I'm thinking about all the homes in the Sierras that are covered by snow 6 months out of the year. I used to live in a place that gets 500 inches of snow per year. I can't imagine which other edge cases this fails to consider.
California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
71–80 of 329 posts
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#72why can't it just be a free market
Literally signing an energy monopoly into law. Even if they mandated max power consumption it would be better. It's literally mind-boggling to me how many people support this initiative.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#73Good 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?
A well is for fresh water while septic is for... well not so fresh water. I have considered doing the whole job myself (I mean how hard can digging with a backhoe be?!) and violating all the regulations that make is so expensive, but whether you dump your RV's holding tank into a protected water zone or install an illegal septic system, you are still dealing with the environmental health department and they won't be pleased if/when they find out.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#74why can't it just be a free market
negative externalities, ie. climate change.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#75Requiring specific technical solutions is rarely a good idea. For example mandating that all new cars have catalytic converters is a common but not very good requirement. The requirement should be formulated as a goal/limit, not a solution. Having one solution required means you can’t innovate to find a cheaper or better solution to the same problem. The answer in this context would be to require a total net power dr…
I agree that a a more general law would be better, but for the foreseeable future I don't see this law having detrimental side effects. Also this law can be addressed in the future when solar is a less compelling technology.
This might be the case (I used ”rarely” as my weasel word of choice). Some times it’s good to break habit and tradition - and building is a lot about tradition and often not efficiency. Buildings are constructed like the last one, not in the most efficient, clever or economic way. Tradition can be pushed by laws like this.
Another example is the EU regulation on incandescent bulbs. Stops people buying what they always did and helps pushing prices down for alternatives.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a good point... and pretty sad actually... Edit: And I can't help but think of the driven up cost of roof repairs. So 10-15 years down the road when you get a leak in your roof.. now you got to pay labor to pull the panels before you can even repair the roof...
One good hail storm would be a much more expensive fix. Insurance paid nearly $10k for my new roof after hail ruined it. Solar panels would have tripled that cost.
Maybe PV would have protected your roof underneath (if it was not integrated, that is)
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
My cynical side would say that the California housing market is already so completely fucked, with only millionaires and Chinese expats able to buy new houses, that if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) one might as well do this to get something useful from the situation. It's like a tax on the 1% that funds renewable energy programs. I'd rather have cheap housing,…
California is not just LA and San Francisco. People wonder why rural voters vote differently.
[deleted]
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that a a more general law would be better, but for the foreseeable future I don't see this law having detrimental side effects. Also this law can be addressed in the future when solar is a less compelling technology.
It sounds horrible to me for a number of reasons: * Increases the cost of homes * Gives solar power industry a boost in a way that's hard to get rid of--they will lobby to keep this even if other industries are around and it'll probably never change * No incentive to research new energy technology in the meantime
Also if power needs are being met through other green tech, shoehorning this specific approach seems like a bad investment.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that a a more general law would be better, but for the foreseeable future I don't see this law having detrimental side effects. Also this law can be addressed in the future when solar is a less compelling technology.
It sounds horrible to me for a number of reasons: * Increases the cost of homes * Gives solar power industry a boost in a way that's hard to get rid of--they will lobby to keep this even if other industries are around and it'll probably never change * No incentive to research new energy technology in the meantime
The cost of homes in 2018 is primarily driven by how much people can get for a mortgage, not by the materials that go into building them.
If homes had to be built to a better standard by legislature (Better insulation, or solar roofing, or whatever), it would, in the long term, drive down the price of land, but keep home prices similar.
Not to mention that you cannot retrofit solar panels on a home at the same interest rate as you can get on a mortgage. Forcing banks to lend money for these installations actually makes it cheaper for the homeowner.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#80Requiring specific technical solutions is rarely a good idea. For example mandating that all new cars have catalytic converters is a common but not very good requirement. The requirement should be formulated as a goal/limit, not a solution. Having one solution required means you can’t innovate to find a cheaper or better solution to the same problem. The answer in this context would be to require a total net power dr…
How would you formulate a building code for total net power draw, given how much it depends on occupant behavior?
Assume spherical occupant.