Slashdot Mirror
California Becomes First State To Mandate Solar on New Homes (bloomberg.com)
California regulators said on Wednesday they have unanimously approved a historic plan that will require most new homes in the state have rooftop solar panels that turn sunlight into electricity starting in 2020. From a report: Most new homes built after Jan. 1, 2020, will be required to include solar systems as part of energy-efficiency standards adopted Wednesday by the California Energy Commission. While that's a boost for the solar industry, critics warned that it will also drive up the cost of buying a house by almost $10,000. The move underscores how rooftop solar, once a luxury reserved for wealthy, green-leaning homeowners, is becoming a mainstream energy source, with California -- the nation's largest solar market -- paving the way.
The Golden State has long been at the vanguard of progressive energy policies, from setting energy-efficiency standards for appliances to instituting an economy-wide program to curb greenhouse gases. The housing mandate is part of Governor Jerry Brown's effort to slash carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030, and offers up a playbook for other states to follow.
The Golden State has long been at the vanguard of progressive energy policies, from setting energy-efficiency standards for appliances to instituting an economy-wide program to curb greenhouse gases. The housing mandate is part of Governor Jerry Brown's effort to slash carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030, and offers up a playbook for other states to follow.
California already has a housing cost issue. Lets make new housing MORE expensive!
15,000 of the 80,000 new home construction sites each year already include solar as part of the build.
So almost 20% of new home construction already includes this. Not a drastic change from the status quo, but it will be interesting to see how fast other states follow California's lead, as they do with vehicle emissions, etc.
This pushes the cost of the electrical needs of the house in to the mortgage, but at the same time reduces air pollution and reduces daytime load on the grid. Should be interesting to see how this impacts the "duck curve" that solar is causing on the California power grid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curvehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve>
moox. for a new generation.
As they more private solar is deployed, the cost to maintain the infrastructure will be split among fewer and fewer older homes, many of which will be owned by lower income families. This is extremely discriminatory and odds are it will be struck down in short order by the courts.
Federally mandated coal mine in every new home!
IMO the key is replacing the roof itself with solar panels that enclose the home while generation power. Where I live it's almost exclusively asphalt shingles... I'm sure there's no environmental cost to making those....
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Think cost of the GRID. It's going to take a hell of an energy transport, storage and switching infrastructure to keep that stable.
15,000 of the 80,000 new home construction sites each year already include solar as part of the build. So almost 20% of new home construction already includes this. Not a drastic change from the status quo, but it will be interesting to see how fast other states follow California's lead, as they do with vehicle emissions, etc. This pushes the cost of the electrical needs of the house in to the mortgage, but at the same time reduces air pollution and reduces daytime load on the grid. Should be interesting to see how this impacts the "duck curve" that solar is causing on the California power grid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curvehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve>
Its is included where buyers want it and can afford it or are at least willing to pay for it. That represents 20% of the market. It would make more sense to me to require wiring be put in place to support solar, but leave the panels as optional. Not every home is a high dollar city or coastal region home.
Not even close. Even the dirtiest types of solar panels, the thin-film kind, only produce about 1/10th of the pollutants as the next closest fossil fuel, which is natural gas. Compared to coal or oil, it's closer to 1/50th.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The environmental cost of producing solar cells virtually negates the green benefits for many years.
The numbers I've seen show that over a 30 year lifetime, a solar panel (conservatively) results in about 10% the emission footprint when compared to coal and about 30% the footprint of natural gas. That doesn't seem terrible to me.
It's much better economically to intel cells are solar plants, which California has plenty of area. I wish they would stop capping housing, I'm sick of Californians moving to my state
Not a drastic change from the status quo, but it will be interesting to see how fast other states follow California's lead, as they do with vehicle emissions, etc.
In New Mexico or Arizona where the sun shines 300 days a year, economically quite probable. In Portland Oregon... Not so much.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
The environmental cost of producing solar cells virtually negates the green benefits for many years. Solar cell production is an energy intensive process that requires tight climate controls and clean rooms. This is actually a gift to the solar energy companies and a direct result of their aggressive lobbying efforts. If you follow the money, you'll see that Big Solar is going to make a killing. Now is the time to buy stocks in those companies.
