What are the implications of requiring builders and designers of new buildings to install solar panels?

Answer 1

Short run: the price of a house will increase an may out price some people trying to buy houses. The price of solar panel and installing them on existing building will increase perhaps out pricing some who want to install them.
Long run: decrease energy consumption and lowering the price of energy compared to what it would have been without the regulation. May spur investment in panel production and technology lowering LR cost of installation perhaps leading to more existing building having panels but farther out in the future. May pull investment from other alternative energy sources slowing technological advancements in them.

Answer 2

Less mercury in the air, caused by burning coal at the power generator. Less cost for electricity, or at least heating for the consumer. Lower overall costs for solar panels since the per unit price will go down as they become more cost effective to make in larger quantities. Less danger from exposed power lines in traffic and building fires during inclement weather. In Germany, solar users are actually allowed to sell power back to the electric company, which means that if you can work out a similar deal, you can actually generate revenue from owning the panels. Hope this helps.

Answer 3

Cost. Many buildings will simply not get built because the builder does not have enough money for the solar panels.

This reminds me of the luxury tax that was put on large boats. The idea was that only rich people who can afford it buy those boats, so it was an easy source of money for the government. What happened is that rich people just stopped buying boats and boat builders went out of business. The tax was repealed, but not before many businesses were destroyed.

Answer 4

Christopher, Bill Clinton and some folks from England are now making a long-needed assault on improving the "energy performance" of large office buildings and educating people and investors to the waste of building new glass boxes...they are done for. As a long-time solar and construction buff.....Amory Lovins always sez "least cost first" which means A: Heavy insulation B: seal air leaks C: minimize door and glass area to what's really needed D: Use energy-efficient appliances and CF lighting E: Install an air-to-air heat exchanger (AHX)....still with me? F: shop carefully for solar water heating or PV's....they're expensive.

Answer 5

Japan is doing this to some degree, and one unintended consequence is a short-term price increase in solar panels due to a shortage of silicon, a critical component. So while Japan is getting lots of solar power, developing nations nearby that actually have greater potential (due to more sunlight) are actually installing less solar capacity than they otherwise might.

Answer 6

Are these residential or commercial? In commercial I don't see a lot of negative implications, makes businesses look good, for example take Wal-mart, not the best company, but if they put solar panels on their roofs it's good press for them, and a lower hydro bill.

I don't see it as great for residential really, unless it's a niche market. But I don't think your average person wants the hassle to tell you the truth. They'll buy the power, but they don't want to maintain the panels.

Answer 7

More expensive property until it becomes a national policy and the price of the panels goes down. But the benefits are huge. Less dependence on foreign oil, less pollution, less destruction of nature to get at the resources to produce electricity.

Answer 8

1

Answer 9

Simple.

More expensive buildings with little or no real benefit other than making the occupier "feel good".

Answer 10

Higher initial cost. Higher maintenance costs. Little if any reduction in energy costs. It will also kill some projects. Business people aren't stupid. If it was cost effective you wouldn't have to mandate it, and it ain't cost effective.