221–230 of 329 posts
Which states have the least regulations such as these? I would like to build an underground home that uses solar and inductive heating, but I would rather not have the technical details mandated.
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…
With rule for a specified list of standard appliances that the draw would be calculated based on the higher of actual consumption of installed appliances (if any) or standard values based on something like mid-range energy star consumption for a specified feature set.
This decree, of course, does not do all that but instead covers a narrow class consisting of one product (new homes) with one requirement (solar roofs). It does not affect existing homes. It does not affect homes in Nevada, Arizona, or anywhere else in America. It does not affect homes in any other part of the world. It therefore can be guaranteed, in itself, to have the most trivial of all impacts on the real world global environment. But it will have a very real impact on people living in the affected jurisdiction, not the least of which will be severely limiting their choices concerning new homes and also adding to the price they pay for such homes. On top of all that, it empowers politicians and bureaucrats who will be further incentivized to find new ways to limit choices in the future in the name of symbolic gestures done in the name of environmental concerns. Today, new homes. Tomorrow, existing ones. Next week, cars. After that, whatever experts and technocrats decree should be the subject of new coercive restrictions. Perhaps this is justified because of some ideal that it promotes or perhaps it is just a sell out to the solar lobby. But, justified or not, it certainly curtails freedom and choice and for what? A symbolic gesture at best or some hidden less-than-noble purpose at worst.
One could argue that there are definite limits to a state potentially abusing its authority in extending such powers. After all, there is a transcending principle behind it having to do with the environment. Yet, that is a very elastic principle that can be bent and shaped in ways that cannot readily be contained.
And so we are left with less choice, more expense, and prospects for a more restrictive future. It may or may not be good, but the animating principle, unless it is subject to clear limits (which do not appear here) is one that poses self-evident risks for a free society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Even though rooftop solar might not be the most economical solution to reduce greenhouse gas footprints, I would argue it's very effective. Inefficient and expensive systems can do harm, regardless of the good intention behind this law. Rooftop solar has substantial embedded carbon and impacts on the grid that could easily outweigh the small benefits. We need a solution that provides the right incentives to use it…
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…
> Requiring specific technical solutions is rarely a good idea. ... The requirement should be formulated as a goal/limit, not a solution. While I instinctively agree, does anyone know of any research in this area? I can speculate about possible downsides to legislating a performance specification rather than a solution: Giving people every possible option could result in people gaming the system, it could hamper inve…
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.
There is an aspect of creating a viable alternative in California to the 'charge what you feel like monopoly that leads to annual increases even as costs to produce go down': https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/08/pge-customers-face-hi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why basically every carbon tax scheme ever proposed involves remitting the revenue back to people on a per capita basis.
Remitting on a per capita basis doesn't change the regressive nature. You can only fix the regressive nature if you return it based on income. And even then, the poorest people don't have the float necessary to pay for the bill now and get a tax refund later.
Wealthy people typically have a larger carbon footprint than those who aren't well off. Think flights, buying a car more frequently, etc.
If everyone has the same carbon footprint, the tax is strictly neutral. If people have different footprints, money flows from polluters to non-polluters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument for me around solar was more that I expect fossil fuels to become vastly more expensive in the lifetime of the panels. I agree the risk profile is wrong, so I offloaded the risk to SolarCity for this iteration (25 years), but if I'm still in the house when those panels expire I will almost certianly need to re-roof, and I'm hoping solar tiles are a no-brainer by that point. 22 years from now? I expect fo…
The only way fossil fuels are going to skyrocket in price is if regulatory burdens push their prices up artificially. Yes, we use up oil and natural gas every year, but we also get more efficient at finding and tapping deeper reserves, and there are few limits on that in the next 25 years. "Peak" resources just aren't a thing we actually need to worry about in the foreseeable future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument for me around solar was more that I expect fossil fuels to become vastly more expensive in the lifetime of the panels. I agree the risk profile is wrong, so I offloaded the risk to SolarCity for this iteration (25 years), but if I'm still in the house when those panels expire I will almost certianly need to re-roof, and I'm hoping solar tiles are a no-brainer by that point. 22 years from now? I expect fo…
The only way fossil fuels are going to skyrocket in price is if regulatory burdens push their prices up artificially. Yes, we use up oil and natural gas every year, but we also get more efficient at finding and tapping deeper reserves, and there are few limits on that in the next 25 years. "Peak" resources just aren't a thing we actually need to worry about in the foreseeable future.
That has been known to happen in California with PG&E and CPUC. Doing a quick Google for PG&E rate increase:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regu...
The principle that a central authority gets to decree how we live, eat, breath, and think is inherently dangerous, especially when it comes with no evident limits. This decree, of course, does not do all that but instead covers a narrow class consisting of one product (new homes) with one requirement (solar roofs). It does not affect existing homes. It does not affect homes in Nevada, Arizona, or anywhere else in Ame…
If the question is whether a developer, local community (via zoning), or the state of California gets to make the decision about what houses in a particular area look like, I don't think I have a strong opinion, since it looks to me like collective, political decision-making either way.