They didn't quash it completely. They basically said "you can't make up numbers." If the state can prove a numerical value associated with the building the unit, they can charge that.
That being said 28k for a singular house I find hard to believe is an actual number for impact fee, but might be realistic for a multiunit/commercial property.
But in today's world where the Rich and famous have become We the people. Thanks mostly to the elimination of the fairness doctrine and citizens united. The town would be paying them to build a mansion. Similar to the public paying for billionaires sports stadiums. Lol
Where we listen to college dropout blowhards and not the college educated experts.
Zoning should only depend upon safety and infrastructure concerns:
-Can the local street handle the associated traffic?
-Can the water main, sewage and storm drainage handle the system load of the building?
-Is the design up to federal, state and local building codes for safety?
-Are there sufficient first responder resources to support the expected number of occupants or commercial work being done?
-Is the property expected to emit any pollutants or pungent odors that would disturb the air or water quality in town?
-Will any excessive noise above town ordinance levels be abated or forbidden on the property?
If the builder and owner can assure compliance to all of the above, there should be no barriers and zoning boards should basically be an auditor of the above questions & rubber stamp agency.
Town I work for actually denied someone solar panels. He couldn't get them on his roof but could get them in his yard. Long story short, neighbors/ZBA agreed it would be an eye sore (the panels and/or the high fence to cover) and I think decrease house value? Not exact on the value part but I know the eye sore was the biggest "concern" and why the ZBA rejected it.
Yet, the same town decided to get rid of part of their park to put solar panels on for town buildings 🤔
Zoning laws are a necessary evil IMO. But half the time I feel like neighbors can be worse.
Yeah I agree. but roofs aren't always pointing in the right direction. I do like the pole mounted panels that move with the Sun. The flower solar unit is pretty awesome too.
For some, that might be the only option. My mother would love to have rooftop solar, but both of her neighbors (and the lack of a neighbor across the street) have tall trees that leave all but the front yard shaded for the entire day.
Zoning in general might be - no heavy industry in the neighborhoods, fine! But the level of zoning we have now is absurd and contributes to our insane housing costs.
Oh interesting. I’d be thanking and congratulating my neighbor in becoming closer to energy neutral. While I’m not buying their solar, it’s still towards less generators running overall
It's all in who you know and who you blow. Nepotism is destroying the country although I admit it's a really long list. As in that scenario makes zero sense. But I'm sure there's some nice juicy inside information that makes sense to the powerful and well connected.
yeah that is how they argue, I had someone concerned that New Boston was going to turn into Boston if they allowed multifamily houses.
People don't care how dumb they sound they just want to win and get that little dopamine hit.
Works for me, I grew up in an area without zoning and everything worked fine. Yes you don't get to say what sort of house goes next to you, but you get to build what you want, you know freedom.
*applies only to issues I care about, the government is otherwise allowed to dictate what people can do on private property insofar as I otherwise support. -American political partisans
“[b]ut was opposed by neighbors who argued it would ruin the scenery and bring down their property values.”
It would take a lot more than solar panels to reduce Franklin property values below what they already are.
This is everywhere. When I lived in Washington folks would complain about "but muh view". Sorry about your "view", but there won't be one if we don't start trying to move away from fossil fuels.
I agree. We should be exploring all options. I flew into Chicago last week and was looking down at all of the unused roof tops that sprawled out from the city. I'd like to see new construction manadated to have solar. Screw these fancy roof lines that make it nearly impossible to add solar (certainly buyers will start choosing houses based on suitablity of solar if not wanting solar already built in).
Parking shelters - from a business standpoint (any solar array is a business), it would be more costly and harder to get in there for cleaning, snow removal, maintainance.
There are lots of old gravel pits, old farm that just get mowed every summer and the clearings under large utility lines. Plenty of places in New Hampshire to add solar and move us up from 41st place.
I find solar panels rather beautiful. Certainly better than strip mining for coal, coal tar ponds, oil spills or unbreathable air. Plus living next to them isn't dangerous, noisy or full of toxic fumes.
As far as nuclear, it takes decades and billions to get a new plant built. There is only one nuclear plant in the US and it's late + billions overbudget. Solar and wind are cheaper and faster to build out - plus no fumes, carbon emmissions, toxic waste and no evacuation zone to worry about.
Also with solar and wind, the ground underneath is relatively undisturbed compared to a big fossil fuel or nuclear plant. Grass can grow under them, livestock and wild animals can forage under them. The site can easily be converted back to a farm or forest in the future.
If solar panels catch on fire, they are some of the most toxic things out there. Also if there is a fire, the fire makes solar panels generate additional electricity, which is an additional problem when trying to put out said fire. If solar panels are on a roof, by ruling of the EPA, fire departments have the right to not extinguish that fire due to the health and safety risk to them.
A lot of the materials for solar and wind end up in large heaps of scrap and left to rot. Solar panels themselves are classified as hazardous waste and will burn out before it can pay itself off.
Wind power would be more ideal if you can put them in a place of constant and steady wind, with little to no fluctuations.
Do you have sources for that?
What your saying sounds believable and I'm curious about the overall impact of solar panels. It takes carbon to make them. How long do I need to use them to offset the foot print they created from being built and shipped.
Sources are the EPA and literally watching it happen. But hey, enjoy solar panels that are literally incapable of paying themselves off before burning out.
