Slashdot Mirror
California To Become First US State Mandating Solar On New Homes (ocregister.com)
OCRegister reports that "The California Energy Commission is scheduled to vote Wednesday, May 9, on new energy standards mandating most new homes have solar panels starting in 2020." From the report: Just 15 percent to 20 percent of new single-family homes built include solar, according to Bob Raymer, technical director for the California Building Industry Association. The proposed new rules would deviate slightly from another much-heralded objective: Requiring all new homes be "net-zero," meaning they would produce enough solar power to offset all electricity and natural gas consumed over the course of a year. New thinking has made that goal obsolete, state officials say. True "zero-net-energy" homes still rely on the electric power grid at night, they explained, a time when more generating plants come online using fossil fuels to generate power. In addition to widespread adoption of solar power, the new provisions include a push to increase battery storage and increase reliance on electricity over natural gas.
Only difference now is they made it law.
Solar is great but the problem of storing power in an eco-friendly manner remains.
Batteries are poison. What would be better would a mechanical solution of some kind, like power-winding up a turbine during the day while it's sunny and letting it run and generate power at night.
lucm, indeed.
Pretty easy to enforce when you don't allow new homes to be built anywhere.
The median price of a new home in Cali is over half a million now. Add another 20% to that for solar panels.
Put another way, Cali has a few wealthy people who can afford that, and many many poor and homeless and it has gotten worse.
And guess who is running the show out there.
Just imagine how mind-blowing it must have been when some municipality dictated that all home built after a certain date MUST have flush toilets. "Oh, come on, the outhouse idea has been working for a long time. Why change it? Now I need to reserve space in the home and put in plumbing. Home prices are going to skyrocket so only the rich can afford it."
Only difference now is they made it law.
Building standards have been common place for hundreds of years and are constantly updated. Just because the latest proposals conflict with your chosen religion doesn't make it any different.
I'm an atheist. I have no religion. I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
Finally! This is the direction we need to move all newly constructed homes. We could power almost every home off of isolated power systems (solar+battery) if we only made the effort. It doesn't solve all our energy needs but if you are looking for a silver bullet then you aren't really looking for a solution.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
"But that $25,000 to $30,000 will result in $50,000 to $60,000 in the owner’s reduced operating costs over the 25-year life of the home’s solar system, Herro said." So the proposed legislation will make homes more efficient, and cost less to own in the long term. Let's see how the fossil fuel lobby try to twist this.
California pays more in Federal tax per resident than it gets back. If California were its own country, it would actually have a more balanced budget, not less balanced.
I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
Nobody claimed they were free but dude, solar panels are cheap as hell now. I mean, have you even looked at the price per watt in recent years?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Which is why CA is $400+ billion in debt, right?
Some HOAs will demand that you only install/replace roofs with cedar shake. Can't use tile, metal or asphalt. Because "Muh aesthetics!" And in spite of houses burning down right and left because embers land on flammable roofs, not one fucking politician has ever overruled an HOA. So just move into a neighborhood that prohibits solar for similar reasons.
Have gnu, will travel.
Toilets aren't free, but they require every home have one of those, too (except in West Virginia, I think). In Texas, the state mandates that every house have heat, and furnaces aren't free.
You're not happy about solar energy. We all get that. But don't act like renewable energy is some kind of pie-in-the-sky myth. It just makes you look ridiculous. We've passed the point where solar panels now pay for themselves. Having one on a house actually brings down the cost of home ownership over time.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This could have unintended consequences such as jacking up the cost of new homes. That will hurt the poor.
Or perhaps that was intended.
$400 billion is $10,000 per person per year. At current bond rates, service cost is under $400 per person per year. Not a big deal, especially since some of the debt is actually held by CA residents (directly or indirectly).
But yeah, if money weren't funneled away from CA to support less solvent states (by way of DC), CA would be in even better shape.
Correction: $10,000 per person TOTAL, $400 per person per year.
Considering the corporate taxes and mining/mineral taxes would be going to California (assuming an independent California), this doesn't invalidate the argument.
Why force solar panels on a home built in the shade of a forest, especially if the demand is for break even? That's extremely inefficient - it makes more sense to use the existing infrastructure to redistribute energy from areas where it's easily generated to areas where it isn't.
I'm thinking a credit system would address the desire much more economically.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
Nobody claimed they were free but dude, solar panels are cheap as hell now. I mean, have you even looked at the price per watt in recent years?
The cost of the solar panels themselves is only part of the issue--the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account, as well as the simple fact that California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing. They shouldn't be adding to the problem for anything not required for safety or basic habitability.
If they want something like this, it'd be better to offer money up front for new houses to have solar panels on the roof than flat-out assume anybody wanting to own a house or build their own has money to burn.
It's not clear from that article how *much* solar has to be installed on a given house to meet the standard...a single power? The average power draw for a house in that area? A flat minimum per house? I'm pretty sure a single panel won't be quite what they're looking to accomplish (though it would definitely help costs).
I suspect those details ARE out there, but they don't seem obvious from the article.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
California doesn't have an affordable housing problem. San Francisco does. Los Angeles does.
A quick Zillow shows tons of houses in the same price range as my midwestern house. Check Sacramento or Fresno.
