74% of the people polled went solar primarily to save money, not to be green.
The big problem with solar is how strange they look. I always feel bad for the people who live nextdoor to the house with the solar panels, as I suspect it makes it harder to sell your house. For my part, we didn't want to live next to a house like that when we were looking.
That's your big problem with it. I've never heard that complaint from anybody about solar until now.
I wouldn't give a shit and in fact would probably think it was rad.
To each their own. My realtor actually admitted that houses with it or next to it have a harder time selling, at least out here.
That's because your area is filled with a bunch of new money weirdos more concerned with how things look than how things work.
For the trillionth time on this board YOUR EXPERIENCE IS NOT THE GODDAMN MAINSTREAM OF THIS COUNTRY.
Nobody cares about solar panels. They're SCIENCE! and they're rad.
Five year pay-off sounds sketchy to me. My understanding was that solar at home takes quite a while to pay-off.
10 years is a high end estimate, but part of it is that solar panel costs have been decreasing slowly over the last 10 years, while electricity prices have been fluctuating but mostly increasing.
I thought it took a long time as well, but I think I am confusing breaking even financially and breaking even energy wise. Almost positive it still takes 20+ years for a silicon based PV to produce as much energy as it took to create it.
The problem with Solar on the East coast is it doesn't really make sense given the number of sunny vs. cloudy days. We just need to fill a bunch of texas, arizona and Nevada with cells, as the land isn't usable without excessive water waste.
The problem with Solar on the East coast is it doesn't really make sense given the number of sunny vs. cloudy days. We just need to fill a bunch of texas, arizona and Nevada with cells, as the land isn't usable without excessive water waste.
Solar panels work just fine in cloudy areas. They aren't as efficient as in primarily sunny areas, but they are a perfectly viable energy source. Much of Europe and the Pacific Coast find solar panels a great energy source, and they're just as plagued with cloudy days. Cloudy days still have plenty of light and UV rays.
Yes, but compare the output to 100% sunny, like it often is all over the southwest? I'm just talking overall efficiency (though if we lose it via transmission inefficiency, then blah). What's also neat are the mini cogen plants, which are heat furnaces that also produce electricity, much like large companies run.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
74% of the people polled went solar primarily to save money, not to be green.
The big problem with solar is how strange they look. I always feel bad for the people who live nextdoor to the house with the solar panels, as I suspect it makes it harder to sell your house. For my part, we didn't want to live next to a house like that when we were looking.
That's your big problem with it. I've never heard that complaint from anybody about solar until now.
I wouldn't give a shit and in fact would probably think it was rad.
To each their own. My realtor actually admitted that houses with it or next to it have a harder time selling, at least out here.
That's because your area is filled with a bunch of new money weirdos more concerned with how things look than how things work.
For the trillionth time on this board YOUR EXPERIENCE IS NOT THE GODDAMN MAINSTREAM OF THIS COUNTRY.
Nobody cares about solar panels. They're SCIENCE! and they're rad.
You really don't think aesthetics are important to real estate? Maybe if you had a contemporary or modern development or even flat roofed buildings they could work aesthetically, but in a neighborhood of colonials, Tudors or Victorian homes, they don't exactly blend. Even in a neighborhood of high ranches or capes, I don't think they'd go.
As a more general proposition, I would argue that many people prefer form over function, otherwise we would all live in Ikea catalogs with storage everywhere instead of striving for a cleaner but less functional aesthetic as many of us do. Also, we'd all wear cargo pants and jackets with comically oversized pockets than can hold an iPad.
In other news, I just saw a hybrid Tahoe waiting to pick someone up in front of my building. That seems like a win re: greener limousines, especially as the towncar gives way to SUVs in general. I would like to see cities require t least some degree of fuel efficiency for these fleets.
spacekungfuman on
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
74% of the people polled went solar primarily to save money, not to be green.
The big problem with solar is how strange they look. I always feel bad for the people who live nextdoor to the house with the solar panels, as I suspect it makes it harder to sell your house. For my part, we didn't want to live next to a house like that when we were looking.
That's your big problem with it. I've never heard that complaint from anybody about solar until now.
I wouldn't give a shit and in fact would probably think it was rad.
To each their own. My realtor actually admitted that houses with it or next to it have a harder time selling, at least out here.
That's because your area is filled with a bunch of new money weirdos more concerned with how things look than how things work.
For the trillionth time on this board YOUR EXPERIENCE IS NOT THE GODDAMN MAINSTREAM OF THIS COUNTRY.