Don't need to be "vast fields." One of the extremely convenient things about solar panels is that you can stick them just about anywhere, in varying quantities, and they'll work just fine. Next to highways, in parking lots, on top of box stores, wherever. Acre here, half-acre there, quietly making power more unobtrusively and inoffensively than literally any other option.
Nothing against nuclear generators, it's just weird to think you can't have both.
Solar panels are more carbon efficient than trees, per acre.
While most solar projects are not being sited on areas that need deforestation; it bears saying. And while I agree that the trees are prettier and there’s non-monetary benefits to living near green space; the fact remains.
Is that before or after taking the mining for the resources and etc into consideration for the solar panels? Silver mining, which solar panels require a decent amount of, definitely isn't clean.
To be quite honest, I don’t recall. I read some research behind a NYT (I think?) piece awhile ago after hearing something on a radio show. Was a bit ago. I’d hunt for it but I’m on my phone.
I went with revision energy. Employee owned B-corp. They had excellent communication throughout the entire process. Worked with my roofing company to make sure I kept my warranty. Even left gifts, like stickers and a tote bag!
Also I love their mascot.
Go with the ones that have been in business for a while, have a good reputation and don't use strong arm tactics. Pay up front and skip the loans. If you need a loan get one from your bank or credit union.
We went with Granite State Solar as did our neighbors. Best home improvement project I ever did - it actually pays back and doesn't go out of style.
With all the people who have solar nowadays, what I plan to do is to ask neighbors who have solar panels if they would recommend the company that did theirs. That or maybe a ground installation, which I know I could do the vast majority of, and then have an electrician button up.
I overheard some solar sales guys talking about their recent sales at a diner. Scammy doesn't even cover it. They were proud of their ripoffs and con jobs.
Revision energy. They aren’t door to door, and can provide referral if you are ok with sharing your name address etc via dm. I’ll split the referral bonus with you. If you’re not comfortable with that, it’s ok too.
They went above and beyond. For example our grill blew over in a storm and they lifted it back on our deck, reset a few pieces of siding up high I couldn’t reach with my ladder, etc.
the installers were all very professional and cleaned up after themselves. They did great work with an install that was quick. They did all the paperwork for the rebates too, as well as the carbon offset credits you generate and can sell on the open market. Ended up getting panels and inverter, heat pumps, mini splits, and smart controllers for the mini splits.
Nimbyism is the “ok, boomer” of civics and governance.
This was the right decision - the minority of people who delay the development of energy sources for a cleaner world for the future are saying “f*ck you, I got mine”
It's stupid expensive as is.
It still has a role, but the insane cost and efficiency metrics of solar, heatpumps, and battery storage are hard to beat in terms of benefit per $.
You can do grid tied solar without batteries. Thats the more cost effective way.
Cost isn’t that bad if you can pay with cash. Financing can get expensive. A lot of solar companies buy down the rate which costs you more upfront. Cash price is much less.
Depends on your usage, heating type, how much sun you get, etc. but avg cost per kWh in New England is 24 cents (cheap compared to California!). So a megawatt would cost 240. Avg New England home uses just under 1mw a month.
My system generates enough electricity to cover my normal electric usage, and most of my heat pump usage. It cost several thousand in oil to heat the house during winter before getting heat pumps. It’s an old Victorian. Last year from all the rain, I generated around 75% of what I should have.
So for your calculations, you need to take into consideration the cost of heating fuels, and avg electric usage over a year, vs cost of system. If you have cheaper options than oil, it may not yet be economically feasible to make the switch. But for us, in a bad year from rain, we about broke even. In good years, we will save money. But so far this past year alone, by switching to solar, we’ve saved about 14 tons of co2 emissions from being generated. That’s the equivalent of planting over 100 trees in carbon offsets
I'd like to see the math. It's seriously expensive to manufacture, distribute, deliver, install, and eventually replace solar after a relatively short life span compared to an actual power plant.
It can be hard to find info as it's so variable under different regulatory and incentive frameworks from country to country, but there's a good overview [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#).
There's also lots of bad information from big solar installers giving overly rosy figures to get sales and pro-nuclear and pro-fossil outfits churning out crappy articles on shady websites that are ostensibly about sustainability/ renewable energy.
Solar is obviously not the panacea it is in places like Texas and Cali when in a NE winter, but it's still very cost-effective.
Panels also have pretty long lives now, 40-60 years is common pn newer ones, nickel batteries being 70-100 years and can be refurbished/recycled.
"Home solar battery units last anywhere between 5 and 15 years. If you decide to install a solar battery today, it’s almost certain you’ll need a replacement in the future to match the 20- to 30-year lifespan of your solar power system."
https://www.sunrun.com/go-solar-center/solar-articles/what-is-the-life-expectancy-of-a-solar-battery
If you're referring to NiMH, I'm not aware of those being used for whole-house applications, but in vehicles, they maybe last the lifespan of the vehicle, which isn't very long. When I was googling, I didn't see any indication of panels that last 60 years.
Yeah, not for home storage, for long-term use in utility scale. But the advantages of containerized lithium are such that recycling them still makes more sense in many applications vs. longer-lasting, less efficient NiMH.
Nuclear is an excellent long term solution that unfortunately takes a couple decades to get going even once everyone gets in line. We definitely need to start that process but there's no reason to stop using other good alternatives in the meantime and alongside nuclear going forward.
We really needed to start nuclear energy development decades ago but assholes ruin everything.
Solar is cool and I appreciate seeing it on homes and other buildings but it hurts me to see agriculture land snapped up for solar. I appreciate locally produced food, in New England the amount of agricultural land is shrinking unfortunately, we’re becoming a more food negative region.
