What would you think of a law that required all new buildings to have alternative engery sources built -in?

Question

Not to replace our current way of getting electricity, but to augment it.

Would it be so bad to have a few solar panels on the roof of your new home or running down the side of your new apartment or office building? What about wind turbines on top of sky scrappers.

I would be all for a law like that. I'm sure it would reduce pollution, energy prices, and the big reward, our dependence on foriegn energy.
(not saying we would be free from foriegn oil, but could it be a start?)

Thats great that they are doing it in Florida. But here in New Jersey, there seems to be a new house or a complete makeover on every other block, yet now solar panels......I just can't think of a reason why you wouldn't want them.

http://www.openenergycorp.com/

they say it isn't cost prohibitive. There are actually a couple of companies that put solar panels on older homes, its not that expensive. You get a massive tax break, and in spring and fall months you tend to get to "sell" back some energy to PSEG and the likes.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/cfm/faqs/third_level.cfm/name=Photovoltaics/cat=Applications


a good site about solar energy and intergration.

sarge - why is it called oil heat and gas heat if it has nothing to do with oil?

Answer 1

I think the concept is great. However you are going to run into problems if you make it mandatory though because some people can't afford the cost to upgrade to alternative energy. But I do believe that business factories etc, should incorporate these alternatives in their plants as they are the ones that do cause the most pollution and use lots of energy.

Answer 2

"I'm sure it would reduce pollution, energy prices..."

Pollution - maybe.

Energy Prices - all of those alternative energy sources almost always cost MORE than petroleum-based energy sources; which is WHY we're still using petroleum so much.

I've looked into solar power and wind power for my home in the country and, at today's prices, they continue to be an indulgence for the wealthy or a way to live off-the-grid.

Once the efficiency of SOME of the alternative sources is raised to a point where they're competitive with petroleum we'll start to see a signifcant switchover. I think that is still 15-20 years away and probaby 40-50 years for the complete switchover.

As for laws to force this kind of change check out all the societies that have mandated massive change over the last century or so and ask yourself it that's the kind of society in which you'd like to live. I believe that you'll find your answer is a resounding "NO!"

Any government with the power to force a change like that will be only too happy to force other changes that you're sure not to like. These kinds of forced change create social upheaval on a scale that we're fortunate not to have to witness in this country.

Answer 3

Not a bad idea in principle, but in reality it would mean disaster for the construction industry. The alternate energy sources you mention are EXTREMELY expensive to install and implement, so the cost of erecting a building with alternate energy sources built-in would be more than double the current cost.

Besides, our dependence on foreign oil has very little to do with generating electricity since almost all electric power plants run on coal, hydroelectric, or nuclear power. Our dependence on foreign oil is due almost entirely to all the cars and trucks we drive. One way to curb that is to lean on the Big Three to get truly serious about making vehicles that run on 100% ethanol and 100% biodiesel. We have the materials, we have the technology, we have the capability, so why aren't GM, Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler cranking out a lot more environmentally-friendly fuel vehicles? Why aren't we refining ethanol and biodiesel at 100 to 1,000 times the current capacity? Gee, sounds like a good place for Club Fed to step in and help out in a way that will mean thousands of jobs for Americans and greatly-reduced dependence on foreign oil.

Answer 4

That sounds pretty dumb, since the gas is usually less than the upkeep of a solar panel or the like.

See hybrid cars. After they run for about 5 years, you need to buy a new battery, whcih ends up costing more than the gas would have. I'd rather buy the gas!

Answer 5

It would be great, but probably cost prohibitive. I would think most people would have trouble meeting that requirement because of the current cost of such alt. energy generators. I think a program to promote such a thing would be more effective to begin with. It would funnel more energy into the field and eventually help lower costs. Then we could look into some kind of requirement.

Answer 6

That would be absolutely great and it's a great idea. But it will never happen because they oil men witch rule the world will never allow anyone to take the money from there pockets. But on the brighter side it's a fabulous idea. keep up the good work.

Answer 7

I think it is garbage. It is more government interference and more government action overstepping its bounds. It is not the job of the government to determine how a building is powered, it is up to the OWNER of the building. If the owner chooses to invest that much extra money, that is their business. If they choose not to, that too is their business.

We all need to get out of the mindset that whenever we don't like something someone else is doing, we'll just get the government to create a law against it.

Answer 8

Construction costs will go up.
If the alt energy is cost effective, builders will not need a law to do it.
Less construction
higher unemployment
Government is never the solution.

Answer 9

If I could afford them we would use solar panels.
But I think it is a great Idea. They need to do somthing soon.

Answer 10

We already do that in Florida for heating our pools and water heaters. Ted Kennedy fought for wind turbines until they wanted to put them where he could see them. A little hypocritical but then again its a Kennedy and i would expect nothing less.