Bonk, that only applies for the most part while you are making the panels using fossil fuels. As the fossil fuel power-plants are replaced by solar, wind, nuclear or something that causes much smaller emissions than fossil fuels the manufacturing CO2 footprint of solar panels diminishes correspondingly. Also, once you have manufactured the thing, a solar panel has a carbon footprint of 25-30 grams of CO2 in day to ay operations. Compare this to coal where the carbon footprint is around 1000 grams of CO2 per Kwh in day to day operations.
Why is it that solar only works when the government either forces people to use it or subsidizes the cost? This mature technology should be able to stand on it's own by now.
The environmental cost of producing solar cells virtually negates the green benefits for many years. Solar cell production is an energy intensive process that requires tight climate controls and clean rooms.
Bull-fucking-shit. Do you still mentally live in the 1980s or what? Did the decades of technological improvement just whoosh by your head without you ever noticing?
This is actually a gift to the solar energy companies and a direct result of their aggressive lobbying efforts.
I've only noticed Chinese aggressive solar lobbying resulting in Trump's tariffs.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm going to put a new tent up in Orange County. Do I have to put solar on it?
The move underscores how rooftop solar, once a luxury reserved for wealthy, green-leaning homeowners, is becoming a mainstream energy source
So mainstream, we're making it mandatory!
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
If California mandated that every "this will cause cancer" sign was made from a solar panel, they wouldn't need to force people to put panels on their houses.
I keep reading these kinds of comments, but there's more than one type of solar cells on the market these days. Are they really all produced with the same raw components?
#DeleteFacebook
One of the biggest advantages of solar in CA is 1 to 1 net metering, which basically forces me to purchase electricity from my neighbors solar array at inflated cost. ( full retail vs market production ) This is unfair and unsustainable. Add in the fact that there are huge fixed cost in maintaining a state wide electrical grid and it seems obvious that it cant go on for long
I agree. But we can do better. California should make 2 new laws:
1) Everything good is required.
2) Everything bad is against the law.
That will simplify what is happening now: Combination Wrench, 5-7/8", 9mm, Chrome Vanadium Steel, Westward, 36A224
The California notice:
"WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including one or more listed chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov"
Chrome causes cancer: Epidemiologic studies of chrome and cancer mortality: a series of meta-analyses.
Vanadium causes cancer: Toxic Substances Portal - Vanadium Quote: "Everyone is exposed to low levels of vanadium in air, water, and food; however, most people are exposed mainly from food."
As a Californian hoping to buy a home sooner than later, I have been thinking about this issue deeply and looking into the history of the matter. What I have come up with is the cost of housing in California is limited by physical space available and demand. California is simply full and the price of housing is completely disconnected from the cost of building a home. We tried lowering taxes with prop 13 and housing prices immediately skyrocketed, so anybody trying to buy after the tax cut (and especially down the road to my generation) just paid a lot more anyway or could never come up with the dough to buy while developers and existing homeowners (older folk) made off like bandits. Also electricity in the state is expensive, so if you can make your own solar power, especially when it is something designed into the home from the get go instead of having to pay contractors later on to add it on along with new leaks in the roof to fix, well in the long run the homeowner (hopefully me sooner than later) will be saving lots of money down the road. I think of it more as a way to be able to retire as maybe I can retire with a home paid for an basically free electricity at that point. I mean the housing prices are going to be go up more than $10k next year no matter what, so might as well slap on something that will eventually save me, especially when it comes time to retire. Plus it is good for the environment (I looked it up and am very serious about my research), so win win. The only thing I can add is there needs to be a battery requirement both for backup power and most of all to curb the duck curve in power generation in the state as grid demand is highest in the evening just after sunset and batteries can fix that.
Right on queue! Thank you for reminding us all of the outdated straw man arguments against solar PV!
My PV system is going strong, earning me $$$ every single day of the year, just like it will continue to do for decades to come.
Not to worry, we'll run out of tellurium long before those solar panels produce much waste.
