What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
107 Comments
- JasonQG, on 10/10/2007, -1/+36It's getting to the point where solar power pays for itself so quickly that it would be stupid *not* to add solar panels to a new house. I read that you'll actually save more on electricity per month than your mortgage payment will go up.
- inhaler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25I assume it was more like, only California would take the initiative to do something like this. Very positive I must say.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -9/+32"Only in California?" Is that supposed to be a negative indictment? I mean, that state has brownouts almost every year. The only people I could see thinking this is a bad idea are the Texas and Pacific Northwest power companies that get to sell power to Cali every summer.
- TH3W1R3D, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27Awesome. Glad I live in California.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+29that's right bitches. california leading the way again. west siiiiiide!
- JasonQG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I don't think government really needs to get involved. As electricity gets more and more expensive and solar panels get cheaper and cheaper, people will figure it out on their own.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15about time
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11california really needs to become its own country
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -2/+10No, I believe the submitter meant that in a positive way. So, I guess, a negative indictment towards the rest of the states.
- sabach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It's because you're annoying
- zweben, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Which is why they should have the choice.
Solar is fantastic, but forcing people to pay for it when they don't want to is not going to help the technology. Prices will continue to go down until it would be stupid not to buy them. - dancallahan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7RTFA. It says they're not charging more for the houses than they would otherwise, because it costs them a lot less to buy because they're buying in bulk.
- aeiou, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8READ THE ARTICLE! the developer said they are not increasing the cost of the homes.
- smurf22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Im pretty sure they're talking about the type that supplies electricity, and not just water heating.
- wil2200, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10it's good to see more logical minds prevail
***** anti-science bushco and his warmongering oil hungry buddies - Nanobe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You must be living in a different part of California. Over here, once the rainy season starts, it's pretty much pouring buckets nonstop until spring.
Well.. usually, anyway. We had almost no rain last winter. - blubolt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6i wish they would have done that a couple of years ago - before i bought this energy sucking black hole of a (new) home.
- JasonQG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yes, in cases like this where people end up saving thousands of dollars, I believe in the free market. In this case, the only thing the government could do is get in the way.
- rodii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How is that possible? $1500 for one house? What makes that so high?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Oh I don't know, lets make the Government make a bunch of ***** mandatory because you are to stupid to make decisions for yourself and the government is smarter than you.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Too bad the traffic sucks.
- ASSHO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Jeezus, where do you live??? How do you rack up that much in electricity?
- opposites, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
- sleeknerve, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7I have Solar Panels on my house and it does make a difference, although, we only use it to power the water heater, which heats the pool up and the other water. In California, everyone should have Solar Panel, its almost always sunny here
- WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'd settle for joining Canada...
- krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What's Lame is letting the kilowatts per square meter on every roof in the USA blow away in the wind when distributed power is cheaper, environmentally smarter, and more secure than paying some utility company for it. I'd go so far as to say you'd have to be a Complete Idiot to not have a solar collector on your roof already in the southwest.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4California isn't really that environmentally friendly. They have by far the highest pollution of any state. They do have some advances but they put economics far ahead of the environment. Take a look at how much pollution there is in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and Riverside metro areas. It's unbelievable to see all of the smog above those cities. This is why I hate how California tries to pretend like they are so ahead of everyone else.
- kodek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Public transportation and bikes rule because traffic sucks.
The traffic here in Ventura isn't that bad anyway. - HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3These are photovoltaic, not solar heating tubing.
Solar heater tubing systems break down more often and are only useful to heat stuff. - umass2ucr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2For many years the country of Israel has required every new home to have a solar powered water heater (non-photovoltaic).
- ASSHO, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, I agree. I been living here for 10 years, and I think Californians tend to be self centered, self righteous, and narrow minded. Pretentious, more than anything else.
- MrKrinkleDude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Standard? Not so fast there Lou.