Yes, Silicon Valley costs a lot.
There is plenty of standards that go beyond habitability - there are rules about power, water, heating, even storage space.
Heck, in my neighborhood there are rules about requiring fencing, a minimum number and maximum height of screening plans, the paint color, the current state of your shingles, there are rules about car washing, parking large vehicles and so on and so forth.
If there was a rule about solar power it would be just an additional item on the list of things one has to do to build and own a property.
I mean, solar panels are light and easily put on roofs that weren't designed to 'handle the weight.' you undermine your argument of increased cost when you stretch into the ridiculous here.
This is California's revenge on the energy companies for the Enron crisis when the state was forced into expensive long-term energy contracts.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
There is plenty of standards that go beyond habitability - there are rules about power, water, heating, even storage space.
Heck, in my neighborhood there are rules about requiring fencing, a minimum number and maximum height of screening plans, the paint color, the current state of your shingles, there are rules about car washing, parking large vehicles and so on and so forth.
If there was a rule about solar power it would be just an additional item on the list of things one has to do to build and own a property.
The difference is, if you don't like the rules of an HOA, you can go find a different neighborhood. If your job is in California, you can't just go find a different state.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
Building standards prevent builders from installing electric sockets behind kitchen sinks or in stairwells, ensuring that staircases have adequate foot depth and maximum step height, balcony walls are a sensible height and there are railings at any steep change in height, or there aren't holes between stairwells and floor levels (a modern flat with minimalist staircase had 6 inch gaps between the last step and the mezzanine level). When there aren't these codes, accidents happen.
Sometimes it does get carried away, when they require that garage driveways must not face the front of the house.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
right?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't get it. California are taking steps to improve energy usage. WTHolyF is making so many posters aggressively against this? I can't understand educated engineers pooh-poohing a positive step forward.
From the article:
- Exceptions or alternatives will be allowed when homes are shaded by trees or buildings or when the home's roofs are too small to accommodate solar panels
...
- Builders installing batteries like the Tesla Powerwall would get "compliance credits," allowing them to further reduce the size of the solar system.
Polluting the water running by your house violates the property rights of people living downstream. Handling sewage properly prevents that rights violation. Forcing a solar installation protects nobody's rights.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
About 3/4 of California's population lives in extended expensive urban areas. Forced solar will only make it worse.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Sure you can... you can move to one of the republican paradises like Kansas, Wyoming, or Oklahoma where low regulation and and taxes have produced places where everyone wants to live.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"Forcing a solar installation protects nobody's rights."
It can, indirectly. For example, if it obviates a need for burning carbon for heat, which differs from your water example, only because it's atmospheric.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Given any thought to solar hot water instead of solar PV? Cost effective. Proven technology. When my parents installed it near San Diego 50 years ago, the only permit problem they had was that the 100 gallon or so water tank had to be anchored to the house -- apparently to make sure that the tank destroyed the (quite flimsy) structure in the event of an earthquake strong enough to move the tank.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
In this pathological social construct we call civilization the rich elite have convinced the masses that by removing a person's inherent ability to construct a house for themselves and ensuring a monopoly for the construction companies they are somehow protecting people.
What? I can only conclude one of two things from the tone of your post:
Option A, you have never actually tried to build your own home and so have no idea what the process actually entails
Option B, You actually tried to build your own home, but your own ineptness caused you to fail so miserably that the local building department put a stop to you, probably saving your life in the process.
I have built 1 house completely from scratch, and renovated almost a dozen others in the course of my life. I am not a builder by trade (Software engineer currently). I do not have any professional certifications or licenses in the building trades, and I live in NY state, second only to California when it comes to building regulations. In spite of that, I have never had undue trouble with the building department or the building inspector. On the very first house, I did have to hire an architectural engineer to draft the plans for the renovation I wanted. They didn't know me from adam, and they wanted some assurance that the walls I was planning to move weren't just going to fall over. All of my other work was very straight forward. I did all of the plumbing and electrical myself. The inspectors all came through and sometimes asked for some changes for relatively minor things, but never made me take anything out or completely redo anything. Truth be told, the most trouble I ever had was with a lineman from the electric utility. He didn't like the electrical entry I had planned, and was of the opinion that it did not meet code in spite of the requisite signatures from the building inspector. I had to spend about 2 days playing phone tag with the chief building inspector and the utility supervisor before the whole thing finally got straightened out.
If you want to get along with your local building department, seek them out before you start work on anything, and be sure to do your homework as far as what regulations apply so that you can have plans in place to address them appropriately. The first time you deal with them, expect to have to pay somewhat extra for certain engineering related costs, but once they know you, and trust you are not a nitwit, they will start working with you to help you save money on the things you don't need. If you go in with a combative attitude in the first place, you can expect the most miserable and expensive process imaginable, and you will deserve every minute of the pain you get for being a douche.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account,
It has been taken into account. No additional changes to regulations to support the weight of solar panels. I guess you don't know about fire codes but your roof has to be able to support a fully geared up firefighter.
California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing.
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
They shouldn't be adding to the problem for anything not required for safety or basic habitability.
This is required for the basic habitability of our planet.