Nobody cares about solar panels. They're SCIENCE! and they're rad.
You really don't think aesthetics are important to real estate? Maybe if you had a contemporary or modern development or even flat roofed buildings they could work aesthetically, but in a neighborhood of colonials, Tudors or Victorian homes, they don't exactly blend. Even in a neighborhood of high ranches or capes, I don't think they'd go.
As a more general proposition, I would argue that many people prefer form over function, otherwise we would all live in Ikea catalogs with storage everywhere instead of striving for a cleaner but less functional aesthetic as many of us do. Also, we'd all wear cargo pants and jackets with comically oversized pockets than can hold an iPad.
In other news, I just saw a hybrid Tahoe waiting to pick someone up in front of my building. That seems like a win re: greener limousines, especially as the towncar gives way to SUVs in general. I would like to see cities require t least some degree of fuel efficiency for these fleets.
Dude, you were complaining about visual imperfections in your plasticware that you use once and throw away earlier. I have used those same forks hundreds of times and never even noticed this about them. I have never heard anyone besides you complain about that.
You and your people are fucking weird.
As for fuel efficient vehicles in service fleets, I believe San Francisco has some sort of mandate. Prius taxis errywhere. Drivers love it because they lose less profit in fuel.
+3
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Your people huh
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
A Prius is a ridiculous chaffauerred car. Does it even have a decent back seat? Hybrids are good for these uses, but the car still needs to suit its use. . .
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Yeah. I own a used second gen one and I've ridden in several of the Taxis. They have a ridiculously comfortable back seat for a car that size, and room for a considerable payload. That and the fuel economy are what drove my purchasing decision.
They also have full size sedan and SUV hybrids on their taxi fleets. The Priuses are just everywhere.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Yeah. I own a used second gen one and I've ridden in several of the Taxis. They have a ridiculously comfortable back seat for a car that size, and room for a considerable payload. That and the fuel economy are what drove my purchasing decision.
They also have full size sedan and SUV hybrids on their taxi fleets. The Priuses are just everywhere.
Interesting. From the outside, it looks tiny. There is one limo company I know of in NYC using them.
A Prius is a ridiculous chaffauerred car. Does it even have a decent back seat? Hybrids are good for these uses, but the car still needs to suit its use. . .
Your assumptions wound me as a Prius driver. It's actually a great roomy car and well designed. Which I know I know, BUT ITS A HYBRID MY STEREOTYPES I MUST CLING TO THEM. Get over it!
+2
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I am not sure what Lovecraftian shit they pulled to get the internal dimensions to line up with the outside ones but I've had people as tall as 6'3" sit in the back for several hours and they had legroom.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
74% of the people polled went solar primarily to save money, not to be green.
The big problem with solar is how strange they look. I always feel bad for the people who live nextdoor to the house with the solar panels, as I suspect it makes it harder to sell your house. For my part, we didn't want to live next to a house like that when we were looking.
What the fuck kind of problem is that? You're not even complaining about the house you're buying, you're complaining about the one next to it? Because it has solar panels?
Yes, but compare the output to 100% sunny, like it often is all over the southwest? I'm just talking overall efficiency (though if we lose it via transmission inefficiency, then blah). What's also neat are the mini cogen plants, which are heat furnaces that also produce electricity, much like large companies run.
Oh yeah, it's not 100%, but I'm fairly confident the efficiency level of local panels is greater than 100% + transmission loss. Moves toward neighborhood or individual house energy production are always a step up from regional transmission.
74% of the people polled went solar primarily to save money, not to be green.
The big problem with solar is how strange they look. I always feel bad for the people who live nextdoor to the house with the solar panels, as I suspect it makes it harder to sell your house. For my part, we didn't want to live next to a house like that when we were looking.
What the fuck kind of problem is that? You're not even complaining about the house you're buying, you're complaining about the one next to it? Because it has solar panels?
You will see it every day. It's no different than any other eyesore, IMO.
You know, a hybrid Tahoe gets better city mileage than a lot of the full sized fleet cars...if you actually need an SUV, like you want to seat more than five people, or you need to fit some cargo, they really aren't a bad choice.
Although, for pure society sake we really should be making every garbage truck, bus, school bus, etc a hybrid first before we waste the resources on passenger cars. Much bigger gains on those vehicles and much longer operating cycles that would be served with TDI or regular economy cars.
