San Francisco could offer credits, rebates to promote solar panel usage

It's hard to deny San Francisco's infatuation with solar power, and a new plan could further showcase its adoration for the sun (and Mother Earth, too) by throwing out tax credits, rebates and even loans for individuals and businesses that choose to equip their buildings with solar panels. Under the proposal, businesses would reportedly be "eligible for rebates of up to $10,000," while residents could fetch somewhere between $3,000 and $5,000 to help offset the high cost of installing panels. Furthermore, the city itself would underwrite loans that could be paid back "through annual tax assessments on properties." As it stands, the plan still has to be approved by voters and legislators, but Mayor Gavin Newsom is aspiring to have the whole shebang in place by next summer.

[Image courtesy of San Francisco Sentinel]

[Flashpoint @ Dec 13th 2007 8:22AM]

Solar Panels + basement Hydroponic garden = mad scientist laboratory for drug production.

[Jonathan @ Dec 13th 2007 9:52AM]

No, no, no. This sucker's electrical, but I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity I need.

[Grey Acumen @ Dec 13th 2007 11:32AM]

jigawatts damnit! I will not have my favorite movie quotes manhandled for the purpose of scientifically accurate pronunciations!

[Hernan Paredes @ Dec 13th 2007 8:31AM]

freakin great to see some smart pple out there stepping up, and in the US too. Maybe others then will follow.

[deedeedee @ Dec 13th 2007 10:41AM]

but hopefully they wont be so smug about it, i'd move to SF anyday.

[ray @ Dec 13th 2007 10:52AM]

So....if you live in the foggy area, where 90% of the year is covered in fog, then what?

[ET @ Dec 13th 2007 12:12PM]

Wind power!

[Ian @ Dec 13th 2007 4:44PM]

i was going to say where is it foggy 90% of the year. the only place i can see where that is true in the bay is pacifica up on the hill. even then i highly doubt its 90% of the time. so uhh what are u talking about?

[ray @ Dec 13th 2007 4:55PM]

The areas all around Daly City.

[ray @ Dec 13th 2007 5:00PM]

and so 90% is sarcasm. C'mon people, where's the humor?!

[Magallanes @ Dec 13th 2007 11:47AM]

Thumb up for Schwarzenegger.

[OnlyShawn @ Dec 13th 2007 1:24PM]

...if this really were an economically good idea, it would already be happening large scale because entrepreneurs would see an opportunity to make money. As it isn't being done, the first assumption should be that there's a viable reason, and that this is really just a political ploy which benefits the current administration at the cost of future administrations/taxpayers.

It really is surprising that more people aren't solidly and perennially skeptical of governmental 'solutions' to problems.

[paulposting @ Dec 13th 2007 4:14PM]

Nowhere in SF is foggy 90% of the year!
I've lived in the foggy part of the city for 22 years, and while it is foggy on many days in July and August, it is not dark so solar panels will still generate electricity.

Oh, and today is a super clear bright sunny day (as it has been all week).

[Bill @ Dec 13th 2007 5:47PM]

Just beware those without these hefty state incentives who will be coming to your town with vans and tools.

Next stop, the top of Jay Leno's garage...

[Ryan @ Dec 13th 2007 11:00PM]

Austin has had solar rebates for several years:
http://www.austinenergy.com/Energy%20Efficiency/Programs/Rebates/Solar%20Rebates/index.htm

[j.pickens @ Dec 14th 2007 9:01AM]

Northern California in the Bay Area is not anywhere near an optimal location for PV arrays.
Unless perfectly sited (no shade, angled properly, or using mechanical tracking), the arrays will NEVER EVER produce enough electricity to offset the energy used to construct them.
As long as the prevailing PV technology is Polycrystalline Silicon, this will be the case.
For the money they are giving users, you could go out and buy AA alkaline batteries, and "generate" as much energy as these arrays will make.
Think about it, why do the arrays cost so much?
Have you ever seen these things being made?
I have. Electric arc furnaces. Crazy energy-consuming feedstocks prior to that.
This is not the answer you're looking for.

[p1ay @ Dec 14th 2007 6:37PM]

I agree with J. Pickens.

Not only are PV cells not the real answer as a fossil fuel substitute (in addition to the energy cost of manufacture, many of the materials used in fabrication have to be mined and are quite toxic).

Neither are biofuels the answer --- rainforests are being denuded (release huge quantities of CO2) to grow palm oil trees.

Sadly, the best option right now is nuclear fission. If we're lucky, we might get nuclear fusion working within 25 years.