Congratulations on failing to make a competent argument!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Plenty of people would love Wyoming. Until they realize it's cold as balls and mostly flat and empty.
California attracts population despite the political climate, not because of it.
If they have all the equipment to allow them to disconnect from the grid, its fine. The just cant stay connected to the grid during an outage to prevent utility workers from being electrocuted. The equipment and batteries for that are not cheap like panels are these days, so most suburban houses dont have it. In off grid situations, that doesnt apply.
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
Why do you suppose that is? Is there not enough room for housing in California? What makes California so different from other states that housing is so expensive?
The reality is scarce availability is a direct result of out of control NIBYism implemented by those with power over the states regulatory regime. This solar thing is just one more drop in California's massive over-regulation bucket that is hurting real people in order to protect those with money/power by erecting even more barriers.
One need only look at the epidemic of "illegal" additions where single family dwellings are being converted into mini-apartments and the growing homelessness epidemic (Home to 1/4th of the countries homeless population) to see that California's legitimacy has been eroded by insane racist policies that disproportionately disadvantage the poor.
This is required for the basic habitability of our planet.
Since when has decentralized generation ever amounted to anything other than inefficient token gestures? Has always been the case much better results and higher efficiency are realized with large scale industrial production. Edison lost this fight a century ago.
It would be better policy and more environmentally sound simply to levy some kind of tax on power consumption to support large scale solar projects vs piecemeal rooftop installations operating at low efficiency power conversion that won't be professionally maintained or tracked. It isn't like there is no space in California for solar farms. Mojave desert by itself has more than enough land area to supply the energy needs of the entire country.
...aren't quite high enough yet.
I mean, solar panels are light and easily put on roofs that weren't designed to 'handle the weight.'
Agreed. In addition, about half the cost of rooftop solar is the installation, which should be significantly cheaper if it is done as part of the construction.
Also, the cost issue is bogus. The FHA is offering 3% down mortgages to first time buyers, at less than 6% APR, and the cost of solar can be part of the mortgage. Since solar in California (where power costs are high, and sunshine is plentiful) has an ROI of about 8%, this means the house with solar has LOWER monthly payments than the same house without.
for each room. please.
I'm an atheist. I have no religion. I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
My solar broke even in four years making them effectively free for the next 15 plus years. Only people who don't understand what TCO is think they add cost.
which doesn't want to build more capacity to meet demand. That's what this is really about. California's either going to have to do this or start building more power infrastructure, which cuts into power plant profits. They'd much rather get paid to barely maintain infrastructure paid for with tax dollars decades ago.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just as if Americans weren't into enough debt already...
The proposed law forcing new construction to have solar power is the result of leftist fools who think their whims should be law;
You failed to explain how which is usually a bad sign...
Solar panels reduce the cost of home ownership (ie their cost is recovered by savings made over time). But somehow to you this is crazy leftist thinking. In the non-foolish right universe we all prefer to pay more for electricity?
That the citizenry of California lets them have their way shows that the whole state is insane.
If by insane you mean the wealthiest state in the nation then sure....
We would be better off keeping Diablo canyon open and planning the construction of new reactors throughout the state. Of course the intention of this bill is to increase costs not to decrease pollution.
Why force solar panels on a home built in the shade of a forest,
Is this common where you live? Because to me that seems like an extreme use case which would probably be dealt with int he fine print. For the other 99.99% of us that build our houses with some sort of exposure to the sun, it is isn't a big deal.
Just as if Americans weren't into enough debt already...
America over consumes and under invests. Going into debt at 6% to invest at 8% is very sensible, especially since that 6% is tax deductible for most low and middle income homeowners.
Yes- there isn't enough room. The problem isn't that there's no affordable housing int he state- go out to central valley or Bakersfield. The problem is that there's no affordable housing in San Francisco (LA and San Diego to a lesser extent) because there's no more land to build on and they won't allow them to build up to higher density.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I guess this better need legislation preventing home owner associations forbidding people from installing panels on their homes because it "spoils" the look of the neighborhood.
I have heard this is pretty common in the states. These associations putting random restrictions on what a person can do with his own home. Luckily, this isnt something that ever caught on in Europe. It would be illegal in most EU countries anyhow.
Sure you can... you can move to one of the republican paradises like Kansas, Wyoming, or Oklahoma where low regulation and and taxes have produced places where everyone wants to live.
The trendy thing for Californians to do these days is move to Phoenix and drive up our housing prices. It's so rare these days to find another person besides myself who is actually from this area.
Enron wouldn't have been a thing at all if the State of California hadn't have been in the business of fixing energy prices.
"His name was James Damore."
Debt is because of ballots full of bond measures that are never required to explain how anyone will ever pay for them. People will always vote for bonds and those same people will always vote against taxes. That's direct democracy for you. But the state budget is running a surplus and filling the rainy day fund, anyway.
This space intentionally left blank
"the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account,"
If your roof can't handle the additional weight of (for example) 3KW of PV, then I agree you've got more important things to worry about.