My town, just a drive north of the gate, has had dozens of homes, condos, track housing go up and on the market this year and not a single one of them has a solar roof. In fact, they're not even selling due to the recent market slump. They're just sitting there nice and vacant for months. - kodek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well, technically, it's not sunny at night, and I bet that's more than 1% of the time. :D
- ozid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He's probably talking about "southern" california... *shrug*
- bshock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I live in Phoenix, Arizona, where we probably have more sunshine than anywhere else in the U.S. We would love to have solar panels, but they're too goddamn expensive. And because Arizona is a state built for real estate developers for real estate developers, you'll never see anything like logical solar panels as a standard. It would cost the developers too much. They want to keep on putting up flimsy tents of 2x4s and foamed faux stucco, that sell for $250k a pop.
- Herv3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I still dugg it because it is an important story.
- n00bst3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Especially if you are like my family who regularly has $1500+ power bill each month in the summertime. Our *new* house is almost as bad and we don't turn the AC on until its over 90 degrees in the house.
- blaze03, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3While New York is probably the business center of the world, California is the most influential cultural center of the world, with such establishments as Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and artistic San Francisco. This is just another example of that.
- theholycow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Dugg for not using "would of".
- wreckosaurus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Seriously dude, what the hell is your family doing
- sundancekid503, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Thanks 2pac
- Tracon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Its to bad the housing slump is on now. This would have been perfect at the beginning of the housing boom. With large contractors ordering huge amounts of panels the price will hopefully drop and make it cheaper for everyone to switch over to it with time and help with integration into older buildings.
- reddikilowatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't know about that. I remember in the 1970s, people started buying smaller, gas efficient cars, turning down thermostats, etc. when the price of oil shot up. The main reason was economic, but hey, if it works, so much the better.
The great thing about CA's solution is that PG&E has to buy your power at retail rates, and sell it to your neighbor at retail rates. This means that if enough people do this, PG&E will have to raise the retail rate, thus making your investment pay back even sooner (and your neighbor will wise up and put panels on his roof as well). - theholycow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, for that same $1500 you would be better off renting a modern, well-insulated house. A few months of that can pay for LOTS of blown-in insulaton, and another few months of that can pay for new windows and doors.
My $60 electric bill goes sometimes as high as $160 when I run the A/C in the hottest part of the summer. That's for an admittedly small 1500 square foot main floor on a raised ranch, although with failed glass on my patio door, a sloppy doggy door, and not nearly enough insulation in my attic. - p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just like the electric car. Do some research, a lot of these movements originate from California.
- bufmike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Can you please explain why I should pay for something not on my house? Are you in fact a member of the NY state government???
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not really there yet, Jason. I've been looking at this.
Also, the systems degrade over time.
Right now, the payback is pretty long, but it is there. You can think of it as buying 30 years of electricity in advance (since the system needs to be replaced after a while anyway). If you think the price of electricity will go up over the next 30 years, and you have the money/credit available, then it makes sense to do it if you're in a sunny area.
One thing to remember though is that the power generated on a cloudy is less than 20% what you will get on a sunny day.
Basically, if you live in one of the areas of the country that isn't blessed with constant sunshine (like CA and AZ are), then you just have to watch what CA and AZ are doing. When in CA people can't afford not to put up solar, because it is paying back so quickly, then you'll know it's viable in areas that have intermittent sunshine. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1However, even if the price of the house goes up, the panels are stilla good deal. Solar panels generally produce more enrergy than the home owner needs. The excess is then sold back to the power company.
I'm surprised the power companies aren't against this idea (other than maybe they'll reduce the strain on the system during the summer).
I live in Phoenix and wish builders offered this option. We have as many sunny days as Cali. does and we get warnings about possible rolling blackouts all the time, esp when temps stay above 110+ for a week or two at a time. - opposites, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i feel like most homeowners would want solar panels when they first buy a new home. the benefits are obvious and the more solar panels are put into place on a regional scale, the further down the price drops. i've heard of people getting money FROM their electric companies after the panels put their excess electricity back into the grid.. this seems like one of the easier major steps we should be taking now
- MadScientist68, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Do you know how toxic the chemicals are that go into the process of making these?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is