Why doesn't the Dept. of Urban Development, (HUD), require solar panels in all new housing?
Question:
Answer:
Good question...
But this is only intereresting for places which receive a lot of solar radiations like Spain (close to 2000 W/m²)
And they DO IT: every new building or reftrofit for a building has to include the use of solar energy, especially for hot water.
Beside that, they are building the largest single solar PV power plant with over 16MW.
it would probably be very expensive, but i do think we should have more clean sources of energy.
You hit it right on! This idea is one of the best in a while. As for why they don't, that remains to be seen. I can see that solar power panels are expensive. But, as i say a lot, if we keep using up all of earth's energy, all of our lives will be crushed and we will not be able to buy THEM back. Basically what i am saying is that you have a great idea. I think they should spend a little more money to save people's lives and spend a little bit more money to save the enviorment. THAT is a great idea. I think you should really take it somewhere. And if you do, REMEMBER: the idea is the seed, the protesting is the water, and if they don't agree with you, there is no sunlight. Keep watering, and eventually the sun will shine on your plant and it will sprout up and become a tree. Good metaphor huh?
Wow that is a great idea! We have so many old houses around here that no one lives in and they are building houses on 2 1/2 acre lots. That seems like a waste of land.
There is this construction company that is building town houses with solar panel roofs and the upstairs is the bedrooms and the down stairs is the living area so that it takes a very small lot. 40 x 60 even has room for a car port and small backyard. My friend has one and he made it low cost so everyone has a chance at home ownership.
They are being build where he is buying the land and tearing down old houses and puting up these town houses. Makes the town look better and cleans up otherwise bad looking neighborhoods. If they can do that here why not all over?
By building up she was telling us it cost less for foundation and roofing which is the most expensive. It is 900' sq ft. 2 bdrm 1 bath. Let's go back to the time when people didn't have to have these 6000 sq.ft houses with 5 acre lots.
Requiring a person building a house to add that expense is not right. There needs to be some incentives built in.
That would be too much like, right!
Some of the truth in this lies on the lack of will on behalf of our Government's to shake the Strong GAS Lobbies.. European and Asian countries have taken to and adapted these Technologies. It saddens me to see that an advanced country like ours has failed to take the leadership in this and instead behave like cavemen in fighting a war for that supposedly "BLACK GOLD"
That is a great idea but I don't think the government wants to spend the amount of money it would cost. They wouldn't necessarily benefit from it as much as the home dwellers by lowering their utility bills.
It saddens me that the animals are having so much trouble finding homes. Maybe they'll migrate to the Midwest. We have been seeing armadillos for 4 years now.
Cost!! does not work well enough to cover cost yet! Great Question !with the use of Led lighting and other energy saving methods they could build homes in little need of outside power then we could keep our money for other stuff! BUT just think of all the tax revenue that is hidden in our energy bills going bye bye.Lets spend the money to totally rebuild run down areas but with The best technology Imagine entire areas not depending on the grid
Because we live in a free country.
Two reasons the government wouldn't require solar panels:
One, it would be costly.
Two, the government cannot tax solar power.
Wind generators are a very bad idea. They are inefficient, unsafe for flying animals, and extremely noisy and unsightly. Additionally, they require the destruction of much land and habitat. Remember, trees convert carbon into oxygen...not windmills. We need to find ways to cut our electricity usage rather than supply the current demand. Problem is most of us are too darn lazy and want to put the blame on everyone else for their energy consumption rather than make changes in our lives.
I don't like that because some low-income people might not have the money, particularly senior citizens who have a fixed income. I would prefer it if the government did something like they do in my town. They have a rebates program: it costs $5000 to install a solar system and they give you a $500 rebate if you have one installed. They also will help you get a low interest loan as well.
I'd rather see the federal government give everyone that goes solar a $500 to $1000 rebate or something like that, more of a positive reinforcement, and then people could go solar as they could afford it.
Great ideas...and they should catch on soon...yet, maybe, not soon enough. I problem is that BP Solar - the USAs largest producer of solar panels, can't keep up with demand. Other manufacturers that have attempted to enter the market - with new patents and production trademarks - have found that their designs are either easily destroyed (panels must be extremely resilient to stand up to the weather) and just to expensive to design - mock-up-test and produce. So - we are sort of in a 'cornered market' situation with Ca being the innovator in new housing utilizing a larg majority of available panels. So - the simple anwer is cost - monopoly - design for locals and climate - and the American mindset that needs to support this innovative thinking..or at least outmoded thinking when NOT doing what you suggest.
Bravo for your question - the real question is are citizens willing to jump on the band wagon of innovation in getting this done for self and world?
Once again, the almighty dollar. Who is going to pay for these solar panels in all new housing? If the government could do (a lot) better than just a 10% rebate, or a small tax deduction...maybe.
Because unfortunately, urban development is an incredibly political arena. Everybody is in with everybody - city counsel, city engineers, lawyers, builders, developers, etc. etc. I know this because I work in the field. The bottom line is that with the cost of building materials going up every day, and the general interest of the builders and developers to build "green" at an astonishingly low level, it will take some years for cities to offer substantial incentives for builders to implement this.
The good news is that many cities are starting to do this - including mine. More good news is that the builder I work with wants to go "green". Rest assured that in the next 10 years, there will be plenty of new green construction in the works!
Why should HUD, or any other government entity for that matter, be allowed to dictate matters of personal choice. And that goes double for dictating costly inefficient choices.
More Questions & Answers...