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

261–270 of 329 posts

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

#261

Post by kolbe »

krisdol wrote: post #90
nv-vn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And changing over only the new houses in one single state is going to fix that? Most of the world's pollution is coming out of developing countries anyways. This move is at best virtue signaling and at worst a step towards destroying California's economy.

False. The US the biggest CO2 polluter per capita and the second biggest CO2 polluter overall. California contributes a significant chunk to that equation.

>US the biggest CO2 polluter per capita

Your statement, while true, did not refute his, FYI.

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

#263

Post by r00fus »

esaym wrote: post #66
supercanuck wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $3k-$5k+ (profit) a week in septic installs Did you factor in healthcare?

No as I am comparing apples to apples here as I am 1099, paid by the hour, and they are a sole proprietor. Yes they have different expenses than I do, I buy a $300 laptop off of ebay every couple of years whereas they probably buy a $30,000 backhoe every couple of decades. But still... a little blue collar work with more and more regulations making it take longer and be more profitable is starting to sound lucrative.

Is it regulations or other rent seeking that have caused inflation? Do you think the cost of living increases in your he past decade are due to regulations?

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

#264

Post by tomohawk »

At what point do tweaks to building codes cross the line from being "minimal acceptable" and into the realm of virtue signalling?

The newer model codes now require fire suppression sprinkler systems to be installed in detached residential structures, which is pretty ludicrous. For homes on a well or without sufficient pressure from municipal source, a water tank in the attic is required!

People don't realize that they may need to purchase special riders on their home insurance as water damage caused by the sprinkler systems may not be covered, while the fire would be. A friend of mine in the fire department reports that these systems get activated more from false alarms than by actual fires, and that many people lose most of what they own. The home owner is not allowed to turn off the sprinklers, so the fire department has to go out and do it.

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

#265

Post by giarc »

rwbt wrote: post #16
koube wrote: post #3

Saw this in my rss this morning: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/ro... > I just became aware in the last few days of the proposal in the new building energy efficiency standards rule making to mandate rooftop solar on all new residential buildings. I want to urge you not to adopt the standard. I, along with the vast majority of energy economist, believe that residential rooftop solar is a mu…

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…

Why not mandate that new homes need to have equivalent solar built somewhere. So I build a home with a 700sqft roof, an additional tax is added that goes towards building 700sqft of solar at a solar farm.

In fact it would be cheaper since installation would be much cheaper on a large scale and solar farm can buy panels in bulk.

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

#266

Post by noonespecial »

I can see it now. Years after every house in the world has a Mr Fusion in the garage powering everything from a banana peel , those odd houses in California will still be being built with those funny black panels on top. No one will be sure quite why.

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

#267

Post by RandomNameName »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #249

Do people get paid for energy injected into the grid? If one consumes X kW/month but generates 1.5X, what happens to the 0.5X difference?

Each state has a utility commission that dictates the retail rate paid to solar customers. In California, it's cost i.e if I pay 8 cents a kilowatt-hour and I have a kilowatt hour excess, I get 8 cents. In addition to state, Tesla Powerwall confounds the equation.

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

#268

Post by twothamendment »

dbg31415 wrote: post #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 g…

> Given you need to still draw from the grid, but aren't paying as much...

Right on. Much of the cost of being on the grid is the grid itself. My power company is a co-op. They aren't out to rob me, but the monthly fee just to be hooked up is pretty high. Here it is because the population is thin and a good percentage of homes are vacation/cabin, so they aren't using very much for many months, but they want it to work when they show up. I think it might be similar when people quit using as much on a regular basis, but still want the power company to provide on a whim (theirs or nature). The cost to be on the grid, even if you don't ever use it is going to rise.

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

#269

Post by giarc »

tomohawk wrote: post #264

At what point do tweaks to building codes cross the line from being "minimal acceptable" and into the realm of virtue signalling? The newer model codes now require fire suppression sprinkler systems to be installed in detached residential structures, which is pretty ludicrous. For homes on a well or without sufficient pressure from municipal source, a water tank in the attic is required! People don't realize that the…

Look at Vancouver which banned the door knob [0] as it is hard to manipulate for a disabled person. New homes need to install lever style handles. I would argue they should have just provided subsidies for disabled persons to retrofit a home they move into. Instead all new homes need lever style handles, most unnecessarily.

0 - https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/no-doorknobs-allowed-in-new-va...

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

#270

Post by aphextron »

dbg31415 wrote: post #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 g…

It's all about grid capacity and efficiency, not personal cost savings. Think about rooftop solar from the utility perspective. On peak load days in the summer, they will have a more stable grid when AC units are being offset in real time by the very sunlight that is causing them to be needed. Even a cheap 1kW system with no batteries on every house would make a massive difference.
Post reply on HN