Live data from Hacker News

California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

bloomberg.com

211–220 of 329 posts

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

#211
Here are the problems with individuals having solar panels:

1) It's not enough power. Yet. So you'll need to draw from the grid.

2) Sometimes it's cloudy and you need to draw from the grid.

Given you need to still draw from the grid, but aren't paying as much... what does that do to the quality or maintenance cost per use for the grid? Do people who aren't on solar gets charged more per kW/h? A move to push them to get solar? Do people with solar get hit with a "grid maintenance" fee for not paying their fair share of grid maintenance (previously built in to their electric bill)? Do we raise taxes? Do we let infrastructure crumble?

I think solar is great, no question. But better if capacity is built through solar plants, that use the existing grid, rather than mandated as part of individual home construction.

Plus... and this is the part that bugs me... does this mean we can't build houses in the shade? Will we have to tear down old trees, or build taller houses than our neighbors have, in order to meet some quota for energy production... what if I want to have a roof-top patio? What if a new technology comes along... let's call it "Solar 2"... and it's better. Are we forbidden to use it until the laws are changed? What if it's just better in my opinion for my life... can I still use it, or am I locked in to whatever standards the State of California deems is best for everyone?

Yeah this law is going to suck.

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

#212
post #191
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Laws that are merely "good" hurt innocent people and ruin lives. Never settle for "good" when it comes to law.

I have trouble thinking of many perfect laws.

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

#213
post #208

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…

In principle I agree, but I think in this particular case you might have trouble if you mandated a particular maximum level of energy consumption or a minimum level of on-site power generation, since some houses just aren't in a good place to get sun and there aren't any compelling alternatives to solar for power generation in residential areas. Perhaps we should discourage people from building in shady places, but t…

> In principle I agree, but I think in this particular case you might have trouble if you mandated a particular maximum level of energy consumption or a minimum level of on-site power generation, since some houses just aren't in a good place to get sun

Which is exactly why mandating a specific solution like rooftop solar doesn't make sense. Your counterargument actually somewhat supports the original argument :)

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

#214
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree even though I have solar panels on my own roof. I have clear southern exposure but what about houses that are shaded? Maybe a better use of money in such a case would be better insulation or a geothermal heat pump. Perhaps a points system of some kind, with different energy reduction strategies getting different points. I also think there should be a progressive component to the requirement. The stand…

> I have clear southern exposure but what about houses that are shaded? FWIW: very, very few houses (especially in CA where the overwhelming bulk of homes are built in arid biomes with very short trees!) have roofs that are actually shaded. A "shady house" means a house with trees nearby that shade the yard and the periphery of the roof. Take a look at Google Maps for your neighborhood for proof of this. The roofs ar…

[deleted]

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

#215
post #134
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or maybe he needs additional quotes...

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

#216

This is interesting to me, because I've been advocating for a similar law for a while now, with a few crucial differences: I propose we make a law that says any home that sells for greater than the Freddie Mac super conforming loan limit (currently $679,650) must be retrofitted to have a net energy draw of zero or less from the grid (with rules about exceptions for shade and roof angles and whatnot). This would solve…

> must be retrofitted to have a net energy draw of zero or less from the grid

How would you do this, when a huge percentage of that engergy draw comes from appliances that don't get sold with the house?

What you're proposing would likely result in home sellers 'installing' tiny cheap refrigerators and washer/dryer combos that would immediately be thrown out by the home buyers and replaced with the ones they actually want.

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

#218
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.)

GDPR?

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

#220
post #31

Not only is residential solar just about the most expensive (and thus innefficient) form of solar power available, but this is coming at a time when new construction of affordable housing is most needed. The only reason this is considered a 'cost effective' measure, is because the entire cost is forced on the shoulders of homebuyers. Saddling all new residential construction with this burden serves 2 priary purposes…

The article says it will add $10k to the home. On a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at current rates that's $50/month. Subtract out the savings on the electric bill, and it probably won't be reducing affordability much, or even at all.

For someone buying a $200k house in the central valley, that $10k is still a lot of money, as is $50/mo. When I bought my first home for around that price, $50/mo meant a significant difference in what kind of loan I could qualify for.

Also, why would you assume current interest rates for something that takes effect in 2020 and will last in perpetuity?

Post reply on HN