Given that it seems you can now get solar panels and battery storage at useful levels for around $12,000 to $15,000 (perhaps cheaper, if you don't use the Tesla powerwall), and that the cost of an average-ish house build here is (I would guess) around $250,000*, why doesn't it make sense for government to mandate it in house construction? I mean, it's like a 5% increase in the cost of building, but with the money paid up front coming back in saved power costs to the owner-occupier anyway.
And while we are at it, what about compulsory solar hot water too?
There might be some locations and house positions where it would not work - but I suspect if you are putting it in from the start, you can make it work well enough in most cases.
* Update: actually one site puts it at $300,000, which only helps my argument
10 comments:
Should never make it compulsory. If some people wish to have higher prices then so be it.
solar power and battery makes a lot of sense to small manufacturers who essentially only work during the day.
Homer, I don't really get the philosophical/economic objection to not making it compulsory.
We don't let houses be built without water, sewerage and drainage services that aren't up to a minimum standard for reasons that aren't just about the landowner but about what society more broadly expects is an appropriate standard.
I think the high cost of housing in Sydney and Melbourne is more related to land costs and location demands than building costs, and if planners think higher density is the way to go, then not requiring solar on apartments (which can't be done in most cases) gives the higher density living a bit of a price competative edge.
The only objection I can see is that investor builders don't get the "pay back" benefit of reduced power bills - but even then, they could surely argue for a higher rent being justified by the tenant having a tiny power bill.
Sorry - the objection to making it compulsory, I meant...
As for libertarians and such government directed policies - some have cited with approval the Singaporean health system with its large dependence on (as I understand it) forcing workers to save for their potential future medical expenses.
Similarly for electricity - except there is more certainty that you are going to need it. Forcing solar and storage to be built in is rather like forcing them to pay up front for electricity for a period, and then when pay back is reached, they get a clear economic benefit to themselves, and society shares the benefit of the reduced CO2 emissions.
What is the reason to object to that, on principle?
Unless there is an overwhelming case people should make their own decisions. They are entitled to be stupid.
How very libertarian sounding of you, Homer...
Superannuation is a good issue that needed to be compulsory. People were simply not providing for anything in retirement.
Yeo stepford
Let’s tap into the cheapest source of energy. After all, it’s unlimited . lol
Paxton, u eggnog. Shut up.
JC always good to read that vast intellect of yours
Post a Comment