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

131–140 of 329 posts

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

#131

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

foundart wrote: post #119
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.

The problem becomes that the people profiting off the current required solution tend to be able to outspend you in convincing the rule makers to keep the current rule.

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

#132

Post by litany »

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…

That is how title 24 has operated for years. They have two methods for compliance, prescriptive and engineered. The prescriptive method is they specify minimum Efficiency values for things like insulation, doors, windows, HVAC, water heater, etc and takes climate zone into consideration. The engineered gives you an annual energy budget and you just have to meet that in the model. So for instance you can have a house that doesn’t have insulation but with enough solar on the roof you can make up for it. The idea is prescriptive is to make it easier on owner builders and engineered is so that professional builders can optimize with market forces in consideration and designers can make trade offs like spending more money on efficiency in order to allow larger openings (doors and windows) as a percentage of total area.

This solar requirement has been a long time coming. I haven’t looked at the new standard, it’s called Title 24 2019 because it’s still under development but they might just pushing the energy budget low enough that solar is effectively required. Otherwise it may be required for prescriptive title 24 compliance. The article talks about square footage and 2kW minimum systems which to me sounds like the prescriptive requirement.

Personally I’ve never been able to use prescriptive for design reasons but some contractors for sure do, and they don’t understand the concept of modeling.

So yeah, you can innovate all you want and CA set it up that way for years now.

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

#133

Post by bhickey »

mrfusion wrote: post #125
ams6110 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A tax on carbon fuel would make more sense still. Polluters should pay for their pollution rather than foisting their externalities on others.

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

#134

Post by lev99 »

blang wrote: post #36
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...…

Just in case anyone was curious (I was) $1500 in 1983 is $3758.34 in 2018

That means the real cost of installing a septic tank increased 4x.

Although, we don't know how similar the two projects are. Maybe one has more rock to dig through, the tank is farther away, or new tanks are better than 1980s tanks in some ways. There are many possible answers other than the cost of installing a septic tank outpaced inflation.

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

#136

Post by mmanfrin »

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?

Trees very rarely go very far over your roof, otherwise it'd be a legitimate hazard.

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

#138

Post by mmanfrin »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #10

California loves requiring anything that will reduce the number of homes they actually build.

Limiting the amount of single family homes? Sure, and we should be.

Rooftop solar is a drop in the bucket for multi-family buildings.

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

#139

Post by TheCondor »

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 with this idea in spirit... is there another completely passive way to generate energy with unused space? Windmills and thermal couplers have issues and limitations too.

How do you rectify the free market innovation that was the VW/Audi/Porsche diesel scandal? There are mandated emissions requiments and the businesses are free to innovate solutions to meet them. Result: they just lied and cheated, in support of a specific technology that simply can’t meet the requirements but that they had made a century long commitment to. And became the largest car company in the world while doing it. How do you prevent net power draw regs from a) not resulting in just shitty home construction b) not encouraging cheating, many materials might not even be sourced from the US (like Canadian lumber) if you have to factor net energy into construction and c) not resulting in homes that require aftermarket additions like air conditioners which would in turn require new regulations? Or worse, really jacking up home prices when you simply can’t build new homes. what if you buy a house but then operate it differently than expected? Energy star numbers on TVs are this way, there are some really efficient TVs but nobody hardly ever operates their tv at those most efficient brightness settings, the viewing sucks.

It seems like you might want to reevaluate the rules in 10 years, it’s part of a big energy initiative they are taking on though. There is also room for a ton of grid innovation to make this work out reasonably. This law seems pretty simple in terms of the bigger goals the state has.

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

#140

Post by trey-jones »

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…

The first thing that popped into my head was that this really bones homes that only get 1-2 hours of direct sunlight per day.
Post reply on HN