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

141–150 of 329 posts

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

#141

Post by grawprog »

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…

Maybe instead of one specific solution, give a couple existing ones like solar, mini wind turbines or something with equal power generating capacity, then give a more general guideline allowing new technologies to be uswd like: new buildings should be able to produce a this much power self sufficiently, then provide a reasonable range based on location and general usage patterns of the area.

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

#142

Post by nielsbjerg »

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.

It's not automatically a bad idea, just because it's not changing the entire world. E.g. me choosing not to fly is not making any significant difference, but that does not change the fact that my carbon footprint is lower as a result. If I choose to share my motivation for not flying, it may affect others flying habits. The same could be the case for California

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

#143

Post by dragonwriter »

wbl wrote: post #122
tlb wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Why should homes generate power?

To reduce transmission losses, among other reasons.

> California has vast desert areas to tile with solar panels at less expense.

Even if it would be less build/maintenance expense per unit of delivered energy, a lot of California's vast deserts are either federally protected, and so not available even if it was smart to use them otherwise or already being irrigated and used for agriculture. You can't really cover a farm with solar panels without killing it's function like you can a house.

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

#144

Post by Matticus_Rex »

slg wrote: post #117
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.

Politically expedient but dramatically inefficient and less effective is... still dramatically inefficient and less effective. The idea that it's clear that this is "good" relies on a bunch of assumptions about carbon costs that haven't been made. It's not sufficient to say "fossil fuels are bad, solar is good," because then you make stupidly inefficient decisions that limit your overall capacity to tackle the big problem.

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

#145

Post by [deleted] »

TheCondor wrote: post #139
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…

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by acdha »

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 moved the entire world forward on car emissions. LA smog used to be so bad you couldn’t see the other side of the street, reactionaries predicted that doing anything would destroy the economy, but they wrote laws requiring cleaner cars anyway. Since everyone wanted to sell to California, they did the R&D to make it work and eventually economics won out against the cost of making different models for different states. The economy was destroyed right into being the 5th largest in the world.

This takes a ton of usage away from conventional power and more importantly it tells multiple industries it’s safe to make big investments because California will buy your solar panels, build your designs, etc. Everyone benefits directly from those economies of scale and research investments and indirectly from being able to pass similar laws in their states when it turns out not to wreck California.

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

#147

Post by darkstar999 »

mmanfrin wrote: post #136
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.

Trees don't have to go over your roof to shade your house.

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

#148

Post by metabagel »

inputcoffee wrote: post #30
toomuchtodo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expensive compared to what? CO2 emissions? You already get a 30% federal tax credit as well as CA state and local utility incentives, what more is necessary? A free system? I agree a carbon tax would be ideal. It seems politically impossible though, so you achieve what you can.

That was a response to your statement that the relevant research has been done. I don't think it has. We still have to figure out ways to lower the cost of storage. You're saying it is cheap enough that we can now mandate it? It should be cheap enough when purely green energy is superior to any other source. Solar alone is cheap, but not solar + storage.

"Cheap enough" should take into account the expected future costs of climate change. That's the major reason for subsidies and regulations to encourage renewable energy usage. There is a huge externality to account for.

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

#149

Post by lootsauce »

NickM wrote: post #94
trimbo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 increas…

In the hearing someone cited the numbers of $40 increase in mortgage cost and $80 of savings per month

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

#150

Post by jpk »

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.

That's basically what we do now, but the trouble is cheap power sources with undesirable externalities win the energy market because consumers want more energy for less money.
Post reply on HN