Although prius taxis are smart. All about the regular operation in stop and go conditions, and hours per day if use.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You know, a hybrid Tahoe gets better city mileage than a lot of the full sized fleet cars...if you actually need an SUV, like you want to seat more than five people, or you need to fit some cargo, they really aren't a bad choice.
Although, for pure society sake we really should be making every garbage truck, bus, school bus, etc a hybrid first before we waste the resources on passenger cars. Much bigger gains on those vehicles and much longer operating cycles that would be served with TDI or regular economy cars.
Although prius taxis are smart. All about the regular operation in stop and go conditions, and hours per day if use.
For black cars its about a comfortable ride and leg room generally, but the extra space is a perk drivers seem to appreciate (particularly for airport runs). These cars are special luxury editions though, with lots of wood trim and other perks. Part of the problem with hybrid adoption is cars can't be kept in service for long (sometimes as little as
3 years) and when drivers have to buy the cars themselves, the upfront cost can be daunting.
You really don't think aesthetics are important to real estate? Maybe if you had a contemporary or modern development or even flat roofed buildings they could work aesthetically, but in a neighborhood of colonials, Tudors or Victorian homes, they don't exactly blend. Even in a neighborhood of high ranches or capes, I don't think they'd go.
Do they reduce the value of the property they're on, or just neighbours who get less of a view?
-This message was deviously brought to you by:
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
edited February 2013
They're photo-voltaic cells! They just sit on your roof!
I used to work for a solar heating company who had made strides in Evacuated Tube systems which just plugged into your hot water tank, and worked on UV light so could manage in cloudy days.
Obviously you use less hot water in the summer for heating, but they were great for washing water. They were less dependent on direct light and as such could also be fitted to the back of your house so they couldn't be seen from the road - clearly an advantage to neighbourhoods where you might scare the horses and cause corseted women to faint into the arms of their chaperones.
They took between five and ten years to make their initial costs back, but I imagine the technology has moved on since then.
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You really don't think aesthetics are important to real estate? Maybe if you had a contemporary or modern development or even flat roofed buildings they could work aesthetically, but in a neighborhood of colonials, Tudors or Victorian homes, they don't exactly blend. Even in a neighborhood of high ranches or capes, I don't think they'd go.
Do they reduce the value of the property they're on, or just neighbours who get less of a view?
No idea. I'd think that, like other non-standard improvements, they will raise value for someone who wants them and hurt value or be a deal killer for someone who does not.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
They do look kinda ugly in a few of those pictures, to be honest.
That said, house aesthetics are built on cultural factors. Cultural factors that can shift going forward.
I agree with that. There was a time when people liked yellow or pink bathrooms (including fixtures) so aesthetics are definitely a moving target, but they look pretty ugly if the first two pictures, and the third picture looks better, but it may be the single, since they don't look shiny.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited February 2013
hey, @Spacekungfuman:: this is not snark. I hope you've got your car filled up and some tanks and some food and stuff. I'm watching the weather channel stream and they're saying long island is gonna get spanked with this storm. Stay safe, buddy.
A Prius is a ridiculous chaffauerred car. Does it even have a decent back seat? Hybrids are good for these uses, but the car still needs to suit its use. . .
Your assumptions wound me as a Prius driver. It's actually a great roomy car and well designed. Which I know I know, BUT ITS A HYBRID MY STEREOTYPES I MUST CLING TO THEM. Get over it!
"Well clearly these aren't leather seats made from aborted fetuses, I just cannot sit on this. Good day sir!"
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
hey, @Spacekungfuman:: this is not snark. I hope you've got your car filled up and some tanks and some food and stuff. I'm watching the weather channel stream and they're saying long island is gonna get spanked with this storm. Stay safe, buddy.
edit: and everybody else too.
Thanks! We're actually considering staying in a hotel with a generator tonight. . .
Unrelated to the aesthetics of solar panels, how big a bear are they from a maintenance standpoint? The ones that encompass nearly the entire roof just seem to be begging for an ice dam to come along and ruin their day. I know it is possible they aren't in a climate that suffers from that scourge, but a lot can go wrong between initial installation and their projected end of life (this is why I laugh at people who buy a house with tight budget tolerances).
I'll never realistically get panels anyhow since I have huge assed black walnut trees and they seem to be two diametrically opposed things. The trees both provide a huge amount of shade and rain terrible black biowarfare down on my roof in the fall. But I'm curious.
