Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 329 posts

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#61

Post by toomuchtodo »

nv-vn wrote: post #59
toomuchtodo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your panels disconnect and pop off relatively easily for patching or shingle replacement. Let’s not argue against taking bold action when bold actions are required because it’s inconvenient, especially when this is a net financial win for homeowners (you’re just trading a high utility bill for a slightly higher mortgage payment). It’s a better ROI than the S&P500.

Why is "bold action" required? This entire concept seems flawed to me.

Run away climate change caused by global CO2 emissions?

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#62

Post by grizzles »

cahomeown456 wrote: post #34

I'm a homeowner in southern California. I've looked into it and a solar system would cost me about $15k and it would pay itself off after about 8 years. However that assumes constant price conditions. If there's a glut of solar installations, prices for daytime generation may fall to where it no longer offsets all evening/night consumption. Once that happens you're forced to either invest in extremely expensive batte…

Though prices can drop and even go negative sometimes it's never a long term thing. There is kind of a price floor in the market, if prices get too low energy intensive businesses will move into the state, eg. aluminum smelters, bitcoin miners, and so on.

I posted in the other thread about why I think this policy is a really good idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17008950

Also it's only for new homes. You can still get that new bathroom.

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#63

Post by nv-vn »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #47

So you can't mandate that neighbourhoods build taller buildings to curb the astronomical rise in real estate prices but making new buildings (and by association old buildings) more expensive is easy. California, what are you doing? Fix your housing problem!

SF actually limits building height in most areas I believe. Every time we put another one of these laws on the books, it's another obstacle blocking the way for affordable housing that probably won't ever get reversed

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#64

Post by s0rce »

justherefortart wrote: post #58
esaym wrote: post #7

Good night. Once upon a time in 1983, my grandparents bought a mobile home and put it out on rural property. They paid $300 for the water company to install a water meter and about $1500 for a septic tank install. Now I'm trying to do the same thing (and on the same property). The water meter is $5,000 (cash only in full), and the septic tank is $15,000. If I was also required to have solar, I'd really be screwed...…

Dig a well instead?

Still need septic.

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#65

Post by nv-vn »

tgb wrote: post #29

I feel like the real motivation behind this is that far too many people believe that the hard part of getting solar panels adopted is in finding places to put them. So this law "solves" the problem. But that's never been the real problem. It's arguing about the color of the bike shed when the real mover of solar panels is price and output. Price isn't addressed here and you should expect installing it everywhere will…

Yeah, it's looking at this from a demand-side perspective rather than a supply-side one that's arguably much more relevant

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#66

Post by esaym »

supercanuck wrote: post #44
esaym wrote: post #7

Good night. Once upon a time in 1983, my grandparents bought a mobile home and put it out on rural property. They paid $300 for the water company to install a water meter and about $1500 for a septic tank install. Now I'm trying to do the same thing (and on the same property). The water meter is $5,000 (cash only in full), and the septic tank is $15,000. If I was also required to have solar, I'd really be screwed...…

> $3k-$5k+ (profit) a week in septic installs Did you factor in healthcare?

No as I am comparing apples to apples here as I am 1099, paid by the hour, and they are a sole proprietor. Yes they have different expenses than I do, I buy a $300 laptop off of ebay every couple of years whereas they probably buy a $30,000 backhoe every couple of decades. But still... a little blue collar work with more and more regulations making it take longer and be more profitable is starting to sound lucrative.

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#69

Post by nv-vn »

aphextron wrote: post #32
eulers__number wrote: post #21

why can't it just be a free market

Because the free market gave us a ~2°C increase in average global temperatures.

And changing over only the new houses in one single state is going to fix that? Most of the world's pollution is coming out of developing countries anyways. This move is at best virtue signaling and at worst a step towards destroying California's economy.

Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

#70

Post by Faaak »

jvm wrote: post #28
rwbt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though rooftop solar might not be the most economical solution to reduce greenhouse gas footprints, I would argue it's very effective. The costs are directly baked into the real estate mortgage and requires zero changes with regards to zoning and planning. In an ideal world SB827 makes sense, but it was rejected. So I'm glad CA is trying something more pragmatic instead of waiting for a 'perfect' solution. Even…

> Even though rooftop solar might not be the most economical solution to reduce greenhouse gas footprints, I would argue it's very effective. Inefficient and expensive systems can do harm, regardless of the good intention behind this law. Rooftop solar has substantial embedded carbon and impacts on the grid that could easily outweigh the small benefits. We need a solution that provides the right incentives to use it…

The LCA of PV solar is a net positive. The footprint is thus good.
Post reply on HN