- At the residential level, the energy demand is typically only 30% electrical, and 70% thermal, though that is starting to change for several reasons, including heat pumps and electrical vehicles (EV). For the seventy percent of energy demand that is thermal, 50-90% is best (i.e. most economically) solved by a variety of passive and energy harvesting solutions, including insulation. For retrofits, the economics would be in the lower end of that range, but for new construction, we now know that a passive house can be heated with a hairdryer, as much as the central station of Stockholm, Sweden can be heated by the body heat of the passengers, and still be an exporter of energy to an adjacent office building.
In other words, to maximize the value of your home, it makes sense to first address the 70% of energy demand which is thermal, and don't assume that the fuels you are using today are the best energy sources for HVAC and DHW (Domestic Hot Water). Granted, with lower oil and gas prices the renewable case is becoming harder, but switching might still be smarter in the long run even if it's a close call, but people just have to analyze the economics right.
Yeah that sounds about right. Regulatory arbitrage and transaction fees. Fuckin' Elon.The rooftop solar model is a house of cards of assumptions upon assumptions, some more far-fetched than others, but it can crumble quite easily, and it's all predicated on harvesting as many incentives as you can, and transaction fees everywhere, which is why the banks love it.
The fact that you need to sell the loan with the house is a major damper on the model. Solar farms do have to buy land, so that is one cost that might change the equation in some locals. No doubt in the SW land isn't crazy expensive, but on the east coast, it might be a different story.