Salt River Project is planning a massive solar-power plant in the southeast Valley and wants to offer its power to customers instead of having them install panels on their homes to make their own power. AZCentral
Many older and newer homes have PV solar panes (photovoltaic) on their homes and solar powered water heaters. From personal experience, tap water in summer is about 80 degrees at 6 A.M., when it’s coldest. Summer natural gas bills in my home drop down to the $16 in fees I would get charged whether or not I use any gas. Oddly enough, while government rebates do exist, and solar is encouraged, the cities in the “Valley of the Sun” do not mandate solar power usage on residential construction, much less anything other zoning.
Generally, when a residential subdivision is built, streets are constructed within the subdivision and improved outside of it and utilities are extended – all typically at the developer’s cost, which in turn gets passed onto the eventual homebuyer. Hence improved lots cost more than non-improved lots. Additionally, development fees are charged, but this varies from state to state. In Arizona, these development fees consist of money to build police, fire, and educational facilities to service the new population. If the subdivision is big enough, and some got to be 4-sq. mi. (25,600 Acres), typically the developer had to construct all these facilities, to City specifications, on land that the developer had to set aside.
Let’s assume, on 640 acres (1 sq. mi.) you can fit 7 homes per acre (I think I am sitting on under a tenth of an acre), for a total of 4,480 saleable lots, with an average development fee/cost of $10,000 per lot, you’re looking at $44 mill in developer costs that is passed onto lot buyers.
I am not saying that this is wasted money, although, undoubtedly, some is; rather I am saying is that the home buying public, by and large, can afford to pay more. But the question is, “More, for what?” or where will this additional money go?
Since Phoenix was hit hard by the housing bubble, there needs to be a value-added service for any additional fees, so I say why not solar, and why not, more importantly, institutional solar? By institutional solar, I mean charge $10k per lot, and funnel that money directly to a solar power plant. Solar technology with external combustion, solar heat exchangers, and ridiculous solar concentrators are all more efficient than simple PVs.
So if home owners would essentially buy into carbon neutral homes using existing technology on a large-scale while helping to build the infrastructure for the existing homes at the same time. Additionally, solar power built in this manner may become competitively priced when compared to coal, and the region would be better for it.
Maybe this would be cheaper and more productive than the stimulus.
Generally, when a residential subdivision is built, streets are constructed within the subdivision and improved outside of it and utilities are extended – all typically at the developer’s cost, which in turn gets passed onto the eventual homebuyer. Hence improved lots cost more than non-improved lots. Additionally, development fees are charged, but this varies from state to state. In Arizona, these development fees consist of money to build police, fire, and educational facilities to service the new population. If the subdivision is big enough, and some got to be 4-sq. mi. (25,600 Acres), typically the developer had to construct all these facilities, to City specifications, on land that the developer had to set aside.
Let’s assume, on 640 acres (1 sq. mi.) you can fit 7 homes per acre (I think I am sitting on under a tenth of an acre), for a total of 4,480 saleable lots, with an average development fee/cost of $10,000 per lot, you’re looking at $44 mill in developer costs that is passed onto lot buyers.
I am not saying that this is wasted money, although, undoubtedly, some is; rather I am saying is that the home buying public, by and large, can afford to pay more. But the question is, “More, for what?” or where will this additional money go?
Since Phoenix was hit hard by the housing bubble, there needs to be a value-added service for any additional fees, so I say why not solar, and why not, more importantly, institutional solar? By institutional solar, I mean charge $10k per lot, and funnel that money directly to a solar power plant. Solar technology with external combustion, solar heat exchangers, and ridiculous solar concentrators are all more efficient than simple PVs.
One large power plant is more cost-efficient than SRP providing rebates to several hundred homeowners for their own solar-power systems [$30,000 to $70,000].Now I have no idea what these things cost, but I am willing to bet that electric utilities, such as SRP, wouldn’t build anything without a 10-year or less pay-off (the sale of the power generated will pay for the construction and maintenance of the plant, as well as electricity transmission. within 10 years).
So if home owners would essentially buy into carbon neutral homes using existing technology on a large-scale while helping to build the infrastructure for the existing homes at the same time. Additionally, solar power built in this manner may become competitively priced when compared to coal, and the region would be better for it.
The [article's proposed] project is the latest in a series of new solar-power plants planned for the state as well as the latest in creative financing to pay for solar energy, which is typically more costly than traditional power sources.
Several companies now offer leasing arrangements or bulk purchases in Arizona, but the concept of letting people buy into a central power plant is new to the state.Phoenix has sun… why there hasn’t been a mandatory solar power requirement on the books since ’85 is beyond me. This needs to change.
Maybe this would be cheaper and more productive than the stimulus.
No comments:
Post a Comment