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

51–60 of 329 posts

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

#51

Post by sxates »

tzs wrote: post #31
happyopossum wrote: post #8

Not only is residential solar just about the most expensive (and thus innefficient) form of solar power available, but this is coming at a time when new construction of affordable housing is most needed. The only reason this is considered a 'cost effective' measure, is because the entire cost is forced on the shoulders of homebuyers. Saddling all new residential construction with this burden serves 2 priary purposes…

The article says it will add $10k to the home. On a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at current rates that's $50/month. Subtract out the savings on the electric bill, and it probably won't be reducing affordability much, or even at all.

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 power plants, carbon).

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

#52

Post by nv-vn »

DeepYogurt wrote: post #48
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…

I agree that a a more general law would be better, but for the foreseeable future I don't see this law having detrimental side effects. Also this law can be addressed in the future when solar is a less compelling technology.

It sounds horrible to me for a number of reasons:

* Increases the cost of homes

* Gives solar power industry a boost in a way that's hard to get rid of--they will lobby to keep this even if other industries are around and it'll probably never change

* No incentive to research new energy technology in the meantime

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

#53

Post by tlb »

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…

How would you formulate a building code for total net power draw, given how much it depends on occupant behavior?

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

#54

Post by slededit »

Analemma_ wrote: post #46
trimbo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't this new law actually disincentivize more affordable housing?

My cynical side would say that the California housing market is already so completely fucked, with only millionaires and Chinese expats able to buy new houses, that if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) one might as well do this to get something useful from the situation. It's like a tax on the 1% that funds renewable energy programs. I'd rather have cheap housing,…

California is not just LA and San Francisco. People wonder why rural voters vote differently.

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

#56

Post by nv-vn »

Analemma_ wrote: post #46
trimbo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't this new law actually disincentivize more affordable housing?

My cynical side would say that the California housing market is already so completely fucked, with only millionaires and Chinese expats able to buy new houses, that if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) one might as well do this to get something useful from the situation. It's like a tax on the 1% that funds renewable energy programs. I'd rather have cheap housing,…

Death by a million paper cuts

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

#58

Post by justherefortart »

esaym wrote: 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...…

Dig a well instead?

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

#59

Post by nv-vn »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #25
esaym wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is "bold action" required? This entire concept seems flawed to me.

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

#60

Post by AmVess »

esaym wrote: post #9
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?

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...

One good hail storm would be a much more expensive fix. Insurance paid nearly $10k for my new roof after hail ruined it. Solar panels would have tripled that cost.
Post reply on HN