Honestly, that's such a stupid argument.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels
I have never seen a roof in a developed world that needed to be reinforced to support the weight of the small number of panels we are talking about. Such a roof would not be safe to step on.
as well as the simple fact that California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing
One of the great things that keep the poor poor is that we put them in housing so cheap that it becomes expensive to run. Poor insulation, poor quality windows, lack of solar panels, expensive to run hot water systems, cheap flooring that scratches and breaks when you look at it funny.
There is nothing quite as expensive as cheap housing.
They shouldn't be adding to the problem
They aren't. In countries that actually give a damn about global warming and reducing their carbon footprint, energy price rises cause a lot of financial stress for the most vulnerable (reads: poor, or low income retirees).
I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free.
I didn't realise economics was a religion. I suppose you haven't read The Book of Smith 24:10 "Things that have a short payback period and then save you money effectively are free."
Do you folk in the USofA get special training in this heavily-partisan "attack mode" version of discourse?
The whole state is insane? Because they choose something that you don't like? How does it affect you? Do you live in California? Do you work for a fossil-fuel electricity generator company? Or perhaps yours is a job peripheral to that, such that PV uptake threatens your future. Tell us, please.
While you're at it, tell us if the air quality in Ca generally is better now than, say the 1960s and 70s.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Building standards are created by the rich elite to ensure that only the companies they own and control can build houses.
Are you too stupid to read a regulation or too weak to lift a 2x4? Or why not both.
Building a house to code isn't hard.
Bitcoin mining pretty much makes this a moot point.
If you are building a house from scratch and if you are sensible you'd use the solar PV tiles instead of roof tiles plus panels, there won't be much in it.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Look up using solar PV tiles (also called solar slates/shingles) for new housing i.e. the solar PV tiles are the solar collectors so you don't need to cover the roof in ordinary tiles and then put panels on to.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
One of the nice things about living in the midwest is that you don't have to live in a congested urban shithole.
WTF?
My family is perfectly comfortable in this $50,000 house on an $70,000 piece of land. Don't cop a fucking attitude, btw. It's really nice out here.
'CA would be in even better shape'
Are you here all week? No, I'm not going to order the overpriced cod fillets.
California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing.
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
Not so. California's housing prices are a huge part of their affordable housing problem. In the booming tech cities, housing prices have gone up so much that minimum wage workers can't afford to live in the city they work in.
Here’s how many minimum-wage hours it takes to afford a two-bed in SF
Low-wage jobs are plentiful in S.F., but where can you live?
I tried living on an $8 per hour salary in San Francisco and it was a disaster
This is required for the basic habitability of our planet.
You are dismissing an entirely valid line of thinking. In this specific case, the real goal is to make houses energy efficient, or carbon-neutral, or something like that. There's many ways to do that other than solar panels. Maybe someone wants to use a geothermal energy system, or a wind turbine. Or maybe they don't want to connect to the grid at all. Maybe they want to use a passive cooling design and a green roof. Often times regulations that tell people *how* to solve the problem are really corporations trying to use the regulations to steer people toward their products. Like requiring a particular safety valve, that only one company has a patent on. This prevents other companies from innovating by developing similar products.
This has not always to do with HOAs. There are also historical districts that set strict rules. Most codes are more practical in nature, such as how many windows a house can have. That matters for fire safety especially in densely built neighborhoods.Or the pipe coming from a sump pump, it is usually not allowed to be connected to the sewer line, but has to dump outside and away from structures. That is to protect the sewer system during a rain storm. There are other codes such as no longer allowing aluminium, iron, or knob and tube cabling, no lead water or drain pipes, have cabling in conduits up to 30 ft high, working smoke alarms in multi-unit dwellings.... That all costs money, not only for new construction, but also for remodels. Those rules exist for a reason. Adding solar panels will increase cost, but there is a general benefit to the community. The lack of affordable housing has many other reasons, mainly that municipalities shy away from being landlords and that those who already live in an area are typically strongly opposed to have any affordable housing in their area. Administrators and politicians deciding otherwise tend to be looking for a new job soon after. Companies are not bound to turn a big profit on affordable housing either. The housing crisis is not due to cost, but because we as a society don't want low income households next door. Once that attitude changes and profit maximization is not the core focus, the issue can be resolved in rather short time.
I'm not familiar with CA building codes, but I wonder which requirements they have for insulation. Preventing from heat to come into the house will significantly lower the power consumption for cooling and thus lower the power needs of households...which, by the way, are on average three times higher in the US than in Europe.
And where everyone has zero public services of any kind. Yep, low housing cost, but you pay for tons of stuff out of your own pocket while earning significantly lower wages. Most of the municipalities and in case of Kansas have critical budget shortfalls because taxes are constantly cut, which benefits a few already rich folks. Look up how well Brownback's Reagonomics worked in Kansas: massive budget shortfall due to significant lower tax revenue, which caused many public employees to get fired and especially school funding to be cut, while at the same time not enough private sector jobs were created, increasing overall unemployment. Sure, low taxes and no regulation, but also an administration that was rendered inoperable and forced to cut everything across the board. That is what massive republican tax cuts get you. Reagonomics didn't work for Reagan and didn't work for anyone who tried after.
