Live data from Hacker News

California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes

bloomberg.com

251–260 of 329 posts

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

#251

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.

It didn't make sense all along. 10 years ago this would have been crazy because PV hardware was so much more expensive then.

A lot of people do fail to do the math. Many people are not quantitatively analytical, even in situations where such analysis is in their material self-interest.

A few years ago I encountered an engineer who was really angry about lightbulb minimum efficiency standards. "I already switched to LED bulbs where it made economic sense. Anyone with a brain did! Now the government is forcing me to buy these expensive bulbs for places where they run for less than 10 hours a year, like my attic. It's worse for the environment too when you consider the additional embodied energy in LED manufacturing."

His technical analysis was perfectly sound. His social analysis wasn't. A huge number of people won't do the smart thing as soon as it becomes the smart thing. (Or maybe ever. My mom stockpiled incandescent bulbs in anticipation of efficiency standard upgrades. She also complains about how high her electric bill is, after running 8 incandescent bulbs for several hours a day in the kitchen ceiling lighting...)

Much to the annoyance of people who are perfectly able and willing to do their own analysis, it can take too much effort to judge who's rationally avoiding higher up-front costs because they won't pay off in the long run and who's just being myopic. A one-size-fits-all rule forces smarties to do something worse as the price of forcing fools to do something better. There's an aggregate benefit because the fools outnumber the smarties several times over.

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

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah a tax on electricity would make the most sense.

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

Solar is not pollution free.

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

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though prices can drop and even go negative sometimes it's never a long term thing. There is kind of a price floor in the market, if prices get too low energy intensive businesses will move into the state, eg. aluminum smelters, bitcoin miners, and so on. I posted in the other thread about why I think this policy is a really good idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17008950 Also it's only for new homes. You ca…

What this does is force new homeowners to make an iffy investment that they probably wouldn't otherwise make given a choice in the free market, but cleverly hides it in the price of new construction. If it was such a slam-dunk great idea, everyone would be installing solar systems right now but they aren't because it isn't clear that it makes any financial sense.

Solar panels, themselves, are incredibly cheap, partly because China is dumping their overproduction on the market, partly because we’ve just gotten really good at making them.

Most of the price of installing solar is the labor for getting the roofers and electrician to come out, plus in some jurisdictions an architectural study.

All of those costs come down dramatically if you’re already bringing in roofers and electricians for the normal process of building a home.

Additionally, PV panels themselves have near zero maintenance costs, and dramatically reduce maintenance/replacement costs of the underlying roof.

As a result, it is just a gargantuan failure of the market that all new homes aren’t, today, built with PV panels.

This seems like a great correction to that market failure.

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

#254
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...…

If septic installs are so profitable, perhaps you should get into the business.

Why do you need a new water meter?

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

#255
post #167
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was also required to have solar, I'd really be screwed... So, what do you do for electricity then? Most people developing rural property near where I live love solar, they can't get enough, as it lets them go off-grid and avoid paying electricity hookup fees.

I'm not that rural. The price for the electric run is $350 for new poles and the service is about $0.10 p/kwh. I'm fine with adding solar. I simply don't have the money right now. And I am not getting a mortgage as the 'just add it to your mortgage' attitude is what has lead to so many (non protested) price hikes in the first place. So adding 'just another' $10k to the price means I get to wait so many extra months t…

If you're going to refuse bog standard conservative financing options that have been used for centuries, your difficulties are mainly self-imposed.

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

#256

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.

Solar is not pollution free.

Compared to other options (coal/natgas) it effectively is.

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

#257

So you can't mandate that neighbourhoods build taller buildings to curb the astronomical rise in real estate prices but making new buildings (and by association old buildings) more expensive is easy. California, what are you doing? Fix your housing problem!

California doesn't force local SF zoning.

Solar power is cost effective in California.

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It didn't make sense all along. 10 years ago this would have been crazy because PV hardware was so much more expensive then. A lot of people do fail to do the math. Many people are not quantitatively analytical, even in situations where such analysis is in their material self-interest. A few years ago I encountered an engineer who was really angry about lightbulb minimum efficiency standards. "I already switched to L…

Government also pushed the CFL (fluoret) disaster (economic and environmental mercury) on us for 10 years. There's a reason centrally planned economies tend to collapse

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

#259
post #96
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 apparently solved the cancer-causing components issue: by feel-good edict.

California didn't mandate material changes, just stupid labels.

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

#260
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not clear on why SB827 high density housing near transit and solar panels for single family homes are mutually exclusive. A solar rooftop on a 4 story high density building is like a rounding error compared to all the other costs. California should be moving forward on both initiatives, no? The great thing about the requirement is not that it is the absolutely most carbon friendly solution but that it creates a v…

> I'm not clear on why SB827 high density housing near transit and solar panels for single family homes are mutually exclusive. They don't even seem to be in much tension, much less opposed.

It's definitely a false equivalence.
Post reply on HN