But you save so much on electricity/heat that it almost pays off for itself in spades. But that's a 15ish year investment that you need to keep reinvesting in or else they degrade.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
They do look kinda ugly in a few of those pictures, to be honest.
That said, house aesthetics are built on cultural factors. Cultural factors that can shift going forward.
This.
I like the look of PV cells on homes, but that's because I like that people are installing them and want to see more of them.
The point of those pictures is to show that they're not a huge eye-sore. There is little appreciable difference between the cells and the roof underneath them, certainly not to the extend that SKFM was blowing it up to.
Those are not "ugly" houses. If you think they are you're a bit silly.
You wouldn't even be able to tell unless you were right up on top of the house anyways. Even if your neighbor was close they'd hardly notice.
The reason they're hard sells is probably the increased cost of maintenance, and, well, increased sale price probably. Figure you have to get up on your roof every snow storm, or, once every 3 months instead of once a yearish. Yeah some people don't find that attractive at all.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well it was more Space was saying some crap about how people won't buy a house in a neighborhood that has a house with solar panels on it. While I don't doubt that there are neighborhoods like that, and that his is probably one of them, I find that the height of silly goositude.
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
They do look kinda ugly in a few of those pictures, to be honest.
That said, house aesthetics are built on cultural factors. Cultural factors that can shift going forward.
This.
I like the look of PV cells on homes, but that's because I like that people are installing them and want to see more of them.
The point of those pictures is to show that they're not a huge eye-sore. There is little appreciable difference between the cells and the roof underneath them, certainly not to the extend that SKFM was blowing it up to.
Those are not "ugly" houses. If you think they are you're a bit silly.
I disagree strongly. I think they are very noticeable in many cases. I suppose its possible that there are far more solar paneled homes out in the world than I think there are, and that I just don't notice them other than where they are poorly placed or poorly suited, but anytime I notice them, I think they look weird.
Why do people always seem to put them on the front anyway? Putting them on the back would be less noticeable, since you usually can't get as far away from the back of the house as the front.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
They do look kinda ugly in a few of those pictures, to be honest.
That said, house aesthetics are built on cultural factors. Cultural factors that can shift going forward.
This.
I like the look of PV cells on homes, but that's because I like that people are installing them and want to see more of them.
The point of those pictures is to show that they're not a huge eye-sore. There is little appreciable difference between the cells and the roof underneath them, certainly not to the extend that SKFM was blowing it up to.
Those are not "ugly" houses. If you think they are you're a bit silly.
I disagree strongly. I think they are very noticeable in many cases. I suppose its possible that there are far more solar paneled homes out in the world than I think there are, and that I just don't notice them other than where they are poorly placed or poorly suited, but anytime I notice them, I think they look weird.
Why do people always seem to put them on the front anyway? Putting them on the back would be less noticeable, since you usually can't get as far away from the back of the house as the front.
Placement is an issue, sure, I just don't think they're so horrible looking as to hurt sales. I would be more understanding if some great thinker stuck a windmill on their property.
Idk.
Hopefully something changes about how we think at some point.
Posts
Made up? Entirely fictitious?
"Saw a homeless man on the way to work. Made me shake and cry. #SKFMProblems"
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
That's because your area is filled with a bunch of new money weirdos more concerned with how things look than how things work.
For the trillionth time on this board YOUR EXPERIENCE IS NOT THE GODDAMN MAINSTREAM OF THIS COUNTRY.
Nobody cares about solar panels. They're SCIENCE! and they're rad.
How can you do that? I would never ever drink near a solar panel, they look so odd!
Energy Pay-Back Time (EPBT) -
0.5-2 years according to this publication: http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf
1-3 years according to this one: http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/chem/2007-0621-201713/NWS-E-2006-27.pdf
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Solar panels work just fine in cloudy areas. They aren't as efficient as in primarily sunny areas, but they are a perfectly viable energy source. Much of Europe and the Pacific Coast find solar panels a great energy source, and they're just as plagued with cloudy days. Cloudy days still have plenty of light and UV rays.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
You really don't think aesthetics are important to real estate? Maybe if you had a contemporary or modern development or even flat roofed buildings they could work aesthetically, but in a neighborhood of colonials, Tudors or Victorian homes, they don't exactly blend. Even in a neighborhood of high ranches or capes, I don't think they'd go.
As a more general proposition, I would argue that many people prefer form over function, otherwise we would all live in Ikea catalogs with storage everywhere instead of striving for a cleaner but less functional aesthetic as many of us do. Also, we'd all wear cargo pants and jackets with comically oversized pockets than can hold an iPad.