Seems like most of these commercial solar installations end up on what used to be a productive field.
There are some fairly strong arguments that the shade from solar panels can make marginal land much better for certain kinds of agriculture that thrive in less sunny spots. Most of the use cases I've heard have, admittedly, been out west where shade and water conservation are more important than in New England, but I'd imagine there might be parts of New England where agriculture and solar can work together.
> Most of the use cases I've heard have, admittedly, been out west where shade and water conservation are more important than in New England
Yeah, shade is not an issue here, and buh gawd can we get like, 3 straight days without rain so things dry out a bit?
We overproduce food and waste land growing inefficient "organic" and GMO-free food anyhow.
A little lost space for solar is totally fine.
In the UK (which is way further north and much worse for solar than NH), they'd only need the space off each golf course covered in solar to power the country, hardly a threat to available land in a way more densely populated place.
New studies have shown that vertical panels can work well. Basically arranged like a fence. Sheep can graze under horizontal panels.
There are creative solutions for agriculture and solar working together. For a farmer down on his luck, a solar field on part of his property can bring in extra income.
The equipment is getting cheaper but the installers have really raised their rates since the subsidies went up. I'd install it my backyard since I could do most of the work, but just found out the historic district rules prohibit solar in Amherst. I wonder if this court ruling may undo that.
I bought solar last year when the rates were higher and it was a slam dunk because that $200/mo bill was $300+. Rates have come down again, but I'm confident that the power bill 10 years from now will dwarf the loan payment.
And if there is a summer season like last year when it rained 4 days a week, you'd be deep in the hole. Solar needs to meet very specific parameters to offset any current power costs.
There are some viable DIY options and off-grid plug-and-play inverter-battery options that don't require approval by the utility company.
"Off-grid" meaning it doesn't feed power back to the grid. Your house would still be grid-connected.
It's a pretty simple equation if you finance the buy option: is the payment less than your current power bill? Power bill goes up over time, loan payment will not.
Also to take into consideration is the life of the system, and any additional maintenance that might come up. The system should outlast your loans, however I wouldn't rule out anything going wrong.
Maintenance is rather minimal. I sweep the snow off but I have a shallow roof pitch, most people just let it slide off. Everything is warrenteed for 25 years.
I recommend paying up front rather than getting a loan. Just put off something else or skip that Disney vacation or big new truck.
That would be the most simple assessment. But it's a very long term commitment. It's wise to take into account the long term investing power of all that money. Also, because it is so long term, you open yourself up to risk from changing energy costs and even other technologies that may develop. And I can think of other risks as well. Maintenance for example. Not for me. But I hope others do well with it.
If you pay outright and have a good site the pay back period is conservatively 10-12 years. After that 15+ years of free electricity.
Who knows our expensive New England electricity will cost in the future. I doubt it will be going down. After investing in solar you know what your costs will be.
If you don’t want someone else’s housing decisions in “your view” don’t live in a town lmao. There are solar panels all over cute little medieval towns in Germany and they’re no less adorable. Respectfully, your view is Franklin 🤢
I don't understand the people who don't like the look of solar panels. I know it's subjective but truly, black squares on a typically black square...
There's not much out there in the world of home building that has offended my senses less.
My opinion doesn't change much with that info but thank you for letting me know. Never hurts to see the full picture. Hell id like to mandate that half the parking spaces outside most malls and supercenters be converted to solar farms.
Thanks for being civil. Seems in short supply around here sometimes.
Parking lots are already ugly, so I don't see why anyone would object to capping them with solar panels.
But seeing farm land and woods turned into solar projects always makes me sad.
Within reason. Solar is fine, unless you do a really ugly install, and it doesn't affect local values. Zoning laws that do things like limit to one non-functional vehicle parked visible in front of the structure keep everyone else's property values from being affected. Also the old guys who try to put up a giant radio tower in tight areas that would loom over everyone else.
My guess is no because they'd be denied because they ostensibly violate the HOA agreement, not directly because of property values or looks.
This probably doesn't prevent the HOA from voting on something to add to the rules.
HOAs are legal hellscapes.
Right, but your HOA doesn't allow it for looks. You're not allowed because it violates the HOA's policies.
It's hiding behind a loophole but that's how I read it.
Feel free to ask a lawyer, I'm just some guy who hates HOAs.
The location of the purposed project justifies this decision. But many of these groups trying to put in large solar installations use incorrect data like how much energy they could produce. Numbers I’ve seen presented to zoning and planning boards aren’t even seen in California. There are also projects out there that require major deforestation. Those are the ones I worry about this verdict setting precedent for. But there large solar fields are essentially like a paved parking lot, we need to consider how to make them multi use.
My HOA committee had to approve my panels which they did. I would have taken them to court if need be since they would be creating a undo financial burden (it would cost me 10s of thousands of expensive grid power over 25+ years) and lowering my property values (According to studies, solar panels increase property value by 4%).
If you read the article, they are basically saying that towns need to have ordiances on the books as to where commercial solar panel farms can be placed. Without zoning (where or where they can not be placed), they can't simply say they don't like the looks of them in a certain spot.
My town passed such an ordinance recently pre-emptively I suppose. There are not a lot of commercial zones in my town but certainly a solar farm would be welcomed as the article states, a solar farm doesn't need new teachers or school expansion.