Instead of just setting goals for new homes (overall energy usage) and letting the people decide what they want their home to be, and how to best achieve it, you get a top down mandate that is nearly religious belief
IMO the key is replacing the roof itself with solar panels
That is what Tesla Solar Roof is. It is a replacement for a normal roof. This is why it makes sense to put solar on new houses. The cost is lower because the "original" roof is never built, and contractors can negotiate lower prices with the panel suppliers.
It is also cheaper for homeowners because the cost of the solar panels is built into the purchase price of the house, and is financed as part of the regular mortgage. So if you have a 5% mortgage, and get a typical 8-12% ROI on your solar panels, then your monthly mortgage+utility payments will be LOWER than if there were no solar panels.
Too bad California has crushed your adolescent wank fests with economic results. The future looks like California. Slashdot comment threads are pornhub for RW jerkoffs.
Yes, I see you point!
Now that you are legally required to include solar, I am quite sure the companies that are certified
(what? you thought ANY solar install would be ok... interesting...) to install that solar for you, now
that they have state controlled maket, are SURE to lower their prices, making it cheaper and happier
for everyone!
Oh, wait a second, no, they will increase their pricing locally, because you have to use their service.
Your talking point is decades out of date. Worst case estimates have break-even for both power and greenhouse gas emission for production of PV cells produced, to date, as this year. Best case was 1997. Briefly (from the abstract) every doubling of PV cell production reduces energy consumed by 12-13% and greenshouse gas by 17% and 24% for poly- and monocrystalline systems.
PV 'pay' for themselves in terms of energy production many times over. Total PV production, to date, has already 'paid' for the energy used to produce them by the most conservative estimates.
Now, do you have any evidence to base your claims on, or do you prefer to cling to your 'BigSolar' narrative?
dear sir, thanks for sharing, the mono soalr panel efficience is better now, sunpower is the best. but expensive we are the solar panel, flexible solar panel manufactures.
Starter families wonâ(TM)t appreciate this.
I just want a little house.
It will be.
The California Public Utility Commission has for many years been a classic case of regulatory capture by industry -- rubber-stamping virtually every power plant proposal brought before it. Rate payers are required to pay for these plants, and the builders make a profit even if they never produce a single joule of electricity, so California has some of the highest electricity rates in the country (though not the highest - yet).
The perennial excuse for forcing rate payers to fork over cash to private builders who provide no electricity is that this grossly excessive capacity is "insurance" against a shortage that has never happened.
Often the Enron brown and black out crisis of around 2000 is cited as "evidence" of needing these plants -- but at no point in Enron's artificially created crisis was there ever a shortage of power production, in fact there was ample capacity the whole time. Enron did cr@p like buying up power, pulling it off the market (by routing it out of state) then selling it back at an enormous mark up. This was possible because a Libertarian lawmaker named Steve Peace pushed for, and got, a power trading system set up (because private markets are just so totally awesome) which was promptly abused.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
The one question that I have not seen answered is if the solar is being subsidized?
If it is, it is a HORRIBLE mistake to do this.
OTOH, if we are not subsidizing the solar, it will encourage home builders to build out using aerogel windows and geothermal HVAC since these are cheaper than adding lots of solar panel. That will lower the costs of insulation, best possible windows and geothermal hvac, and then it will further lower solar.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
actually, it depends on how they are produced. When you get solar from China, you are getting about 3/4 of the energy into it coming from coal. Pretty dirty.
OTOH, when getting it from America, Germany, or Japan, coal accounts for less than 45% of the energy, and for American, less than 30%. And Solar City will shortly have theirs at less than 10% fossil fueled.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
FROM YOUR LINK:
There’s no risk of running out,” Meinert said.
Wiring it 80% the cost of install, you might as well just pay the extra $1500 for the panels and get the full benefit.
moox. for a new generation.
So buy a house that already exists?
This is for new construction only.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Pretty sure that was the point.
Solar is quite useful in cold climates. Particularly solar heating. Great for keeping snow off the roof and the path to your door clear.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Wiring it 80% the cost of install, you might as well just pay the extra $1500 for the panels and get the full benefit.
False. You are thinking about wiring and inverter for an existing home. Adding just wiring during construction is low cost.
Did California pass yet another law for solar or is this a repeat from last week? I really remember seeing Slashdot post this last week and we all himmed and hawed about how it was going to increase the price of houses. Oh well. This isn't NEW news, it's Slashdot.
