OK, we start with this one...All new homes and residential buildings in the state(s)? of Florida (I'll add Nevada, Texas, Arizona, and at least Southern California) must have solar systems installed. I have no objection to solar systems being installed on all new homes as long as it is voluntary. My objection is to the forced implementation of a technology that is not economically viable on its own. Without government force and subsidy, even in the places you mention, solar is still a niche play due to expense. The free market should dictate when and where solar is implemented.
I want to hear your objections to that one...oh yes, coal sales will go down and we might not need to dig up Alberta and ship its sludge to Houston or frack up Pa. Actually, the implementation of solar on all new homes and the solar farms and wind farms, will not make coal sales go down. The demand for more energy would certainly offset any loss in coal sales. The actual usage would remain at a consistent level, though it may become a lower overall percentage of the energy pie. Alternate energies are not a threat to the coal or natural gas industries. The EPA is.
For the record, if it made fiscal sense, I would go 100% solar on my house. I would like more than anything to get off of the grid. But right now, it just doesn't make sense. Sure, there are all of the government subsidies that you can get through going with Verango and other type companies. But they end up owning the equipment and then they have a lien on your house. And get this, if you want to sell your house, the buyers have to qualify separately for the liability (loan) of the solar equipment...AFTER they qualify for a loan for the home. In other words, those solar panels on your roof may impede the sale of your home. |