Buying a house is typically a good investment. Even in bad times owning realty is always beneficial. Many look at home ownership as a pure investment opportunity where they aim to make a profit. I know times changed and people are moving more than they used to, but at some point it is better to stay put and pay off a mortgage making it far more reasonable to stay in your home once retirement comes. In most cases buying is even cheaper than renting, even with any additional cost of maintenance and upkeep....which is rolled into rent anyway. I used to rent a house and then bought a house two lots up the street. Doubled the living space and saved over 200$ per month ever since.
SO, Take a 500sqft home that cost a million and now add $120K worth of solar panels to power it. If CA homes were not expensive enough...
I'm just wondering. For a country that always prided itself on personal freedoms, capitalism, and democracy, it would seem like there's a lot of new laws forcing people to do things in certain ways.
they are still subsidized. That needs to be stopped.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Absolutely, just as soon as fossil fuel companies have to clean up the pollution they are producing... and we cut the subsidies that they get too.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
.... that don't want "ugly" solar arrays polluting the esthetics of their pristine neighborhoods...
"The GOVERNMENT made me do it!"
First, people should do THEIR do diligence. Second, most houses have these things called walls that cover up wiring, plumbing, and ductwork and that generally prevent inspectors from seeing potential problems.
Building permits and inspections generally mean that you can expect your house to not fall down or burn up, killing you and your family in the process.
Without them, the consumer is totally at the mercy of shoddy builders, contractors, and nitwit DIY'ers who have no compunction whatsoever about running, say, an under-gauge wire directly against too-thin imported drywall that's on 2x2 studs 3' on center on a "load-bearing" wall.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
California's housing prices are a huge part of their affordable housing problem. In the booming tech cities, housing prices have gone up so much that minimum wage workers can't afford to live in the city they work in.
It's called price and demand. High demand with limited availability results in scarcity which drives up the price. This isn't rocket science.
There's many ways to do that other than solar panels. Maybe someone wants to use a geothermal energy system, or a wind turbine.
But neither of those are for housing and would imply they must be subsidized in some manner to displace existing energy producers. This is an inexpensive way to ensure the proliferation of renewable energy. Also, geothermal by a fault line? A bold move for sure!
Often times regulations that tell people *how* to solve the problem are really corporations trying to use the regulations to steer people toward their products. Like requiring a particular safety valve, that only one company has a patent on.
Nobody is requiring any special patented solar panels, just solar panels. Considering most solar cells are from China, it's quite clear this isn't corruption as you imply.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Enron wouldn't have been a thing at all if...
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand what actually happened. You should watch Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room which is on Netflix.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
No, but they might as well be compared to solar systems.
I love the idea of having my own electrical production and think it's a good idea but all good ideas shouldn't carry the force of law.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
The affordable housing problem has fuck all to do with what it actually costs to build a house, and everything to do with investors from all over the world buying up California real estate.
Spoken like someone that only likes half of the story in order to protect the demonstrably bad Statist price fixing ethic they have.
but thanks for playing the information game.
Enron could only do what it did because California thought it was better than the free market at setting energy prices. The ensuing arbitrage across State lines was PREDICTABLE, the politicians of California were WARNED IT WOULD HAPPEN, but they thought their good intentions would beat market forces... again.
You Californians are suckers for excuses that cover for Californian political stupidity.
"His name was James Damore."
arguably, with that affordable housing thing, if you're looking to buy/build you do have money to burn :)
your statements are correct but seem to be assuming that by "cost of the house" he means "price of the house", where I would expect he means "cost of construction"... the majority of the price of a building in the bay area is the land. The structure on top of the land is just gravy.
Why not just mandate clotheslines for all homes in California?
Add to that, whole house fans.
The major electricity users in my California home is the electric clothes dryer and the air conditioning system.
Both of these are a lot cheaper than solar electric systems and will provide significant electricity savings.
Stupid government.
The cost of the solar panels themselves is only part of the issue--the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account...
I've installed a dozen or so PV systems. They are lightweight- much lighter than typical roofing systems (clay tile, asphalt shingles, etc.) In most areas of the US, roofs must be designed to withstand a freak snowstorm and resulting "snow load", which again, is magnitudes more than the weight of the roof itself, or PV panels. Incidentally, PV panels tend to shed snow, thus reducing the roof load.
The _only_ problem I know of is their tendency to catch wind and pull up on the roof, so hurricane ties and other better roof framing techniques should be used (or done regardless). The wind catching problem can be minimized by keeping the PVs as low as possible, and maybe some kind of air dam around the system, and keep the top row a foot or so below the roof peak.
Because of it
The diversity in CA workforce makes our products the envy of the world
Look, if the subsidies for AE on new homes is stopped, this will be more expensive. As such, builders will have incentive to insulate better and switch to geothermal heat pumps. That way, less money goes into project, while lowering all prices.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Geothermal near a fault line? That's just nuts.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account,
It has been taken into account. No additional changes to regulations to support the weight of solar panels. I guess you don't know about fire codes but your roof has to be able to support a fully geared up firefighter.
I guess you don't know, but building codes and laws are different depending on where you live.
Where I live? It's a major issue if you want rooftop solar installed, because some only are strong enough to support an adult if that person is very careful about where they step. If memory serves, you also still are generally warned against trying to stand on a solar panel.
