Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Adopts Law Requiring Solar Panels On All New Buildings (theguardian.com)
San Francisco will soon become one of the first major cities in the U.S. to require solar power on new buildings. The rule, which received approval from San Francisco's Board of Supervisors this week, is set to go into effect in January 2017. According to the legislation, all new buildings with 10 stories or fewer -- both residential and commercial -- will have to use either solar panels for electricity or a solar system to heat water. The Guardian notes that smaller Californian cities such as Lancaster and Sebastopol already have similar laws in place, but San Francisco is the first large city to adopt the new standard. "In a dense, urban environment, we need to be smart and efficient about how we maximize the use of our space to achieve goals such as promoting renewable energy and improving our environment," Supervisor Scott Wiener said in a statement. Vox has more details.
San Francisco Adopts Law Requiring Solar Panels On All New Buildings
What about heat pollution? What if you wanted to build a nice roof garden instead?
Why does absolutely everyone have to do exactly the same thing all the time?
A hill so very steep that it's in perpetual shadow for the entire year? That's a pretty steep hill, even for San Fran.
With the ridiculous land values, installing a system like this would only be a tiny fraction of the home value, at least.
How will small businesses that are just making ends meet cope with this mandate? Are they (SFBS) granting subsidies of any kind?
I also think it's strange that buildings over 10 floors are exempt. They'd seem to be the most ideal candidates.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
and if I'm building on the north side of a hill???
Did you read the bill? They are typically more than one liners. There's probably all sorts of caveats and exclusions in the details. Not to mention that just because the law says something any builder can request a variance.
So its a bit premature to just assume you would actually need to put solar panels on a building that gets no sunlight.
idiots....
Once you've determined the bill actually does require you to put panels on your permashaded building AND your request for a variance has been denied you can call them idiots.
Until then though, I figure the idiot is more likely to be you.
Not all locations are conducive to solar energy. Some properties are in shadows most of the day due to topography and surrounding terrain. Some properties face the wrong way so sun only hits directly half the day.
How many of these systems will be installed and never maintained? How many of these systems will just be shut off?
There will be many systems that will never recoup their costs installed under this new regulation.
I hope those SJWs in San Francisco realize that all those solar panels will contribute to the Sun burning out sooner. There's already not enough sunlight to go around. Just ask Greenland.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Since when does San Francisco allow people to put up new buildings?
I thought they just put up as many barriers to build things as they could. Hey, wait a sec...!
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
No I couldn't imagine some city in Alabama doing this - Most of us who live in Alabama are smarter then this. If it made economic sense, business and builders would be doing this already.
Solar panels more than pay for themselves during their lifetimes, usually several times over with today's technology. What it illustrates is short-term thinking -- saving a small amount of money today instead of a larger amount tomorrow.
Now, if they could only adopt a law to actually allow the construction of NEW buildings.
How will small businesses that are just making ends meet cope with this mandate?
How do small businesses cope with mandates of elevators and wheelchair accessibility and sprinkler heads and exit signs and the thousands(!) of other code requirements?
[Buildings over 10 floors] seem to be the most ideal candidates.
Probably not. For one thing, tall buildings tend to be located near other tall buildings. Unlike low-rise buildings which are often approximately the same height, the height difference of skyscrapers can be 100s of feet. Shading becomes more of a challenge. But probably more importantly, the roof space of tall buildings is essentially too valuable -- it's needed for communication and mechanical units. Finally, skyscrapers make up a remarkably tiny percentage of roof space in San Francisco, so their inclusion or exclusion has a trivial impact on achieving the goals of the legislation.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
A hill so very steep that it's in perpetual shadow for the entire year? That's a pretty steep hill, even for San Fran.
The shadow does not need to be perpetual. If a roof is shaded for even part of the day, then it would make more sense to put the panels elsewhere. Solar panels make sense in many situations, but mandating them everywhere is stupid. But this all academic anyway, since very few new buildings are likely to be built in SF. Last year, more than 95% of building permit applications are denied, by the same politicians that complain about a lack of affordable housing.
OK so which SF politicians just coincidentally also own a solar panel company?
what about rooftop gardens
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Last year, more than 95% of building permit applications are denied, by the same politicians that complain about a lack of affordable housing.
How many of those building permit applications were for affordable housing? I wouldn't be surprised if they were all for luxury condo units. Developers love luxury project because they can make more money. My apartment complex has gone through three corporate owners in as many years, each of them splashing exterior paint and redoing the landscaping to charge luxury rents.
Solar construction is picking up in the oil states.
Plunging oil and gas has generated more than 84,000 pink slips in Texas, according to the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers. But many rig hands, roustabouts, pipe fitters and even some engineers are finding a surprising alternative in the utility-scale solar farms rising from the desert near the border with New Mexico.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-oil-jobs-dry-up-workers-turn-to-solar-sector-1461280612
They can do it because you want to live there. Its called economics.
A good friend of mine lives in the city. His one story house is down the north slope from his neighboring two story row-house. His roof doesn't get any sun much of the year, and when it does it ain't much.
That said, adding panels during new construction adds very little to the cost.
This is a building regulation. Exemptions from building regulations aren't that uncommon.
They can do it because you want to live there. Its called economics.
Luxury development is a nation-wide problem.
Out of every five multifamily rentals built in the country's biggest cities from 2012 to 2014, four were luxury apartments "that command rents in the top 20 percent of the market," the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. The 82 percent figure that real estate researchers at CoStar Group came up with in its analysis for the newspaper is an average of data from 54 separate metro areas. The percentage is even higher in some cities from the list, such as Atlanta's 95 percent luxury construction rate from the three-year period.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/22/3662239/luxury-housing-80-percent-developers/
Wasn't there a politician stating that the energy cost for making panels (fabbing the silicon, smelting the aluminum/steel for the frames) is far more than a panel will ever get back in its lifetime?
Yes, and he was a moron and wrong.
Same fucking bullshit was spouted about hybrid cars.
I'm with you on this one. It would be beautiful to see cities with flat roof gardens.
As far as the solar panel we could put them on the side of the house. Maybe even do some design to look good. And I'm not sure solar panels use the same light as plants. We could possibly develop transparent solar panels for an awning over the garden. This might let us have our cake and eat it too.
My dream home: Below ground living quarters; two or three floors; ground level parking lot and then a workshop and storage floor before the garden roof. Sort of reverse from most peoples expectations but way more efficient.
Weird to have you beat someone up for not reading the bill when you didn't even read TFA.
Not that weird. Common sense applies here.
California already had a stupid law saying x% of new buildings statewide must be "solar capable", meaning not shaded.
That's not quite what it means. It means they must be constructed so that they themselves don't preclude the use of solar on their roofs by their own design, it obviously doesn't mean that they passed a law requiring new buildings to somehow defy physics and receive sunlight even if there is a mountain or neighboring building blocking it.
That is the stupid law.
How is it a stupid law? It's a pretty modest 15% and easily achievable.
How many of those building permit applications were for affordable housing?
It doesn't matter. If they are all luxury condos, then the people moving into them are moving out of other housing. The supply of housing will still go up, and prices will then go down. Economics 101.
That's how it's supposed to work, but it's not really. Because those landlords in the units being moved out of don't want to admit their property is past prime and they need to lower their rent accordingly. So you end up with what I have in my hometown (a college town). Lots of under-inhabited luxury apartment buildings waiting for that student with parents with deep pockets that isn't going to come, and a population of local residents who can't find housing affordable for local wages (which are also being depressed by an influx of naive students who will work for cheap -- because they have outside financial backing or student loans keeping them in housing).