Solar ... In the news

Fruit_and_Nut_Case

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Solar & Storage in S. America

<snip>

While Chile is definitely part of South America, Mexico is in the North.
/nitpick

Happy Holidays

Martyn1981

Fruit_and_Nut_Case wrote: »

While Chile is definitely part of South America, Mexico is in the North.
/nitpick

Happy Holidays

Good spot. Hope I haven't 'done a Top Gear' and offended any Mexicans!

Merry Xmas F&N.

Mart.

EricMears

Fruit_and_Nut_Case wrote: »

While Chile is definitely part of South America, Mexico is in the North.
/nitpick

Happy Holidays

He didn't actually say "within the continental mas of South America" !


I'm sure Alaskans & Canadians would regard Mexico as being " in the South".

Martyn1981

Powered by PV, ST and passive solar:

A REAL powerhouse! Eco home comes complete with heated pool and sauna yet produces THREE times more electricity than it needs

Mart.

Martyn1981

IHS: Top 10 predictions for global PV market in 2015

Interesting that despite the US's slow start with regard to PV, California is doing well, and expected to become the global leader in solar power penetration with 10% of it's leccy coming from PV.


& whilst on the subject of California:

California’s governor outlines ambitions for 50% renewable energy by 2030

Mart.

Martyn1981

Good news for renewables, but especially solar which seems to be coming through as the top technology, or technology of choice.

Solar power drives renewable energy investment boom in 2014

Global investment in clean energy jumped 16% in 2014, boosted by fast-growing solar power in the US and China. Solar, whose costs have plummeted in recent years, attracted over half the total funding for the first time.

The new figures, from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), show $310bn (£205bn) was ploughed into green energy last year, just short of the record $317bn in 2011. However, as green energy gets ever cheaper, the money invested in 2014 bought almost double the clean electricity capacity than in 2011.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Surprising results from a US study on the effect of PV on house prices. It seems to suggest that a ~3.6kWp system adds ~$15,000 to the property price, which seems a little high to me, but it is nice to see that the US are being positive about PV.

US homebuyers willing to pay more for homes with solar panels, says report

Over the duration of the research, the team found that the 4,000 properties in the sample study with PV systems installed attracted keen interest from homebuyers undeterred by the solar premium attached to the roof.

The appraisers – which included researchers from Sandia National Laboratories – discovered that properties with a typical 3.6 kW solar system sold for around $15,000 more than a similar home without solar installed. This equates to a solar rate of approximately $4/watt installed, and the study reveals a correlation between solar panels and willingness to purchase the home.

Mart.

Andy_WSM

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Surprising results from a US study on the effect of PV on house prices. It seems to suggest that a ~3.6kWp system adds ~$15,000 to the property price, which seems a little high to me, but it is nice to see that the US are being positive about PV.

US homebuyers willing to pay more for homes with solar panels, says report



Mart.

Interesting. I had a valuation last year and the estate agent said that solar in the UK adds no value - despite the fact I was able to show there was still a potential income of +£40k or so.

1961Nick

Andy_WSM wrote: »

Interesting. I had a valuation last year and the estate agent said that solar in the UK adds no value - despite the fact I was able to show there was still a potential income of +£40k or so.

'Rent a roof' schemes have possibly made UK house buyers sceptical about paying a premium for a house with solar panels. I don't know what the ratio is between 'rent a roof' & outright purchase, but in some areas near me it must be 10:1. House purchasers might not want to be saddled with an inefficient & not very aesthetically pleasing installation for the next 15 years.

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

'Rent a roof' schemes have possibly made UK house buyers sceptical about paying a premium for a house with solar panels. I don't know what the ratio is between 'rent a roof' & outright purchase, but in some areas near me it must be 10:1. House purchasers might not want to be saddled with an inefficient & not very aesthetically pleasing installation for the next 15 years.

:think: .... Odd, how do you define inefficient ?? ....