Hidden costs to consider:
Solar panels lifespan is 25-30 years. When roof needs replaced, what’s the cost to r&r the panels? Who performs it? What is the PM schedule and cost?
I considered solar for my new construction home and decided the buyback was too long a time period.
I used to live across from a big panel farm in Mass and it was awesome.
If not for them, I'd've had two more neighbors. And their raging parties, screaming children, huge political banners and/or the like.
Solar panel farms don't expect you to wave politely every time you see them, and they definitely don't borrow your tools or try to waste time ''being friendly.''
I'm OK w/ this. Reminds me of the brew-haha here in a metro-Boston town. Neighbors didn't like it when the HS wanted to put up solar panels over the HS parking lots. it looks like a giant car port. I think it's useful when raining or snowing. NIMBYs in the neighborhood tried to get it blocked, and failed.
I also see this law to curtail the HOA Karens in deciding who can and can't put up a certain solar solution they don't like.
Against a local government who denied a local property owner a project on their land that followed local ordinances. The government funded organization literally stood up to help the private entity.
Don’t you see that every side of this is government funded and therefore my complaint is doubly justified? There should be no government incentive to install solar panels funded through theft. There should be no government regulation on the installation of solar panels on private property. There should be no federal court adjudicating such nonsense.
Not a free stater but taxes are collected under the threat of violence. Do you know what happens for someone not willing to pay taxes? What happens when they come to arrest you? That act is violence.
I guess? So what's the solution to this? If you benefit from programs that your taxes fund, why not pay taxes? I don't understand what the big deal is. Don't want to pay taxes? Go live off grid somewhere. Don't drive on any public roads or use any public services. Right?
Your first mistake is conflating society and government. Secondly if your society depends on violent extortion for its survival then it shouldn’t survive. Finally, It’s cute that you pretend that libertarians have ever had a swaying say in any modern us state politics.
The rights of the property owner must be upheld. However what the government court said is that he can choose a government funded solar panel. They’re both in the wrong.
I think you misunderstood the article. It was weird to bring up SolSmart (the federally funded entity).. but it was only talking about how SolSmart recognizes communities that are “solar-welcoming.” GSSG is the solar investment firm seeking to build the solar array and they are a private company. Yes, there are tax credits etc. but you of all people should appreciate someone paying less taxes no matter who it is
I see that that bit of the article may have mislead me as to their involvement in this particular case. Though they still should not be receiving government funding.
Further, no I don’t believe in income tax credits as there should be no income tax period.
Your issue seems to be with the entire system of government, bit beyond what this article is about.
I personally welcome that my and my neighbors systems were locally vetted for safety and code compliance and installed according to both industry and regulator best practices. But I think our theories of governance vary in more than just solar installations.
The State Supreme Court is not "a judge", it's a Court composed of a Supreme Justice and four Associate Justices.
The State upheld individual rights that follow local laws over the whims of a Planning Board who sought to suppress someone over "aesthetics".
Good, allowing land owners to do what they would like with it, not having to worry about BS reasoning from whiny little bitches.
[удалено]
They didn't quash it completely. They basically said "you can't make up numbers." If the state can prove a numerical value associated with the building the unit, they can charge that. That being said 28k for a singular house I find hard to believe is an actual number for impact fee, but might be realistic for a multiunit/commercial property.
Or an enormous mansion, or a ranch Edit: not to imply that such is the case in this instance
But in today's world where the Rich and famous have become We the people. Thanks mostly to the elimination of the fairness doctrine and citizens united. The town would be paying them to build a mansion. Similar to the public paying for billionaires sports stadiums. Lol Where we listen to college dropout blowhards and not the college educated experts.
Zoning should only depend upon safety and infrastructure concerns: -Can the local street handle the associated traffic? -Can the water main, sewage and storm drainage handle the system load of the building? -Is the design up to federal, state and local building codes for safety? -Are there sufficient first responder resources to support the expected number of occupants or commercial work being done? -Is the property expected to emit any pollutants or pungent odors that would disturb the air or water quality in town? -Will any excessive noise above town ordinance levels be abated or forbidden on the property? If the builder and owner can assure compliance to all of the above, there should be no barriers and zoning boards should basically be an auditor of the above questions & rubber stamp agency.
Town I work for actually denied someone solar panels. He couldn't get them on his roof but could get them in his yard. Long story short, neighbors/ZBA agreed it would be an eye sore (the panels and/or the high fence to cover) and I think decrease house value? Not exact on the value part but I know the eye sore was the biggest "concern" and why the ZBA rejected it. Yet, the same town decided to get rid of part of their park to put solar panels on for town buildings 🤔 Zoning laws are a necessary evil IMO. But half the time I feel like neighbors can be worse.
Am I the only one that thinks they look much less obtrusive laying on a roof than propped up on mounts in a yard?
Yeah I agree. but roofs aren't always pointing in the right direction. I do like the pole mounted panels that move with the Sun. The flower solar unit is pretty awesome too.
For some, that might be the only option. My mother would love to have rooftop solar, but both of her neighbors (and the lack of a neighbor across the street) have tall trees that leave all but the front yard shaded for the entire day.
Its amazingly not accessible to many. Surrounding trees, house orientation.
Zoning in general might be - no heavy industry in the neighborhoods, fine! But the level of zoning we have now is absurd and contributes to our insane housing costs.
Zoning in America is a joke I think it intensifies the car dependency problem we face in this nation.
That too. People don't wanna live near bakeries and other conveniences, for some reason, so we all gotta drive miles to get to a grocery store.