California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing.
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
Actually, it does, but I was assuming you were bright enough to not need to be told that you can increase availability by building more. Even if the additional supply is outside of the cities it can still relieve the stress, especially if you couple it with a quality mass transit system to let people travel reliably in from the resulting exurbs.
They shouldn't be adding to the problem for anything not required for safety or basic habitability.
This is required for the basic habitability of our planet.
No, rooftop solar on every house is not required for the basic habitability of our planet. One-size-fits-all solutions generated by the ruling elite are inherently and unavoidably bigoted against those who are not part of that group. It's better to say that the switch must be made, but not setting by fiat from on high the exact method and means, especially since it will pick whatever is most fashionable and/or has the best lobbyists--not their quality as an option for sustainability.
While it may be a few decades before we have a huge mass of solar panels needing to be properly disposed of--recycled, preferably, since some of the materials involved are toxic and/or damaging to the environment to obtain--we need to start getting the systems in place now. (Recent source on the issues here, though I'd argue it's optimistic to assume that you have the expected lifespan of the panels to get the recycling systems in place--we have that long to plan for large-scale, yes, but we need to have started the small-scale recycling efforts, even if it's just ways to store panels safely in the meantime.)
An individual panel is "light".
How many panels are we talking about?
Also, how much does the rack they sit on weigh?
Also, what kind of downforce do they produce with a wind load?
If the roof hasn't been sufficiently engineered to support those loads, you get a cave in of the roof, possibly pushing out walls on it's way down.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It has been taken into account. No additional changes to regulations to support the weight of solar panels. I guess you don't know about fire codes but your roof has to be able to support a fully geared up firefighter.
You're talking about a point load.
With solar panels, they're talking about sustained load and wind load.
A firefighter in full gear doesn't stand up there 24x7, jumping up and down on the roof.
And yes, there's a real, measurable difference.
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
Okay you're on hallucinogens.
Housing is NOT scarce in California.
The problem is, foreign investment has driven housing prices up out of the realms of affordability.
There are places all over the state where homes stand empty. Unrented. Un-lived-in. Owned by people in China, India, etc. Bought as "investments".
The median income in California is about $62K/year
The media home price in California is over $400K.
And basic cost-of-living in the state is nearly 30% higher than the national average.
Basically, if you want to live at the $75K "comfortable living" standard, in California, you need to be making nearly $100K.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
That whooshing sound is you missing the point. There are companies that will put solar panels on your house for zero dollars, in exchange for being able to sell you the power, and sell any excess power back to the grid. That means this does not inherently drive up the price of the home. It does, however, inherently mean that homeowners will pay less for electricity.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
AC wrote...
>Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.
>Burn unit has been notified.
He he he. Gave me a smile. I loved "That 70s Show".
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Which brings up my only concern. About 5 years ago a Dietz & Watson warehouse in our area caught fire and they couldn't do much about it, so it burnt to the ground. We know one of the firemen and he corroborated the story here. The solar panels interfered with their ability to get on the roof and suppress the flames.
If not for that being an issue, I'd love to go solar.
http://www.nj.com/burlington/i...
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Since solar in California (where power costs are high, and sunshine is plentiful) has an ROI of about 8%,
Do you have a source for that that isn't a solar manufacturer/installer? How does that number look when your utility doesn't pay much for the electricity generated by solar residential customers, but doubles the rate residential solar customers pay for electricity in the evening after the sun goes down (SDG&E)? Then consider that many homes in CA are small and don't have high electric bills (mine never gets much above $100 per month, even with central AC on).
not all buildings are near fault lines.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That doesn't really square with what the state has actually already done: approving utilities' move to pay rooftop solar providers the normal retail rate for the electricity they generate in the afternoon, and then charge them over double the normal rate for the energy they consume in the evening.
It's called price and demand.
Supply and demand actually, but close enough. You got the point.
But neither of those are for housing
They most definitely are! A simple web search will show some of the options.
This is an inexpensive way to ensure the proliferation of renewable energy.
How does mandating things make them inexpensive?
Nobody is requiring any special patented solar panels
I never claimed they were.
Before long, you wont have to worry about returning California to Mexico...before long, there won't be any U.S. citizens left!
the majority of the price of a building in the bay area is the land.
I'm with you in that the cost of the land might be a significant part of it, but I'm not sure that the cost of the structure is "gravy." If it was that simple, then everyone would be putting solar panels on their houses today. In reality, people place solar panels on houses if they can afford the initial cost, and if the payback is worth it. That varies based on their electricity rates, proximity to trees, local climate, etc. California is a big state and those things vary.
Strange little anecdote here: In Palm Desert, CA - where it is sunny 364 days per year, where you can hardly grow a tree more than 1 story, where everyone has 2 air conditioners on their 1500 square foot homes - there are almost no solar panels. Reason? Building codes require a particular kind of roof, which isn't suited to putting panels on them. So basically, aesthetics. *shrug* Seems crazy to me. I'm curious how this state law like this would interact with a local ordinance.
The solar panels interfered with their ability to get on the roof and suppress the flames.
If not for that being an issue, I'd love to go solar.
