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

121–130 of 329 posts

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

#121

Post by _rpd »

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…

I think this just falls under 'practical politics.' It's a revenue-neutral tax on a relatively wealthy demographic. Politicians get to be associated with something perceived as good by their voters.

I don't think a deeper analysis is required. Anything that meets those requirements will also be passed.

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

#122

Post by wbl »

tlb wrote: post #105
ppeetteerr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If some other practical carbon-free home power generation tech emerges (fusion?) the code will probably be amended to say "... or a 5 kw basement fusion reactor". That's how the building code has mostly evolved, by adding specific alternatives rather than trying to be entirely general. Being specific has disadvantages, but the big advantage is that most decisions can be made by contractors reading the code instead of…

Why should homes generate power? California has vast desert areas to tile with solar panels at less expense.

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

#123

Post by bitexploder »

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 are parasites in this industry. One of the largest home builders in the United States, Lennar, owns a subsidiary, SunStreet Solar. When you buy a Lennar home, SunStreet then offers to sell you these panels at a very, very above market price. Or they offer to lease you the panels where you indefinitely pay for ALL of the energy the panels produce, even if you don't actually use it, at some "discounted" rate. Meanwhile, you are opted into the lease if you buy a Lennar home. Or you can always pay above market rate for panels that are often under or oversized due to lazy workmanship and practices by SunStreet.

Without even researching it, I feel pretty sure Lennar, very active in CA, lobbied for this. It is probably a net win for the environment, and our energy independence, but these guys have found a way to turn it into a recurring revenue stream that benefits them the most in the long run and not the consumer.

I have consulted a lawyer and they advised me it quite likely violates consumer protection laws in my state. Other states have had similar difficulties with shady solar providers cashing in on this wave of relatively inexpensive panels.

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

#124

Post by GW150914 »

jacquesm wrote: post #80
tlb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Assume spherical occupant.

In America that’s been a pretty safe assumption for some time. The problem is that when you take that gift and draw a hard vacuum on it, they tend to burst.

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

#125

Post by mrfusion »

ams6110 wrote: post #107
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…

> require a total net power draw for the home Not good either. Just let people pay for what they use. Each person can decide how to optimize for his or her needs.

Yeah a tax on electricity would make the most sense.

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

#127

Post by Karishma1234 »

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…

This is actually an attempt to drive out poor people by increasing the cost of newly built homes. You have got it absolutely correct that there should be goal and mandating a specific solution only ends up hurting innovation.

Say it costs $100 to install the solar roof. What if I were to invest the same $100 in a company that is building solar farms in Nevada and providing that electricity to California ? Wouldn't that give additional benefit to the planet ?

What if you expand from solar to all renewable including R&D labs ?

When you build a house in bay area you already more efficient because of relatively moderate temperature than the farmer's home in Fresno or Lake Shasta.

I think the politicians who get voted in power because of bay area yuppies have forgotten that their state is also an agricultural state with many hardworking people.

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

#128

Post by widdma »

ams6110 wrote: post #107
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…

> require a total net power draw for the home Not good either. Just let people pay for what they use. Each person can decide how to optimize for his or her needs.

Yup, and make dirty power more expensive with a carbon tax.

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

#129

Post by Faaak »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #104
Faaak wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

China produces twice the CO2 emissions as the U.S. China produced 29% of global CO2 emissions in 2015, and the U.S. produced 14%. (wikipedia) Per capita numbers are rather misleading here. For example, Qatar has by far the highest CO2 emissions per person .

Yes, but china has _much more_ inhabitants than the US. Per capita numbers are not misleading in this case as we want to know the mean commitment of every person.

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

#130

Post by repsilat »

UncleMeat wrote: post #89
nv-vn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they cared about climate change they would have put tariffs on CO_2 emitting electricity generators. Then q combination of things would happen:

1. Industrial-scale renewable generation would become more competitive and a larger fraction of grid power would come from solar/wind/hydro,

2. Prices could go up, and less electricity would be used,

3. It might become efficient for users to put rooftop solar on their houses. (If the initial capital outlay is a problem, that's what loans are for.)

This law, by comparison, is just a bad idea all around. It enforces one (pretty bad) solution in a nasty way.

Post reply on HN