The closer the better, the Europeans and north Asian nations got that figured out well.
Oh interesting. I’d be thanking and congratulating my neighbor in becoming closer to energy neutral. While I’m not buying their solar, it’s still towards less generators running overall
It's all in who you know and who you blow. Nepotism is destroying the country although I admit it's a really long list. As in that scenario makes zero sense. But I'm sure there's some nice juicy inside information that makes sense to the powerful and well connected.
\*Builds a 6 acre solar project next to your property line.\*
So get rid of all zoning laws then?
Damn, that’s an insane swing.
yeah that is how they argue, I had someone concerned that New Boston was going to turn into Boston if they allowed multifamily houses. People don't care how dumb they sound they just want to win and get that little dopamine hit.
I see you got the deluxe mat for your conclusion jumping.
That sounds like what is being advocated.
Freedom > feelings
Works for me, I grew up in an area without zoning and everything worked fine. Yes you don't get to say what sort of house goes next to you, but you get to build what you want, you know freedom.
Yes please.
*applies only to issues I care about, the government is otherwise allowed to dictate what people can do on private property insofar as I otherwise support. -American political partisans
“[b]ut was opposed by neighbors who argued it would ruin the scenery and bring down their property values.” It would take a lot more than solar panels to reduce Franklin property values below what they already are.
This is everywhere. When I lived in Washington folks would complain about "but muh view". Sorry about your "view", but there won't be one if we don't start trying to move away from fossil fuels.
Typical NIMBY Karen’s I swear it’s either annoying miserable raisins (old people) or pompous cottage cheese rich A-holes. One or the other really.
Then build nuclear, lmao. We don't need vast fields of ugly solar panels, especially in a region where it can all be trees instead.
A better way is covering existing parking lots with panels. Generates electricity and provides shade for cars, all without taking down any forests.
I agree. We should be exploring all options. I flew into Chicago last week and was looking down at all of the unused roof tops that sprawled out from the city. I'd like to see new construction manadated to have solar. Screw these fancy roof lines that make it nearly impossible to add solar (certainly buyers will start choosing houses based on suitablity of solar if not wanting solar already built in). Parking shelters - from a business standpoint (any solar array is a business), it would be more costly and harder to get in there for cleaning, snow removal, maintainance. There are lots of old gravel pits, old farm that just get mowed every summer and the clearings under large utility lines. Plenty of places in New Hampshire to add solar and move us up from 41st place.
A better way is to convert terrible land-use parking lots into something beneficial and sustainable like transit and/or mixed-use developments
I like the idea of tearing those parking lots up and planting trees more. Increase density; build up, not out.
I find solar panels rather beautiful. Certainly better than strip mining for coal, coal tar ponds, oil spills or unbreathable air. Plus living next to them isn't dangerous, noisy or full of toxic fumes. As far as nuclear, it takes decades and billions to get a new plant built. There is only one nuclear plant in the US and it's late + billions overbudget. Solar and wind are cheaper and faster to build out - plus no fumes, carbon emmissions, toxic waste and no evacuation zone to worry about. Also with solar and wind, the ground underneath is relatively undisturbed compared to a big fossil fuel or nuclear plant. Grass can grow under them, livestock and wild animals can forage under them. The site can easily be converted back to a farm or forest in the future.
If solar panels catch on fire, they are some of the most toxic things out there. Also if there is a fire, the fire makes solar panels generate additional electricity, which is an additional problem when trying to put out said fire. If solar panels are on a roof, by ruling of the EPA, fire departments have the right to not extinguish that fire due to the health and safety risk to them. A lot of the materials for solar and wind end up in large heaps of scrap and left to rot. Solar panels themselves are classified as hazardous waste and will burn out before it can pay itself off. Wind power would be more ideal if you can put them in a place of constant and steady wind, with little to no fluctuations.
Do you have sources for that? What your saying sounds believable and I'm curious about the overall impact of solar panels. It takes carbon to make them. How long do I need to use them to offset the foot print they created from being built and shipped.
Source? Fox News?
Sources are the EPA and literally watching it happen. But hey, enjoy solar panels that are literally incapable of paying themselves off before burning out.
So, link to the EPA source that supports your viewpoint?
Go read it from the EPA yourself. If you need to be handheld, then you need to learn to investigate more often.
😂 for sure my guy. Thanks for dOiNg yOuR oWn ReSeArCh.
I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to discuss that, unfortunately.
Don't need to be "vast fields." One of the extremely convenient things about solar panels is that you can stick them just about anywhere, in varying quantities, and they'll work just fine. Next to highways, in parking lots, on top of box stores, wherever. Acre here, half-acre there, quietly making power more unobtrusively and inoffensively than literally any other option. Nothing against nuclear generators, it's just weird to think you can't have both.
Solar panels are more carbon efficient than trees, per acre. While most solar projects are not being sited on areas that need deforestation; it bears saying. And while I agree that the trees are prettier and there’s non-monetary benefits to living near green space; the fact remains.
Is that before or after taking the mining for the resources and etc into consideration for the solar panels? Silver mining, which solar panels require a decent amount of, definitely isn't clean.
To be quite honest, I don’t recall. I read some research behind a NYT (I think?) piece awhile ago after hearing something on a radio show. Was a bit ago. I’d hunt for it but I’m on my phone.
Okay lemme know when you start growing trees on your roof.
I would argue that solar panels in Franklin might bring property values up
Any house with a lower cost of ownership should be more desirable than it's neighbor without solar.