Fire code prevents you from placing a solar panel within three feet of a roof edge to give firefighters access which makes this a non issue for houses. However, fighting a fire atop a warehouse is much different. With 7000+ panels on the warehouse, it sounds like they did not leave adequate room for firefighters.
Contact your local FD and they can tell you how they deal solar on houses because they don't just let those houses burn.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It's called price and demand.
Supply and demand actually, but close enough. You got the point.
A) I'm very disappointed in myself for such a dumb mistake.
B) I was making the point to you.
But neither of those are for housing
They most definitely are! A simple web search will show some of the options.
Yeah and they costs they incur is far higher than solar panels.
This is an inexpensive way to ensure the proliferation of renewable energy.
How does mandating things make them inexpensive?
I'm not saying mandating them makes them inexpensive, I'm saying that they are already inexpensive.
Nobody is requiring any special patented solar panels
I never claimed they were.
You implied corruption by mandated monopoly and I was pointing out that was not the case.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
With solar panels, they're talking about sustained load and wind load.
Yep... that's why you hear about all these people being unable to get solar panels on their house because their roof is weak as fuck. Oh wait, I've never heard of that in my life. ;)
Housing is NOT scarce in California. ...
There are places all over the state where homes stand empty. Unrented. Un-lived-in. Owned by people in China, India, etc. Bought as "investments".
If someone removes it from the market then the remaining pool of available homes is decreased. It's scarcity, be it artificial or otherwise.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
One-size-fits-all solutions generated by the ruling elite are inherently and unavoidably bigoted against those who are not part of that group.
Yep... that makes you seem like a stable individual. Just tell everyone in town about how the ruling elite are ruining your life.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Solar panels are cheap, but the infrastructure backend that can take the power from solar panels and turn that into the ability to watch tv, have lighting, and maybe even use an oven is far from it. You either need a power grid designed around millions of homes producing solar power or expert home owners and a basement full of super expensive controllers and battery banks with minimal lifespans.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Silicon Valley is located on the peninsula. San Franscico is the desirable place to live because of the moderate micro-climate, having a city that is walkable and close to an international airport as well as large conference centers.
The cities to the south of San Francisco and north of San Jose became overspill commuter cities for those who couldn't afford those two cities. Eventually the number of mega large campuses grows so much that given the ratio between the number of employees (100,000) vs the size of a housing lot means that 10x as much space is needed for housing. Those that can't afford to live on the peninsula have to commute from the other side of the bay by car or bus over the bridges. Building high-rise apartment blocks would only lead to more single people competing for family homes. Building on the desert is practical because of the lack of water and problems with fungal diseases in the soil.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
"Oh wait, I've never heard of that in my life."
Talk with people using ground-mounted solar arrays about ALL their reasons for doing so.
Because, apparently, you haven't had enough exposure to the install side of the equation.
Now, to be FAIR, we ARE talking about installs on NEW construction.
So making sure that the roof system is appropriately engineered won't really add MUCH.
But it IS NOT a zero-cost proposition.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
But it IS NOT a zero-cost proposition.
Nobody said it was. However, it's also not a costly proposition.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
California needs the other 47 more the we need it. Put tariffs on all its exports, charge out the wazoo for its water imports. No more Navy, Army, and Air Force bases. They can fund their own Coast Guard. Then see how well they do.
We are a nation, each state and its population contribute to the nation's strength. California's geography and location help produce most of its income, their desire for socialism has to include the rest of the nation.
If California had only enough of a military for self defense, they'd actually come out ahead not having to pay for foreign military parasitism. No more support for bases all over the world, yay! Most of California's water requirement can be met via the Sierra reservoirs and desalination. Rio Colorado is only about 20 per cent.
Also, a lot of the US's food (fresh fruit, veggies) comes from CA in winter. Have fun eating potatoes.
"cheap as hell now." ... if I actually get all of those incentives which isn't a given I'm still at $25K.
Really? I just spent $40K on a 15KVA installation. WTF is cheap about 40K?
With all the government bullshit rebates and such
I could buy an airplane for that.
What if I assume that my power company will adopt environment friendly (wind, solar farms ) energy production in the forseeable future, why should I make the effort of producing energy myself?
But don't act like renewable energy is some kind of pie-in-the-sky myth. It just makes you look ridiculous. We've passed the point where solar panels now pay for themselves. Having one on a house actually brings down the cost of home ownership over time.
Agreed about Solar Power, It pays for itself quickly and gives a more reliable (when combined with a redflow.com / lithium battery) grid.
I upgraded the solar on my roof to 8.5kw/h (from 3kwh), it works well, and when you work out the rebates (15c feed in to grid vs 45c import from grid) the payback time is 2-3 years. In South Australia we are very energy conscious given that 2 years ago the grid failed and the blackout for several hours took the whole states infrastructure with it. Since then Musk installed the worlds largest battery (plus Sanjeev Gupta investing to build another large scale), so currently we are one of the world leaders in Solar Wind & Geothermal, and as the big coal plants come to the end of the working life, and when problems occur as happened last year, the battery system kept the nations grid up. Unfortunately our federal government has coal for brains, but on the ground with people like myself Solar and other renewables are essential.
