REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Biden just said if I buy an electric car I will save $80 a month on fuel costs.
- Thread starter Duffy LaCoronilla
- Start date
Our power is also much cheaper.
We're built better
And solar car ports are in most new buildings, just like you're describing
I run AC the same months in Southern CA that I run AC here
And it’s cheaper despite having 2 units and a house twice the size
Literally everything is better besides lack of ocean
I don't even have or need A/C.
I do have two fridges though and they each have wine and beer in them.
From experience, L the fuck OL. My electric bill was easily 3x my bill in SD. And the AC was on pretty much non-stop from early May through mid October. We even did the "don't use it from noon to 4" thing to get super special rates. Nothing like stepping into a 100 degree house when you get off work!
You ghosted, bro.Yes they have. Some have even been removed or decommissioned.
How many of the dams referenced in that link were energy-producing? Was there even one?
You do understand the difference between a dam and an active hydro-electrical plant, yes?
Are you unaware of the enviro-nuts desire to remove dams? Gotta save the feeesh you know. Do you honestly think we'll be building any new ones in the future?
The answer is that developers fund them as they build new product, but the ultimate price is paid by underlying land owners whose residual purchase price for dirt is reduced as costs are added. New homes in CA going forward must all hit minimum solar requirements, and I don't hear anyone screaming about "Who Will Fund This???!!!"
I'd imagine that as time passes, buildings not on solar will be viewed as obsolete.
Why can't you discuss a topic without sidetracking? How many of the dams in that link were actively producing energy? You keep saying liberals hate hydro, but you don't seem to even understand the difference between a normal dam and an energy-producing one.
Show me where liberals are shutting down active energy producing dams in the US.
In the meantime, I'll show you where evil greenies are pushing to retrofit normal dams so they also produce energy: https://www.wired.com/story/retrofitting-dams-green-energy/
And yes, retrofitting serves not only to produce more hydro energy, but also to reduce the need to build new dams. Win/win.
Because new home development in California is the same thing as existing warehouses in Arizona. Got it.
How much time in decades do you imagine?
Do you have solar energy in your home? What kind of system?
I love when duffer frames sh!t to support his bias.
I notice that he doesn't factor in the price of replacing a gas powered truck with a gas powered truck.
Typical
A better way to frame that would be "When you buy a new truck . . . "
Duffy "BUT THAT's NOT WHAT HE SAID!!!!!!"
I also have two fridgesI don't even have or need A/C.
I do have two fridges though and they each have wine and beer in them.
We were looking into buying new in CA before the job opportunity came up
Who funds the solar on new houses? The owner
Another forced cost to pay in an already nuclearlly inflated cost environment
Yay Sacramento!
Solar doesn't fit well on my roof. I looked years ago and it wasn't close to cost effective. My next home will have solar. Fortunately, our electric use is pretty minor - rarely use AC, don't have a pool, water heater is gas etc. I may reconsider on the current house as we move to replacing our cars with EVs.
And I don't think anyone is screaming to force existing warehouses in Arizona to convert to solar. I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if you can show me otherwise. Just like EV's, you can't force it on people immediately, but you can phase it in over a period of years.
And to be clear, new industrial in Arizona IS largely going solar. That's not even a question.
And also to be clear, the problem in AZ was that for years the energy companies were actively fighting against more solar. So even when people wanted it, energy companies put limits on how many new hookups they'd add with solar. Utility companies like SRP are now being hit with anti-trust claims that will likely force them to open the doors to solar for good.
Fun fact, Arizona is actually the largest solar producer in the US. It only uses 12% of its own solar energy - the rest is sold to other cities/states.
False.
Home builders price land so homes net about an 8-10% margin. Land pricing starts with assumed revenues, then a builder reduces out direct build costs, fees, land development costs and then all of the standard soft costs to arrive at a residual land value.
So when costs go up over time, it's not the builder who pays for it, it's the land owner who's selling the dirt to the builder who sees less in his purchase price. Only short term cost changes (i.e., costs that deviate from a builder's project-specific pro forma assumptions - lately, lumber has been the killer) hit the builder's margin.
The notion that these costs are "passed on" to buyers is bullshit - homes aren't cost based priced, they're market priced.
EDIT - the above assumes that solar is mandatory. If solar is an option choses by a buyer, then yes, they're choosing to pay for it. In AZ, that's how it works. In CA, it's mandatory so the cost is baked into the land valuation equation.