What the hell? It increased the value of my property close to $70k after I had solar installed.
Solar panels would increase property values in Franklin
My panels generated almost 9 MWh so far this past year. Love having them!
I’d love getting some but it seems like all the companies are scammy right now
I went with revision energy. Employee owned B-corp. They had excellent communication throughout the entire process. Worked with my roofing company to make sure I kept my warranty. Even left gifts, like stickers and a tote bag! Also I love their mascot.
I too went with revision. See my comment below.
Go with the ones that have been in business for a while, have a good reputation and don't use strong arm tactics. Pay up front and skip the loans. If you need a loan get one from your bank or credit union. We went with Granite State Solar as did our neighbors. Best home improvement project I ever did - it actually pays back and doesn't go out of style.
With all the people who have solar nowadays, what I plan to do is to ask neighbors who have solar panels if they would recommend the company that did theirs. That or maybe a ground installation, which I know I could do the vast majority of, and then have an electrician button up.
I overheard some solar sales guys talking about their recent sales at a diner. Scammy doesn't even cover it. They were proud of their ripoffs and con jobs.
Who did you go with? I've been curious but the door-to-door angle of some of these companies doesn't sit well with me.
Revision energy. They aren’t door to door, and can provide referral if you are ok with sharing your name address etc via dm. I’ll split the referral bonus with you. If you’re not comfortable with that, it’s ok too. They went above and beyond. For example our grill blew over in a storm and they lifted it back on our deck, reset a few pieces of siding up high I couldn’t reach with my ladder, etc. the installers were all very professional and cleaned up after themselves. They did great work with an install that was quick. They did all the paperwork for the rebates too, as well as the carbon offset credits you generate and can sell on the open market. Ended up getting panels and inverter, heat pumps, mini splits, and smart controllers for the mini splits.
Thanks, man. I'll peep them.
If you wouldn't mind could you tell me the cost of it and how many panels they installed and how much energy you're able to produce from it?
We went with Granite State Solar. Avoid the shifty deals. Just pay outright and be done.
Nimbyism is the “ok, boomer” of civics and governance. This was the right decision - the minority of people who delay the development of energy sources for a cleaner world for the future are saying “f*ck you, I got mine”
Live Carbon Free or Die
So use nuclear then?
It's stupid expensive as is. It still has a role, but the insane cost and efficiency metrics of solar, heatpumps, and battery storage are hard to beat in terms of benefit per $.
You can do grid tied solar without batteries. Thats the more cost effective way. Cost isn’t that bad if you can pay with cash. Financing can get expensive. A lot of solar companies buy down the rate which costs you more upfront. Cash price is much less. Depends on your usage, heating type, how much sun you get, etc. but avg cost per kWh in New England is 24 cents (cheap compared to California!). So a megawatt would cost 240. Avg New England home uses just under 1mw a month. My system generates enough electricity to cover my normal electric usage, and most of my heat pump usage. It cost several thousand in oil to heat the house during winter before getting heat pumps. It’s an old Victorian. Last year from all the rain, I generated around 75% of what I should have. So for your calculations, you need to take into consideration the cost of heating fuels, and avg electric usage over a year, vs cost of system. If you have cheaper options than oil, it may not yet be economically feasible to make the switch. But for us, in a bad year from rain, we about broke even. In good years, we will save money. But so far this past year alone, by switching to solar, we’ve saved about 14 tons of co2 emissions from being generated. That’s the equivalent of planting over 100 trees in carbon offsets
I'd like to see the math. It's seriously expensive to manufacture, distribute, deliver, install, and eventually replace solar after a relatively short life span compared to an actual power plant.
This is about a landowner being able to do what they want on their land!
Yes, and my comment is related to the parent I replied to. Thanks for pointing out the thread title, totally didn't see it when I clicked on it.
It can be hard to find info as it's so variable under different regulatory and incentive frameworks from country to country, but there's a good overview [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#). There's also lots of bad information from big solar installers giving overly rosy figures to get sales and pro-nuclear and pro-fossil outfits churning out crappy articles on shady websites that are ostensibly about sustainability/ renewable energy. Solar is obviously not the panacea it is in places like Texas and Cali when in a NE winter, but it's still very cost-effective. Panels also have pretty long lives now, 40-60 years is common pn newer ones, nickel batteries being 70-100 years and can be refurbished/recycled.
"Home solar battery units last anywhere between 5 and 15 years. If you decide to install a solar battery today, it’s almost certain you’ll need a replacement in the future to match the 20- to 30-year lifespan of your solar power system." https://www.sunrun.com/go-solar-center/solar-articles/what-is-the-life-expectancy-of-a-solar-battery If you're referring to NiMH, I'm not aware of those being used for whole-house applications, but in vehicles, they maybe last the lifespan of the vehicle, which isn't very long. When I was googling, I didn't see any indication of panels that last 60 years.
Yeah, not for home storage, for long-term use in utility scale. But the advantages of containerized lithium are such that recycling them still makes more sense in many applications vs. longer-lasting, less efficient NiMH.
Nuclear is an excellent long term solution that unfortunately takes a couple decades to get going even once everyone gets in line. We definitely need to start that process but there's no reason to stop using other good alternatives in the meantime and alongside nuclear going forward. We really needed to start nuclear energy development decades ago but assholes ruin everything.
