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

91–100 of 329 posts

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

#91

Post by forapurpose »

alkonaut wrote: post #23

Requiring 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…

> Requiring specific technical solutions is rarely a good idea. ... The requirement should be formulated as a goal/limit, not a solution.

While I instinctively agree, does anyone know of any research in this area?

I can speculate about possible downsides to legislating a performance specification rather than a solution: Giving people every possible option could result in people gaming the system, it could hamper investment because it creates uncertainty about what the future solution will be, or it could simply reduce transparency because the specification may be written to favor one solution anyway. That's just speculation, however; we need data and expertise.

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

#92

Post by bluGill »

esaym wrote: post #73
justherefortart wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your septic systems needs to be professionally designed, but you can hire that separate from the install.

In fact I would advise you to hire the design first separately and only after you have a design get bids on the install. My grandpa got bids from several design/installers, and only after the contract was signed did he discover that all the design/install bids in the county were for a more expensive mound system. My uncle next door learned and hired the design first and then tracked down the one installed in the county that would do the cheaper system that was designed.

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

#93

Post by dragonwriter »

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

In a narrow sense; TCO, however, may be lower. (EDIT: TFA itself indicates +$9500 new home cost, -$19,000 30-year electricity cost as the average impact.)

> 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

Sure, the solar lobby will seek to preserve this as is as the landscape changes. Competing industries will seek either to remove or broaden it to accommodate other approaches to the same policy objective. The homebuilding industry lobbied against it, and it still was passed. “One industry will lobby to keep it” does not imply “it will never change”, or the past absence of the rule would never have changed.

> No incentive to research new energy technology in the meantime

Even with 100% residential solar deployment—not just on new construction—there’s a lot of energy demand that doesn't cover and plenty of incentive to find an efficient way of meeting that demand.

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

#94

Post by NickM »

trimbo wrote: post #26
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…

Won't this new law actually disincentivize more affordable housing?

If the cost of the PV is now baked into the mortgage, then depending on payback periods, interest rates, etc., the reductions in utility costs may meet or exceed the increase in your typical monthly home payment. This could effectively make housing more affordable via lower electrical bills.

Without knowing the numbers, I'm really just speculating, though; my point is just that it's not a given that this will increase everyone's cost of living.

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

#95

Post by toomuchtodo »

nv-vn wrote: post #82
toomuchtodo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You continue to incentivize the generation and consumption of renewables until you’ve put fossil generation in a position where it’s no longer profitable to operate, thereby accelerating the transition to renewables and storage?

It’s pretty straightforward. A single actor acting alone doesn’t solve the problem, everyone taking small actions does.

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

#96

Post by 15155 »

nv-vn wrote: post #82
toomuchtodo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The same way California apparently solved the cancer-causing components issue: by feel-good edict.

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

#97

Post by dv_dt »

rwbt wrote: post #16
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…

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…

There is more than straight out energy efficiency. Nuclear power plants are very energy efficient, but because of their needed financial structure, end up not being very cost effective. Decentralized financing for energy is nice, it improves individual independence and freedom.

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

#98

Post by bks »

jonknee wrote: post #81
nv-vn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with you. I just finished installing a solar system that covers 1.5x my needs in my Southen California house. 5.4kw. My system cost installed was $2.61/watt - with $7000 being labor from a contractor and $6300 the hardware and panels. And my payback will be 4.2 years based on the past 29 months of usage.

Let us assume that there is simply a hardware expense because the builders already have roofers and electricians. It’s such a fraction of a mouse fart (as mentioned) that going solar will essentially pay for itself after 2 years.

I can see builders charging a premium for the "electric car package" or the "double your consumption" service but something like 3W of production for each square foot per month would be amazing.

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

#99

Post by dragonwriter »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #50
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.

Laws rarely get removed. The detrimental side effect is lower incentive to build new homes and rising cost of existing homes.

> Laws rarely get removed

It's true that they more frequently get modified, often repeatedly and radically, until little trace of the original remains.

But anyhow, this isn't a law it's a regulation, and regulations are somewhat more likely to be removed (sometimes, because removal or even modification of the law under which the regulation was adopted forces this, independent of what the regulator would choose without that constraint.)

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

#100

Post by hammock »

sp332 wrote: post #15
darkstar999 wrote: post #5

So I guess putting up shade trees to reduce cooling costs isn't a thing any more? Is it net positive to use solar panels? Trees and houses just won't go together any more?

You can still put a tree up. You will also be required to put solar panels underneath it.

There are actually exceptions in the law that say if you have shade trees you don't need solar.
Post reply on HN