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.
With the ridiculous land values, installing a system like this would only be a tiny fraction of the home value, at least.
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.
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.
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.
How will small businesses that are just making ends meet cope with this mandate?
A small business that is "just making ends meet" can't afford to have a new building constructed. They would be leasing space or buying an existing property.
Because our planet is dying and that trumps your right to be a unique snowflake.
Sorry to break the news. Mother Earth doesn't need humans. Never has, never will. Go ask the dinosaurs if you don't believe me.