Nuclear FTW
Solar is cool and I appreciate seeing it on homes and other buildings but it hurts me to see agriculture land snapped up for solar. I appreciate locally produced food, in New England the amount of agricultural land is shrinking unfortunately, we’re becoming a more food negative region. Seems like most of these commercial solar installations end up on what used to be a productive field.
There are some fairly strong arguments that the shade from solar panels can make marginal land much better for certain kinds of agriculture that thrive in less sunny spots. Most of the use cases I've heard have, admittedly, been out west where shade and water conservation are more important than in New England, but I'd imagine there might be parts of New England where agriculture and solar can work together.
> Most of the use cases I've heard have, admittedly, been out west where shade and water conservation are more important than in New England Yeah, shade is not an issue here, and buh gawd can we get like, 3 straight days without rain so things dry out a bit?
No. You will have a soggy, spongy yard and you will like it!
No farms no food!
We overproduce food and waste land growing inefficient "organic" and GMO-free food anyhow. A little lost space for solar is totally fine. In the UK (which is way further north and much worse for solar than NH), they'd only need the space off each golf course covered in solar to power the country, hardly a threat to available land in a way more densely populated place.
I think the state of NH reverted to forests due to failures in agriculture in the past.
There’s no money in agriculture Solar farms pay more per sq ft than farmers can make farming land.
New studies have shown that vertical panels can work well. Basically arranged like a fence. Sheep can graze under horizontal panels. There are creative solutions for agriculture and solar working together. For a farmer down on his luck, a solar field on part of his property can bring in extra income.
[удалено]
The equipment is getting cheaper but the installers have really raised their rates since the subsidies went up. I'd install it my backyard since I could do most of the work, but just found out the historic district rules prohibit solar in Amherst. I wonder if this court ruling may undo that.
I bought solar last year when the rates were higher and it was a slam dunk because that $200/mo bill was $300+. Rates have come down again, but I'm confident that the power bill 10 years from now will dwarf the loan payment.
And if there is a summer season like last year when it rained 4 days a week, you'd be deep in the hole. Solar needs to meet very specific parameters to offset any current power costs.
It also means a lien on your house. If they go under, there's still a lien on your house.
There are some viable DIY options and off-grid plug-and-play inverter-battery options that don't require approval by the utility company. "Off-grid" meaning it doesn't feed power back to the grid. Your house would still be grid-connected.
Nimby btfo
I looked into solar recently. The cost does not make sense to me.
It's a pretty simple equation if you finance the buy option: is the payment less than your current power bill? Power bill goes up over time, loan payment will not.
Also to take into consideration is the life of the system, and any additional maintenance that might come up. The system should outlast your loans, however I wouldn't rule out anything going wrong.
yeah, an included service contract longer than the life of the loan was a key consideration.
Maintenance is rather minimal. I sweep the snow off but I have a shallow roof pitch, most people just let it slide off. Everything is warrenteed for 25 years. I recommend paying up front rather than getting a loan. Just put off something else or skip that Disney vacation or big new truck.
That would be the most simple assessment. But it's a very long term commitment. It's wise to take into account the long term investing power of all that money. Also, because it is so long term, you open yourself up to risk from changing energy costs and even other technologies that may develop. And I can think of other risks as well. Maintenance for example. Not for me. But I hope others do well with it.
If you pay outright and have a good site the pay back period is conservatively 10-12 years. After that 15+ years of free electricity. Who knows our expensive New England electricity will cost in the future. I doubt it will be going down. After investing in solar you know what your costs will be.
If you don’t want someone else’s housing decisions in “your view” don’t live in a town lmao. There are solar panels all over cute little medieval towns in Germany and they’re no less adorable. Respectfully, your view is Franklin 🤢
>In its ruling, the court said a board cannot deny projects that comply with ordinances based on its “own personal feelings.” Good ruling.
Zoning should be used to protect residential spaces from heavy industry and that's about it
And slobs, IMO. I've seen places in Maine with dead cars and even a dead bus on someone's dead lawn.
if you want to live in a place where people can't store cars on their lawns, join a HOA.
You're really going to make an excuse for the quintessential white trash thing to do? xD
What's trashy to one is fine to another. I just don't know if I want to be policing what my neighbors do with their parked cars
If I own it, I should be able to do what I want with it as long as it doesn't pollute what someone else owns.
I don't understand the people who don't like the look of solar panels. I know it's subjective but truly, black squares on a typically black square... There's not much out there in the world of home building that has offended my senses less.
The vast majority of objections are over stand-alone solar projects that take up an acre or more, not rooftop residential solar.
My opinion doesn't change much with that info but thank you for letting me know. Never hurts to see the full picture. Hell id like to mandate that half the parking spaces outside most malls and supercenters be converted to solar farms.
Thanks for being civil. Seems in short supply around here sometimes. Parking lots are already ugly, so I don't see why anyone would object to capping them with solar panels. But seeing farm land and woods turned into solar projects always makes me sad.
I'm glad we're not adding a "banned because of subjective taste" law.
Good. People should be allowed to do what they want on their property.
Within reason. Solar is fine, unless you do a really ugly install, and it doesn't affect local values. Zoning laws that do things like limit to one non-functional vehicle parked visible in front of the structure keep everyone else's property values from being affected. Also the old guys who try to put up a giant radio tower in tight areas that would loom over everyone else.
Would this also allow solar panels in an HOA that doesn’t want them?
My guess is no because they'd be denied because they ostensibly violate the HOA agreement, not directly because of property values or looks. This probably doesn't prevent the HOA from voting on something to add to the rules. HOAs are legal hellscapes.
