Does the law require the homeowner to keep it? Duct tape a few solar panels on the roof after you build it and then buy them back as soon as the deal closes.
California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
281–290 of 329 posts
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the simplified Econ 101 models (which might be described as “basic econ”) will tell you that, but actual studies of human behavior will tell you those models don't represent reality in broad swathes of real economic activity.
Can you link some studies that prove people in broad swathes of the economy need to be forced to make profitable decisions on an individual case-by-case basis?
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
> require a total net power draw for the home Not good either. Just let people pay for what they use. Each person can decide how to optimize for his or her needs.
This makes sense if people living in the house are the owners, but it's completely opposite for rentals. The owner may be keen to invest in lower future bills. But if they're just renting, why would they care? The bills don't come to them and they still get the same in rent. It could work for rentals if there was enough empty places that people could be picky about the energy efficiency of the houses they rent, but t…
make it easier for renters to know how much they will pay in utilities.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#284The 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…
>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.
I don't agree that such an authority is inherently dangerous, this kind of legislation is specifically an example where danger is explicitly reduced.
The below is an attempt to show this isn't just a noble gesture, but that environmental legislation has huge positive impacts, and is exactly the kind of thing we want a state doing.
California generates most of its power through natural gas [1], which the burning of creates smog, which has measureable impacts on life expectancy. Early numbers from China indicate that the difference between highly urbanized areas and less urbanized areas amount to at least 5.5 years of reduced lifespan. [2]
It may surprise you to find out that California, in many heavily populated areas like the Bay Area, where most people are living, actually has worse smog than that in Shanghai [3].
Let's try a simple model and do a back-of-the-envelope calculation of what this means for Americans:
Let's say that in the bay area, the smog is (ass-pulled in direct contradiction to my above source, so we're being conservative) half as bad as in China's urban areas, and therefore longterm exposure to smog reduces life expectancy by 3 years. Let's say that long term, solar panel usage allows California to reduce natural gas burning for power generation, which ultimately reduces smog in a way such that it halves the impact on life expectancy to 1.5 years.
There are 7 million people in the Bay area. If you're willing to buy the above model, you are saving 10.5 million years of human life just in the Bay Area by making the change, before we even begin to discuss external positive environmental impacts and subjective quality of life benefits of smog reduction.
Last thought? The average human lifespan in America is 79 years[4]. If the above model is correct, such a change is equivalent to saving 132,000 lives. You don't notice that all this life is being lost because the effects are so diffuse.
There are times to leap to your pitchforks about the harms of the state, but environmentalism definitely isn't one of them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California
[2] https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fu...
[3] https://www.ozy.com/acumen/think-chinas-pollution-is-bad-try...
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#285Requiring 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…
I'm new to this HN thing so in an attempt to be "civil" I'll simply say I disagree with every single thing you said.
The decision to implement California car emissions standards was not a heavy handed or half baked idea. The Rand corporation was called in to help figure out a solution other than catalytic converter and the ultimate decision was signed off by Ronald "not a fan of regulation" Reagan. Not only have there been improvements in the catalytic converter but also there's this company called Tesla that has innovated and provided an alternative. Your suggestion of goals was implemented in the last administration and is in the process of being removed. Lobbyists kill goals/limits.
A total net power draw is regulating the users behavior. Is that what you want?
Smaller windows or better insulation...? While home A/C is a factor, this is not about the user. This is about clean power for California (whether it's effective at producing the power is a different conversation). Users can still get better insulation or smaller windows or innovate as they see fit. California had two nuclear reactors. It has shut them down. This legislation (which I didn't know about till today) is one in a long string of movements toward cleaner air starting back in 1967.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history
An unrelated note, I hear all this talk about money As others have said, this is an economic non-starter for a home in California. One thing that has not been mentioned is that currently home appraisers do not consider solar panels in the value of a home.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right - Solar really just front-loads the energy costs of the building. You pay for ~5-10 years of energy up front, and then recoup that investment over the next 30+ years, coming out ahead in the end. You could argue that this sort of policy is a win-win in that it both reduces the longer term cost of housing (both for the first and subsequent owners) and also reduces the amount of net energy required (saves on new…
Serious question -- isn't the lifetime of solar panels (or ancillary equipment) significantly less than 30 years? A quick Google looks like 15 years ish? I have never owned a home (or lived in one with solar), so I'm not sure of the actual typical mileage.
The panels on my house are warrantied for 25 years, and expected to last years beyond that. There are no moving parts, not much to degrade, so the useful life is quite long. Though I expect in 30 years the newer panels will be more efficient and super cheap.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#287As somebody who has installed rooftop solar in California in two houses I owned, I think this is a bad idea. Mandating solar solution means the one you get with the new house would be the cheapest (and therefore crappiest) money could buy and an inspection could pass. Most consumers have no idea how to evaluate solar panels, and most would not walk out of a good deal because of solar panels. Which means huge incentive for homebuilders to cut costs. And once you've got it, you are stuck with it - replacing is would have huge costs. And, of course, I have pre-pay it with my mortgage.
Instead, I'd very much like to choose a provider by myself, with a good reputation, and choose what kind of deal I can get on it, what are payment options, etc. There are a lot of options on the market. Pre-packaging the deal cuts off these options and takes the decision from me - unless I build the house by myself, I will no longer have an option of negotiating and choosing these things independently from the house itself.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#288Requiring 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…
I'm new to this HN thing so in an attempt to be "civil" I'll simply say I disagree with every single thing you said. The decision to implement California car emissions standards was not a heavy handed or half baked idea. The Rand corporation was called in to help figure out a solution other than catalytic converter and the ultimate decision was signed off by Ronald "not a fan of regulation" Reagan. Not only have ther…
> also there's this company called Tesla that has innovated and provided an alternative
You can't really call Tesla an alternative to regular cars with a price point of $80K (plus options, plus taxes). I know there are people in Silicon Valley who have so much money that $80k is like pocket change to them, but even in SV that's a minority. In the meantime, I've bought a car for $2k several years ago and it still runs (admittedly, it required some repairs on the way, but still).
> home appraisers do not consider solar panels in the value of a home.
Insurers do, as I recently found out. So maybe appraisers will catch up too.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#289Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you link some studies that prove people in broad swathes of the economy need to be forced to make profitable decisions on an individual case-by-case basis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
I've studied behavioral economics. Not what I asked for