3 ms·
Kind of odd, though - if the panels will so clearly pay for themselves, why did they have to be mandated? Just to be clear, it isn't a purely rhetorical questi
by geebee 11y ago
Kind of odd, though - if the panels will so clearly pay for themselves, why did they have to be mandated? Just to be clear, it isn't a purely rhetorical question - I suppose there's a chance that the people who have to pay the upfront costs don't get to realize the savings (buyers don't always factor in the savings, so construction companies may be reluctant to pay for them). Alternatively, people will sometimes just stick with a very inefficient system for a long time, never really getting around to it until they're prompted (by a mandate or tax incentive). Sometimes this is because people are just unable or reluctant to eat large upfront costs, other times it's something they've intended to get around to for a long time but haven't taken the first step.
That said, I do think that if the cost of carbon emissions were genuinely reflected in the price, all these specific technology mandates wouldn't be necessary. I do understand that a single municipality is in no position to make that happen, though.
- jonknee 11y ago> Kind of odd, though - if the panels will so clearly pay for themselves, why did they have to be mandated? Whoever builds the building isn't usually the one paying the electric bill.
- knd775 11y agoBut can't a cheaper electric bill be a selling point?
- Tyr42 11y agoWould be a problem with renting, where the renter pays the cost for the panels, and the rentee pays the utility bills.