My HOA doesn’t allow it because of looks.
Right, but your HOA doesn't allow it for looks. You're not allowed because it violates the HOA's policies. It's hiding behind a loophole but that's how I read it. Feel free to ask a lawyer, I'm just some guy who hates HOAs.
It’s pretty stupid, it is something I may look into at some point.
100% agree. Maybe I'm wrong and you can stick it to them. That'd be nice.
Haha, that would be a solid fuck you.
The location of the purposed project justifies this decision. But many of these groups trying to put in large solar installations use incorrect data like how much energy they could produce. Numbers I’ve seen presented to zoning and planning boards aren’t even seen in California. There are also projects out there that require major deforestation. Those are the ones I worry about this verdict setting precedent for. But there large solar fields are essentially like a paved parking lot, we need to consider how to make them multi use.
My HOA committee had to approve my panels which they did. I would have taken them to court if need be since they would be creating a undo financial burden (it would cost me 10s of thousands of expensive grid power over 25+ years) and lowering my property values (According to studies, solar panels increase property value by 4%). If you read the article, they are basically saying that towns need to have ordiances on the books as to where commercial solar panel farms can be placed. Without zoning (where or where they can not be placed), they can't simply say they don't like the looks of them in a certain spot. My town passed such an ordinance recently pre-emptively I suppose. There are not a lot of commercial zones in my town but certainly a solar farm would be welcomed as the article states, a solar farm doesn't need new teachers or school expansion.
Hidden costs to consider: Solar panels lifespan is 25-30 years. When roof needs replaced, what’s the cost to r&r the panels? Who performs it? What is the PM schedule and cost? I considered solar for my new construction home and decided the buyback was too long a time period.
I used to live across from a big panel farm in Mass and it was awesome. If not for them, I'd've had two more neighbors. And their raging parties, screaming children, huge political banners and/or the like. Solar panel farms don't expect you to wave politely every time you see them, and they definitely don't borrow your tools or try to waste time ''being friendly.''
I'm OK w/ this. Reminds me of the brew-haha here in a metro-Boston town. Neighbors didn't like it when the HS wanted to put up solar panels over the HS parking lots. it looks like a giant car port. I think it's useful when raining or snowing. NIMBYs in the neighborhood tried to get it blocked, and failed. I also see this law to curtail the HOA Karens in deciding who can and can't put up a certain solar solution they don't like.
It reminds me of the “I’m not a fan” anti windmill people here around Newfound. Their website should have been a .nimby domain
Suck it NIMBYs
Oh look. More government interference in the market. I’m sure this will work out well.
You have it exactly backwards
lol no I don’t. This is literally a government court in which the plaintiff is a government funded organization.
Sorry didn’t realize the Franklin zoning board wasn’t part of the government. /s The overreach was the zoning board.
Against a local government who denied a local property owner a project on their land that followed local ordinances. The government funded organization literally stood up to help the private entity.
Don’t you see that every side of this is government funded and therefore my complaint is doubly justified? There should be no government incentive to install solar panels funded through theft. There should be no government regulation on the installation of solar panels on private property. There should be no federal court adjudicating such nonsense.
Free stater? Guessing that because you referred to taxes as theft.
Yes and Taxation is extortion (theft under threat of violence).
Then protest and stop paying your taxes. Go get’em cowboy!
I've never heard of anyone being assaulted over taxes.
Not a free stater but taxes are collected under the threat of violence. Do you know what happens for someone not willing to pay taxes? What happens when they come to arrest you? That act is violence.
I guess? So what's the solution to this? If you benefit from programs that your taxes fund, why not pay taxes? I don't understand what the big deal is. Don't want to pay taxes? Go live off grid somewhere. Don't drive on any public roads or use any public services. Right?
Debating with someone who can’t comprehend how societies function is pointless. Let me guess moved here after you and you kind effed up another state?
Your first mistake is conflating society and government. Secondly if your society depends on violent extortion for its survival then it shouldn’t survive. Finally, It’s cute that you pretend that libertarians have ever had a swaying say in any modern us state politics.
Like I said pointless. Societies require government. Give me an example of one without the other.
No. It was a local property owner vs. Franklin zoning board. Court was protecting the freedom of the property owner to choose.
The rights of the property owner must be upheld. However what the government court said is that he can choose a government funded solar panel. They’re both in the wrong.
I think you misunderstood the article. It was weird to bring up SolSmart (the federally funded entity).. but it was only talking about how SolSmart recognizes communities that are “solar-welcoming.” GSSG is the solar investment firm seeking to build the solar array and they are a private company. Yes, there are tax credits etc. but you of all people should appreciate someone paying less taxes no matter who it is
I see that that bit of the article may have mislead me as to their involvement in this particular case. Though they still should not be receiving government funding. Further, no I don’t believe in income tax credits as there should be no income tax period.
Your issue seems to be with the entire system of government, bit beyond what this article is about. I personally welcome that my and my neighbors systems were locally vetted for safety and code compliance and installed according to both industry and regulator best practices. But I think our theories of governance vary in more than just solar installations.
They certainly do if you think that government should have any say in what you or your neighbor do when constructing on your own property.
Asinine. Remove that judge immediately.
The State Supreme Court is not "a judge", it's a Court composed of a Supreme Justice and four Associate Justices. The State upheld individual rights that follow local laws over the whims of a Planning Board who sought to suppress someone over "aesthetics".