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

81–90 of 329 posts

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

#81

Post by jonknee »

nv-vn wrote: post #52
DeepYogurt wrote: post #48

Earlier 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

> Increases the cost of homes

And decreases the energy bill by a very similar amount of what an increase in the mortgage would be if the cost was 100% passed on. Regardless, in much of California the price of homes has little to do with the cost of building them. So another possibility is buildable land gets a little cheaper because building is more expensive and homes are priced by what the market will bear, not by material cost.

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

#82

Post by nv-vn »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #61
nv-vn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Run away climate change caused by global CO2 emissions?

And how is California going to reverse that exactly? Even if this happened on a federal level, most houses would still be using fossil fuels and most of the world wouldn't even bat an eye.

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

#83

Post by 15155 »

slededit wrote: post #54
Analemma_ wrote: post #46

Earlier 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.

Imagine if "winner takes all" weren't the strategy used to elect officials.

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

#84

Post by Faaak »

nv-vn wrote: post #69
aphextron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's completely false.

For example, the per-capita CO₂ emissions in 2013 were of 20 tons/cap for the US, whereas it was 8.5 for China (world mean is 6.3): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...

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

#85

Post by sithadmin »

happyopossum wrote: post #8

Not only is residential solar just about the most expensive (and thus innefficient) form of solar power available, but this is coming at a time when new construction of affordable housing is most needed. The only reason this is considered a 'cost effective' measure, is because the entire cost is forced on the shoulders of homebuyers. Saddling all new residential construction with this burden serves 2 priary purposes…

Not to mention: there's now an incentive for builders to reduce the quality of construction (and potentially skimp on other energy-efficiency measures in the building) to offset the cost of the solar installation.

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

#87

Post by subculture »

How will this change the discussions around net metering? Part of the offset of costs for solar were supposed to be the ability to sell excess back into the grid. And what happens when the grid no longer benefits from new electricity generation? If the new requirement is just for panels without storage it seems like a long-term transfer of risk and cost from energy companies to home owners.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/solar-has-transformed-into-...

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

#88

Post by jpao79 »

koube wrote: post #3

Saw this in my rss this morning: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/ro... > I just became aware in the last few days of the proposal in the new building energy efficiency standards rule making to mandate rooftop solar on all new residential buildings. I want to urge you not to adopt the standard. I, along with the vast majority of energy economist, believe that residential rooftop solar is a mu…

I'm not clear on why SB827 high density housing near transit and solar panels for single family homes are mutually exclusive. A solar rooftop on a 4 story high density building is like a rounding error compared to all the other costs. California should be moving forward on both initiatives, no?

The great thing about the requirement is not that it is the absolutely most carbon friendly solution but that it creates a viable alternative to the PG&E monopoly on energy in California. They pretty much can effectively hike prices at will under the current setup. We need to reduce the amount of pricing power of all monopolies via credible competition.

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

#89

Post by UncleMeat »

nv-vn wrote: post #69
aphextron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not completely, but neither will hoping that the free market changes it's behavior suddenly.

Climate change demands aggressive action all over the place. This is one component.

Also this is the literal opposite of virtue signalling. They passed a law. Virtue signalling is when you do nothing except express opinions.

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

#90

Post by krisdol »

nv-vn wrote: post #69
aphextron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

False. The US the biggest CO2 polluter per capita and the second biggest CO2 polluter overall. California contributes a significant chunk to that equation.
Post reply on HN