We cant keep raping the planet, so any initiative to mandate solar panels I see as important as mandating plumbing ( and I would suggest double glazing to increase the energy efficiency of homes). The Extra $AU4,000 for the 5.5kw upgrade is negligable when you are building a home when you factor that in three years (largely depends upon your location) is paid for and for the next 20+ years you are in front.
Its time to be smart, so a little extra upfront is the greatest bargain, whilst its not mandatory here, I would guess about 40-50% of homes here have solar pv panels currently.
Darren
Yes, but in the case of places like California, Washington State, Alaska, etc. the entire state is riddled with fault lines (and in some cases semi-active volcanoes) to the point that geothermal tapping would be an iffy proposition as you can't actively avoid their effects even if your building is 50+ miles away from the fault.
Virginia found this out a few years back when they had an earthquake hit in an area with places that use geothermal - many of the heat pump wells were seriously damaged or outright destroyed even though they were over twenty-five miles or more from the actual fault.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Edison lost the fight to put a smoke-belching plant on every block because people don't want to live next to those. If Edison had been offering solar panels on every house/block (no waste gases, no fuel costs, no transmission losses), the idea of centralized generation would not have been as attractive. Improved batteries may very well mean the death of the gigantic power plant.
Really?
Yes, just look at the graph.
I just spent $40K on a 15KVA installation. WTF is cheap about 40K? ... if I actually get all of those incentives which isn't a given I'm still at $25K.
With all the government bullshit rebates and such
Oh, I totally believe you.
CO2 and global warming will go down as THE biggest scam mankind has ever known.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Well, yes. The next question is why California housing prices are so high - or, at least, in certain areas. I doubt all houses in California are that expensive, but in the San Francisco area they are.
The cost of a house is pretty much the cost of the building(s) plus the cost of the land. In rural areas, land is cheap, so raising the price of constructing a house has a relatively large effect on the overall price. In San Francisco, it's a matter of limited real estate, so the lot is really really expensive, and raising the cost of building a house has a relatively small effect.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I just bought a new house in California. The way the builders get around this is they do PPA's that you end up paying on top of the Edison bill, or you are forced with-in the first 60 days of ownership to purchase the panels outright from the company that the Contractor used to put up the panels and service the PPA with no price negotiation on the cost. It's kind of a lose/lose situation for consumers, and it is how builders moved around this already for cities like mine that require panels on new construction. I could have put up the 10 panels myself with equipment much cheaper than the 15K they want for me to buy out the PPA and own it outright. I was a bit pissed and it is not required to be disclosed until closing started.
CO2 and global warming will go down as THE biggest scam mankind has ever known.
You found a previous reply..... ??? Yet you didn't say anything? I presume you hit submit before you realized you didn't say something there? I have to wonder. That's ok.
Just because someone thinks MMGW is a scam doesn't mean we're against technologies such as solar. In fact, that proves the point. If it makes sense we'll do it. We don't have to be bankrupt making a few people rich (like Al Gore) in the process. That's a big difference. Conservatives believe in change in the self. Progressives believe they have to change your mind with a club, gun, fines, name calling, etc. Not that they will change (they often won't eat their own dog food), they want you to do as they say.
Used to get a kick out of that. GW Bush's house and Al Gore's house. 43's house was very efficient and Gore's was like a power slug of the whole neighborhood. Seems to me he used to burn up as much electric as 40+ of his neighbors did. He's probably used more electric than you or I will in a lifetime already.
When my house is pumping out 5 kW more than I'm using, then I'm pretty much powering three houses that do not have solar capacity
Your extra 5 kW in the daytime doesn't cover your own needs at night time. That's the weak link I mentioned.
Solar is not the complete answer to the problem. That's like saying: let's use bikes to solve traffic problems in NYC. It's great, 6 months out of 12. It doesn't mean "fuck bikes let's use SUV" it means "the solution is incomplete".
lucm, indeed.
Keep digging that hole. Don't worry, you'll convince me when you reach China. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The data is out there. The historical graph clearly shows CO2 always follows GW. It's a symptom because life is here again, not the cause. There is still no proof at all that CO2 causes warming, traps gas... or whatever they're claiming now. There is proof for say methane, water vapor, things like that. Things that actually do cause warming.
Clues are out there. Remember in science when they taught us all that science is science? There is no "concensus". It's either a fact or it's not. If something disproves a theory and it only takes one counter case as Einstein pointed out - it's not valid. They keep revising their models because they didn't work, so it's not valid. I could have you refer to Al Gore's movie where we're supposed to be a lot hotter and no ice on the polls by now and gloom and doom. They trying to explain the GW hiatus... and so on. Mr. Coleman who was a meteorologist and founded the weather channel has a youtube video where he explains a lot of it. You know, a real scientist. A scientist that started out as a journalist and went though the education to become a meteorologist.
Ignorance I can do something about. There is no fixing stupid. You have to figure which side you want to be on. BTW it's often lonely being smart. Lots of stupid people out there.
Instead of the 1.6 million it would be without Section 8?
Absolutely. The rich get 88% of all gains from public expenditures
Let them pay 88% of ALL NET TAXES.
Like in the good old days, 1948-1972, when America RULED!