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

241–250 of 329 posts

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

#241

Post by alacombe »

dmode wrote: post #187
mslate wrote: post #2

Everyone who’s long CA real estate can bank it because the government is doing its best to ensure that no new housing gets built. Gg “environmentalist” Sierra Club. FTA specifically larger housing developers have been preparing for this for years—along with the solar lobby. So dumb, CA deserves to go bankrupt and be overrun by homelessness.

I thought about that. But recently evaluated panels on my 3000sqft home and the cost was $16k. Assuming that average installations are for less capacity, an average of $10k increase would probably not impact new house construction. Especially since the cost is offset by low energy payments and increase in home value.

Increase is home value is not always desirable, especially if you are tight securing a mortgage. With higher interest rate, this is going to be a no-no real soon.

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

#242

Post by alacombe »

Faaak wrote: post #76
AmVess wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One good hail storm would be a much more expensive fix. Insurance paid nearly $10k for my new roof after hail ruined it. Solar panels would have tripled that cost.

Maybe PV would have protected your roof underneath (if it was not integrated, that is)

Using an expensive and sensitive item to protect a cheap one... might not be the smartest move :-/

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

#243

Post by nickodell »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #25
esaym wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is still there though. Roofs can and do leak.

And your panels disconnect and pop off relatively easily for patching or shingle replacement. Let’s not argue against taking bold action when bold actions are required because it’s inconvenient, especially when this is a net financial win for homeowners (you’re just trading a high utility bill for a slightly higher mortgage payment). It’s a better ROI than the S&P500.

Is this a net financial win?

Presumably, homeowners have been doing the math and adding solar panels if it is a net financial win. Now, homeowners are required to do it whether or not it's a net financial win.

ie. the new solar installations either don't make economic sense, or it made sense all along, but homeowners were too stupid to do the math.

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

#244

Post by Dylan16807 »

common_sense123 wrote: post #183
NickM wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your point is that regulation is needed for people to make decisions that will save them more money. Basic econ/finance will tell you this isn't how the world works.

If you can't get a mortgage for your solar installation, all the basic econ in the world won't help you pay the upfront cost. Bundling it into construction fixes that gap.

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

#245

Post by myrandomcomment »

Giving the price of a house in the Bay Area $10K is a rounding error.

I am all in favor of this. Scale will only drive the cost of the tech down. TX should follow this as should AZ, NM and every other state that is mostly "sunshine".

I am schedule to get a Tesla Solar roof. Almost seems like I should wait another year or 2.

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

#246

Post by maxerickson »

nickodell wrote: post #243
toomuchtodo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your panels disconnect and pop off relatively easily for patching or shingle replacement. Let’s not argue against taking bold action when bold actions are required because it’s inconvenient, especially when this is a net financial win for homeowners (you’re just trading a high utility bill for a slightly higher mortgage payment). It’s a better ROI than the S&P500.

Is this a net financial win? Presumably, homeowners have been doing the math and adding solar panels if it is a net financial win. Now, homeowners are required to do it whether or not it's a net financial win. ie. the new solar installations either don't make economic sense, or it made sense all along, but homeowners were too stupid to do the math.

but homeowners were too stupid to do the math

This is kind of true. Builders will do things that lower the up front price and long term value of the home, because that's how their incentives are setup.

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

#247

Post by Johnny555 »

lev99 wrote: post #134
blang wrote: 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.

Environmental regulations are more strict today too -- one corner of my grandparents (large) yard was perpetually swampy and us kids were warned to stay away -- turned out that it was runoff from an uphill neighbor's septic leach field, and it had been like that for decades.

I don't think such a thing would be possible with today's regulations. I'm not even sure it was acceptable 30 years ago, but my grandparents never complained about it and were on good terms with the neighbors.

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

#248

Post by alacombe »

Retric wrote: post #33
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?

Solar panels are vastly more effective than a shade tree for keeping a home cool. The geometry of trees and solar panels changes with latitude, but in California you can still have tall trees fairly close to your house while using solar panels. Further, roof panels can also shade your roof though with proper insulation that should not be significant.

Are you taking into account carbon sequestration and oxygen production "features" of trees instead of net carbon cost ?

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

#250

Post by beachy »

JasonFruit wrote: post #221
LinuxBender wrote: post #217

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.

Some states have no statewide building code at all --- Missouri is one example --- and some counties have not implemented one. You might also look into some of the more liberty-minded western states: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, et cetera , where a lot of things like that are barely regulated.

We stayed in a kind of cabin/camp ground near Bretton Woods in New Hampshire a while ago.

I was talking to the owner about how we was going remodelling the cabins. Turns out he did all the electrical, gas fitting, plumbing, building, excavation work...himself.

Coming from a country where we have a pretty full on regulation and inspection regime, I found it quite incredible.

Post reply on HN