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

171–180 of 329 posts

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

#171

Post by toss1 »

SteveGerencser wrote: post #152
bhickey wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Except, how do you get to choose what type of power you buy? What if I live back east and would happily pay for wind or solar but my only option is coal or natural gas?

In many states back east (at leas Massachusetts and New Hampshire), you can choose who is your energy supplier, as the distributor and provider are separate items on the bill. There are several "green energy" suppliers vying for your business.

This is great but has the unfortunate side-effect of some energy suppliers telemarketing to try to get you to switch to their "lower rates", which inevitably increase again after a few months.

So check the system in your state, you may be pleasantly surprised.

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

#172

Post by dragonwriter »

Analemma_ wrote: post #46
trimbo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My cynical side would say that the California housing market is already so completely fucked, with only millionaires and Chinese expats able to buy new houses, that if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) one might as well do this to get something useful from the situation. It's like a tax on the 1% that funds renewable energy programs. I'd rather have cheap housing,…

> if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case)

The actual dynamics of the SB827 defeat don't really clearly support that. There is certainly an opportunity for a YIMBY/PHIMBY convergence on density policy.

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

#173

Post by esaym »

bluGill wrote: post #92
esaym wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

That is what I am trying to do. The designer doesn't seem to be helping much with getting the price down though. He is basically just following the state requirements exactly and not putting any thought into any exemptions that might lower the price.

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

#174

Post by Bjartr »

litany wrote: post #132
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…

If it was this[1] proposal that was accepted, it applies to the performance path too.

[1] http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-01...

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

#175

Post by stale2002 »

ajross wrote: post #159
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…

Likewise the perfect is the enemy of the good. Having an idea of what a perfect regulation would be means that you end up arguing against helpful regulations because they don't meet your standards for "good idea". Your point isn't incorrect, but it's at best misplaced and mistimed. You should have been yelling about this when the law was being written, not now that it's passed. To those of us who care about the subje…

Most people only hear about terrible laws until after they have passed.

If a bad law is bad, we should definitely continue to criticize it, if only for the purpose of influencing FUTURE laws.

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

#176

Post by toss1 »

This is also an excellent idea for system security and civil defense.

Having every home at capable of maintaining at least basic energy requirements to keep water pumps, some lights, refrigeration and comms would change a full-scale grid outage (e.g., from a Carrington event or deliberate attack) from a major disaster to a mere (major) inconvenience.

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

#177

Post by stale2002 »

jpk wrote: post #150
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.

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.

OK, so then tax the power sources that have bad externalities, in proportion to how much they are a tally costing the world.

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

#178

Post by stale2002 »

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…

The world doesn't ha e a shortage of open land.

This is why ideas like this are stupid. There are lots of open fields where we could put solar panels, and the gains from putting them directly on houses are close to none.

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

#180

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

jriot wrote: post #151
jpk wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who wants less energy for more money?

Probably everyone born in the next 100 years who will be subject to the externalities we currently allow.
Post reply on HN