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

111–120 of 329 posts

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

#111

Post by hkmurakami »

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...…

Solar is tech though? And there was definitely lobbying by the solar industry involved here.

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

#112

Post by deelowe »

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…

Is this not just a thinly veiled attempt to increase new construction costs by NIMBYs?

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

#113

Post by gascan »

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...…

If I was also required to have solar, I'd really be screwed...

So, what do you do for electricity then? Most people developing rural property near where I live love solar, they can't get enough, as it lets them go off-grid and avoid paying electricity hookup fees.

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

#114

Post by runako »

DeepYogurt wrote: post #48
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…

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 isn't exactly an either-or, but it seems like CA could have achieved the same results (for example) by incentivizing more density of construction. IIRC vertical housing costs less to heat & cool than horizontal housing. Mandating residential solar will make utility-scale solar/wind/etc. that much less attractive, even though it may be more effective long-term. Also, this limits construction to the availability of solar installers, which may not be in harmony today.

So it may be the case that the time and political capital spent on this path foreclosed other options and end up creating a rigid solution that prevents creativity in achieving the goals.

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

#115

Post by function_seven »

tlb wrote: post #53
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…

How would you formulate a building code for total net power draw, given how much it depends on occupant behavior?

You can't know ahead of time how an occupant will behave, but you can use existing heat load calculations to determine how many kWh will be used on average. Whatever math was done to size the HVAC system can also be used, in conjunction with the normal solar irradiance of the area, to size the solar install. Requirement could be as simple as enough PV to run half the A/C system plus another kW or so.

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

#116

Post by dragonwriter »

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...…

> We don't have big government lobbyists making rules to make software more complicated 'just because' every year

Yes, we do, they just focus on specific large software markets (in the last couple decades, health IT has been a huge area for this.)

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

#117

Post by slg »

tlb wrote: post #57

An energy economist on why it's a bad idea: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/cecweisenmiller180... . Basically, rooftop solar is less capital-efficient than large solar or wind farms, so we can save more carbon/$ by doing grid-scale generation.

I don't know enough about the energy market to weigh in on this proposal, but that response is the epitome of the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is presenting a false choice. Getting something like this approved is much easier politically than large solar and wind farms. Sometimes the politically expedient solution is the proper choice over the ideal but politically unrealistic solution.

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

#118

Post by sp332 »

hammock wrote: post #100
sp332 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks, I noticed the article hedged a bit but didn't go into details.

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

#119

Post by foundart »

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…

Having one solution required means if you innovate, you need to convince the rule makers to allow it. Having no required solution creates on ongoing problem of verifying possibly useless implementations.
Post reply on HN