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

191–200 of 329 posts

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

#191

Post by donatj »

ajross wrote: post #159
alkonaut wrote: post #23

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…

Likewise the perfect is the enemy of the good. Having an idea of what a perfect regulation would be means that you end up arguing against helpful regulations because they don't meet your standards for "good idea". Your point isn't incorrect, but it's at best misplaced and mistimed. You should have been yelling about this when the law was being written, not now that it's passed. To those of us who care about the subje…

Laws that are merely "good" hurt innocent people and ruin lives. Never settle for "good" when it comes to law.

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

#192

Post by slg »

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #156
slg wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know enough about the energy market to weigh in on this proposal, but that response is the epitome of the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is presenting a false choice. Getting something like this approved is much easier politically than large solar and wind farms. Sometimes the politically expedient solution is the proper choice over the ideal but politically unrealistic solution.

> Sometimes the politically expedient solution is the proper choice over the ideal but politically unrealistic solution. Why wouldn't that always be the case? What's different about this case where this expedient choice is proper but other's aren't?

We should be unwilling to compromise on certain issues. Civil rights is one that many people would point to that should not be compromised. It is one reason why Hillary Clinton was criticized by progressives during the 2016 campaign for previously being against gay marriage and pro civil unions. That was the politically expedient position at the time, but it was also a compromise of morals.

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

#194

Post by gascan »

jpk wrote: post #150
ams6110 wrote: post #107

Earlier 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.

That's basically what we do now, but the trouble is cheap power sources with undesirable externalities win the energy market because consumers want more energy for less money.

Another trouble is the builder doesn't have to pay for the energy usage of the property, and there's no well-established way for the buyer to estimate consumption like there is with mpg.

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

#195

Post by _rpd »

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?

The rules make explicit exception for shaded roofs, see section 150.1(c)14 ...

http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02...

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

#196

Post by mywittyname »

docker_up wrote: post #169

The less people who use electricity, the more electricity prices will go up. So at some point, it will only be the poor people and apartment dwellers who will be paying exorbitant prices for electricity while the wealthier people pay almost nothing.

Probably not. Large buildings will never be able to supply their own power, so every major city is going to still need gobs of the stuff.

Most power plants have a linear scaling cost. They can add and remove generators as needed.

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

#197

Post by samb1729 »

jriot wrote: post #151
jpk wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's basically what we do now, but the trouble is cheap power sources with undesirable externalities win the energy market because consumers want more energy for less money.

Who wants less energy for more money?

Earth

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

#198

Post by newnewpdro »

Solar panels on new homes seems like a relatively low priority - considering they can always be added at any time, and it's not even necessarily the best strategy for all home/living situations. Not to mention CA has plenty of desert land to cover with PV panels.

California should instead be focusing on things like requiring rentals to provide EV charging for all tenants.

Nearly half of CA residents don't own their homes. Until some initiative forces their landlords to install EV infrastructure, the majority of these people won't even consider buying an EV at their next car purchase.

It strikes me as an urgent priority to remove all barriers to people owning EVs en masse, especially considering how long automobiles last. A major selling point of EVs is always finding your vehicle at 100% in the morning. Tenants who have to find places away from home to charge their vehicles for 1+ hours will rarely buy one.

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

#199

Post by _rpd »

philipkglass wrote: post #40

I'm having a hard time finding a news article with links to the actual standard, and secondary sources like this Bloomberg article are omitting important details. Does this represent the standard that was adopted: http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-01... ? In particular, I wonder what the minimum system size is, in kilowatts. Reporting household system size in "dollars" is a poor metric because…

I believe section 150.1(c)14 of ...

http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02...

... actually specifies the requirements.

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

#200

Post by _rpd »

subculture wrote: post #87

How will this change the discussions around net metering? Part of the offset of costs for solar were supposed to be the ability to sell excess back into the grid. And what happens when the grid no longer benefits from new electricity generation? If the new requirement is just for panels without storage it seems like a long-term transfer of risk and cost from energy companies to home owners. https://www.utilitydive.co…

Net metering isn't compatible with this mandate.
Post reply on HN