Based solely on the economy, there should be many more solar panels on roofs in the United States. With the dramatic decline in the price of panels, solar energy systems in an increasing number of countries have become competitive with the cost of electricity, leaving the issue of solar exposure as the main driver of whether adoption makes sense. However, photovoltaic homes are still a rarity in the United States, despite the fact that many countries are trying to introduce renewable energy sources.
So why isn’t it conducive to work?
To try to find out, a small team of researchers collaborated with a non-profit organization that promotes solar installations, helping to test two different reports. The report focused on self-interest and emphasized the economic benefits of installing panels. The second was what was called “social” in the sense that it emphasized that the installation of solar energy would benefit society. As the researchers found, even after the promotion, self-confidence ended. But self-confidence had a side benefit, as the systems installed tended to make maximum use of the energy from the panels.
The work is based on a program called Solarize. Solarize runs city-level applications that include a single installer that provides a group rate for the entire city. Program ambassadors also run solar energy programs in the city, encouraging their adoption. These programs were targeted by researchers who organized the experiment based on the message of these ambassadors. Some cities have received statements of interest, such as “saving thousands by installing solar energy.” Others were more community-oriented: “For example, our community is doing something together to get more clean energy.” The researchers worked on a program in Connecticut (one of the researchers is in Yale) that has expensive electricity.
Previous presentations by respondents suggest that both reports may resonate.
Of the three main reasons why people joined the program, two were related to the economy (low prices and savings on bills), while the other was concern for the environment. The best bets in the UEFA Europa League:
Turning this into an experiment, the researchers identified three urban clusters that were approximately demographically consistent. These cities were then divided so that one received a message of selfishness, the other a social message, and the other did not participate in the Solarize program. Due to some financial problems, one of the planned programs did not take place, as the experiment was carried out in 29 cities and involved a total of just under 700,000 people. Data on current trends and households were obtained using Connecticut data for all national solar installations, as well as data from the United States Census Bureau. Participants also received follow-up.
Overall, Solarize was effective in managing more installations than was in the control communities and outperformed previous trends in the cities involved. And during the campaign, the total number of installations for interest-based messaging was higher than in cities receiving social messages. Although the cities that received social reports had a higher installation rate than the control cities, the difference was not statistically significant.
In addition, sending self-contained messages has allowed you to install more productively. Using Google’s solar calculator, the authors estimate that panels installed in response to these reports receive, on average, more sunlight per day, which produces an additional 4.4 megawatt hours over the life of a typical system. This is in line with the fact that people who received a message of interest cited money as the main reason for installing solar energy. In addition, they were more likely to pay for their systems earlier than they borrowed, which increased the rate of return on purchase.
Not surprisingly, this type of reporting has also worked better in high-income communities.
There are some clues that pro-social messaging worked better in low-income communities, but the results were not statistically significant. One thing that was consistently true of those who received the pro-social message is that they reported being more happy with their i