In other news, I just saw a hybrid Tahoe waiting to pick someone up in front of my building. That seems like a win re: greener limousines, especially as the towncar gives way to SUVs in general. I would like to see cities require t least some degree of fuel efficiency for these fleets.
Dude, you were complaining about visual imperfections in your plasticware that you use once and throw away earlier. I have used those same forks hundreds of times and never even noticed this about them. I have never heard anyone besides you complain about that.
You and your people are fucking weird.
As for fuel efficient vehicles in service fleets, I believe San Francisco has some sort of mandate. Prius taxis errywhere. Drivers love it because they lose less profit in fuel.
They also have full size sedan and SUV hybrids on their taxi fleets. The Priuses are just everywhere.
Interesting. From the outside, it looks tiny. There is one limo company I know of in NYC using them.
What the fuck kind of problem is that? You're not even complaining about the house you're buying, you're complaining about the one next to it? Because it has solar panels?
Oh yeah, it's not 100%, but I'm fairly confident the efficiency level of local panels is greater than 100% + transmission loss. Moves toward neighborhood or individual house energy production are always a step up from regional transmission.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
You will see it every day. It's no different than any other eyesore, IMO.
Although, for pure society sake we really should be making every garbage truck, bus, school bus, etc a hybrid first before we waste the resources on passenger cars. Much bigger gains on those vehicles and much longer operating cycles that would be served with TDI or regular economy cars.
Although prius taxis are smart. All about the regular operation in stop and go conditions, and hours per day if use.
For black cars its about a comfortable ride and leg room generally, but the extra space is a perk drivers seem to appreciate (particularly for airport runs). These cars are special luxury editions though, with lots of wood trim and other perks. Part of the problem with hybrid adoption is cars can't be kept in service for long (sometimes as little as
3 years) and when drivers have to buy the cars themselves, the upfront cost can be daunting.
So ugly!
What an eyesore!
Won't someone please think of the resale values!
That said, house aesthetics are built on cultural factors. Cultural factors that can shift going forward.
This.
I like the look of PV cells on homes, but that's because I like that people are installing them and want to see more of them.
Obviously you use less hot water in the summer for heating, but they were great for washing water. They were less dependent on direct light and as such could also be fitted to the back of your house so they couldn't be seen from the road - clearly an advantage to neighbourhoods where you might scare the horses and cause corseted women to faint into the arms of their chaperones.
They took between five and ten years to make their initial costs back, but I imagine the technology has moved on since then.
No idea. I'd think that, like other non-standard improvements, they will raise value for someone who wants them and hurt value or be a deal killer for someone who does not.
I agree with that. There was a time when people liked yellow or pink bathrooms (including fixtures) so aesthetics are definitely a moving target, but they look pretty ugly if the first two pictures, and the third picture looks better, but it may be the single, since they don't look shiny.
edit: and everybody else too.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
"Well clearly these aren't leather seats made from aborted fetuses, I just cannot sit on this. Good day sir!"
Thanks! We're actually considering staying in a hotel with a generator tonight. . .
I'll never realistically get panels anyhow since I have huge assed black walnut trees and they seem to be two diametrically opposed things. The trees both provide a huge amount of shade and rain terrible black biowarfare down on my roof in the fall. But I'm curious.
If you live in a snowy area you'll want to go out and brush snow off them and use an ice scraper on the glass if the manufacturer recommends it.
The point of those pictures is to show that they're not a huge eye-sore. There is little appreciable difference between the cells and the roof underneath them, certainly not to the extend that SKFM was blowing it up to.
Those are not "ugly" houses. If you think they are you're a bit silly.
The reason they're hard sells is probably the increased cost of maintenance, and, well, increased sale price probably. Figure you have to get up on your roof every snow storm, or, once every 3 months instead of once a yearish. Yeah some people don't find that attractive at all.
I disagree strongly. I think they are very noticeable in many cases. I suppose its possible that there are far more solar paneled homes out in the world than I think there are, and that I just don't notice them other than where they are poorly placed or poorly suited, but anytime I notice them, I think they look weird.
Why do people always seem to put them on the front anyway? Putting them on the back would be less noticeable, since you usually can't get as far away from the back of the house as the front.
Placement is an issue, sure, I just don't think they're so horrible looking as to hurt sales. I would be more understanding if some great thinker stuck a windmill on their property.
Idk.
Hopefully something changes about how we think at some point.