, 3, 2...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...