why can't it just be a free market
California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
21–30 of 329 posts
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a good point... and pretty sad actually... Edit: And I can't help but think of the driven up cost of roof repairs. So 10-15 years down the road when you get a leak in your roof.. now you got to pay labor to pull the panels before you can even repair the roof...
Solar panels increase roof structural strength through the racking used for mounting and increase roof material longevity by directly shielding the roof from solar irradiation.
The problem is still there though. Roofs can and do leak.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#23Requiring 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 draw for the home. Adding a production unit just gives more room in the calculation and not having one might mean more expensive insulation or smaller windows are needed instead.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#24Everyone 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.
It's perpetual employment for Sacramento though.
Step 1: Lobby for legislation that slaps an extra $30-40k on top of every newly constructed unit.
Step 2: Lament about the lack of affordable housing, conduct exhaustive studies to pin down the reasons.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solar panels increase roof structural strength through the racking used for mounting and increase roof material longevity by directly shielding the roof from solar irradiation.
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.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#26Saw 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…
Won't this new law actually disincentivize more affordable housing?
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#27Given how little PV costs compared to an average new build, I’m surprised it took this long to be a requirement anywhere. The cells themselves are, what, US$920 for 4kW? And most of the rest is installation cost which is much lower if it is an alternative to rather than a bolt-on to a normal roof? Sure, it’s more for batteries and inverters, but PV or thermal should’ve been standard even a decade ago.
On average, it might even save a homeowner money after about 10 years. But I'd much rather leave the decision up to the relevant people instead of mandating this at the state level. If it makes sense to build it, I trust they already would have (as many do), and there will always be exceptions (e.g. shade) where the mandate will be perverse.
At that price it should save money after one year. But you’re right to care about perverse incentives; it’s hard for governments to get that right for the same reason it’s hard to make an AI that doesn’t reward hack.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#28Saw 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…
> Even though rooftop solar might not be the most economical solution to reduce greenhouse gas footprints, I would argue it's very effective.
Inefficient and expensive systems can do harm, regardless of the good intention behind this law. Rooftop solar has substantial embedded carbon and impacts on the grid that could easily outweigh the small benefits. We need a solution that provides the right incentives to use it when it makes sense, and not use it when it doesn't make sense, rather than a hamfisted blanket mandate.
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#29I feel like the real motivation behind this is that far too many people believe that the hard part of getting solar panels adopted is in finding places to put them. So this law "solves" the problem. But that's never been the real problem. It's arguing about the color of the bike shed when the real mover of solar panels is price and output. Price isn't addressed here and you should expect installing it everywhere will lower the average output of installed panels (since it'll be put on non-optimal shady locations too).
Re: California Votes to Require Rooftop Solar Power on New Homes
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, storage is still too expensive. There is a role for regulation but a carbon tax is the way to go.
Expensive compared to what? CO2 emissions? You already get a 30% federal tax credit as well as CA state and local utility incentives, what more is necessary? A free system? I agree a carbon tax would be ideal. It seems politically impossible though, so you achieve what you can.
That was a response to your statement that the relevant research has been done.
I don't think it has. We still have to figure out ways to lower the cost of storage.
You're saying it is cheap enough that we can now mandate it?
It should be cheap enough when purely green energy is superior to any other source. Solar alone is cheap, but not solar + storage.