Why dont we require Solar of some type on new buildings & houses like they did in California in the 1980's?

During the oil embargo years during the 1980's, the State of California required all new residential buildings to install Solar hot water heating systems. Hot Water costs a family of 4 an avg of $55/month according to Sempra Energy. With the current federal tax credits it pays for itself in just 2-3 years, so why not require it on all new residential construction across the U.S.?

Solar Electric (Photovolataics) has come down in price to the point where it can pay for itself in just 10 years(or less) in desert areas like Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico & large portions of Texas where summer cooling bills are outrageous. Why not require it on all new construction?

With long term(10+ yr) Sallie Mae loans Solar Electric can actually pay for itself from the start when you factor in Federal Tax Credits and State(like California) or Utility Company(like Nevada) incentives. Why not require it & give property owners Govt secured, long term low interest loans to pay for it?

Answer:
There are a few reasons why this has not been mandated. First, as the previous answerer said, solar power is not feasible everywhere. It works well in southern California, because it is very sunny and energy needs are moderate due to very mild temperatures. It would probably not work in Seattle, Washington, where it rains very frequently and is cloudy much of the time. It might also be a poor choice in North Dakota, where scorching summer heat and crippling winter blizzards put a huge strain on the energy grid.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, this is America. Technology and industry are theoretically independent of the government. It's true that the government sponsors research and subsidizes corporations, but individuals ultimately have the freedom to choose what they want to invent and what inventions they want to use. Each person who builds a house has the right to decide how to build it, and each person who buys a house has the right to decide what kind of home they want to live in. A builder who wants to appeal to environmentally concscious homeowners will build a home that takes advantage of alternative energy sources. If solar power technology becomes more and more sophisticated, more efficient, and less expensive, everyone will want it in their own home, and it won't have to be mandated. If it isn't appealing enough for people to choose it on their own, the government shouldn't force them to do it.
THE BIG PROBLEM IN QUITE A FEW AREAS NOT ENOUGH CONTINOUS SUNSHINE.UNLESS YOU WANT A HYBRID OF SOME ,OF GAS & ELECTRIC & SOLAR--DEPENDING ON WHAT'S CHEAPEST AT ANY GIVEN TIME SLOT..WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE INTER-CHANGING SYSTEMS WITH NOT A PROHIBITIVE INTIAL COST...

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.



More Questions and Answers:

More Questions and Answers:
  • What is a polar bears biggest enemie in the artic??
  • how does el nino relate to diseases like cholera or yellow fever?
  • Ages 17-23 only, do you care about global warming?
  • sea characteristic?
  • Please help me... What are the effects of exposion to nuclear reaction or nuclear explosion to one's self?
  • Global warming?
  • whats the difference between climate & weather?
  • Does anyone know a country with 2 biomes?
  • Is it time we stopped using supermarkets?