Big solar == China
You need to consider how toxic to the environment they are. According to this China is the cleanest/best First and third place goes to China...
Do you have anything other than your gut feeling to say otherwise?
Where did you find your 75% coal number from Windy?
And why not count CO2 from all sources of electricity, add in natural gas and things aren't as different as you claim.
You keep saying natural gas is twice as clean, so your 33% natural gas must be worth an extra say 10% coal equivalent. Suddenly your 40% equivalent versus China's actual 60% (not your made up 75%). China is worse, but not by the amount you initially claimed. Maybe an extra few months to pay off the CO2 from the Chinese panels. Still far better than not using them.
Solar is quite useful in cold climates. Particularly solar heating. Great for keeping snow off the roof and the path to your door clear.
Of course passive solar is great for keeping the snow off the roof and the path to your door clear, but for things that require electricity, there are of course issues...
Yes that snow eventually melts, but your electric baseboard heater might need to run off batteries (or the grid), whilst you are waiting for a break in the sky...
again, you posted BS that was not even close.
That was about Toxic chemicals from 2014, of which the Americans and Europeans are above average, while only a couple of Chinese made that list. The majority of china were below average.
However, the issue here was emissions. building solar cells is energy intensive. As such, what matters is CO2 / kwh. China is one of the worst in the world. Since you picked 2014 for time frame, here is 2013.
china at 711 g/kwh. America at 489, EU at 337 with Germany at 486.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I didn't 'pick that as a time frame' it's just the first relevant one I found, do you have a better one?
It just shows that China was on par or cleaner than the US for a long time. Or do you think China has gone backwards since then? If so show some evidence for a change...
Unlike you I don't look for the worst number to use. (or just pull them from my ass which is most common for you)You still didn't say where that 75% came from...
BTW, here is another nice map of things.
This shows g co2 / kwh. Sadly, not enough is shown, but still useful. For example, CA, AZ, WA, and NY is where America makes our solar panels. AZ is not on it, but considering that 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear, I would suspect that they are pretty good.
WA is at 30 g / kwh
NY is at 149
CA is at 226
Over in Europe, I believe that the majority of solar is done in Germany, which is at 346 g/kwh
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
C'mon Slashdot!
The Rear Admiral Taco would be ashamed!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Keep posting irelevant things...
Where did the 75% come from?
No, these are BUSINESSES, and several Chinese businesses are being clean. The vast majority are NOT.
. That assumes 100% efficiency which is impossible. In addition, add in the fact that coal burns less efficient than nat gas, and the g / MJ go way up on coal.
OTOH, The western ones are almost all above average for how they handle toxic chemicals which is what that was about.
As to the ORIGINAL conversation that you decided to troll on, it was about ENERGY EMISSIONS. The Carbon intensity of China was 80% more than the wests back then.
As to intensity of nat gas vs coal, it is mostly a simple issue.As I have tried to educate you on this, nat gas emits a fraction of coal. Nat gas is 56 g / MJ, while coal is around 98-100
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
China is NOT at 60%. China, like you, got caught lying about their coal and they still did not bring it up enough to match the CO2 that they emit.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So you're still looking are you?
That says they weren't as accurate back in 2015...Care to show something relevant?
Silly little boy, I just told you!
Yes it was energy emissions now in 2018, not back in some time when you claim 75%.
Where did that number come from again?
Environmental impact is clearly relevant when you are discussing CO2 payback from solar panels. Presumably you are talking about it in terms of the whole impact.
Don't be surprised if I ask you to back up your numbers. Since you have been posting all over the place calling me a liar but are yet to show a single time.
And you have a long history of just making things up to suit you argument, especially about China and coal.
You just claimed China was over 2.5X as bad as America, when I've just showed you it's only about 50% extra.
Show your work, or just admit you were wrong.
Having other people pay for your solar panel is not a tariff. Since these people had no choice in it, it is not a donation. It was a tax on everyone else to give to you. One might even call this armed robbery, since there was force of arms behind your free stuff.
Now, I am sure you enjoyed taking stuff from other people, since it benefited you greatly. However, this is not what a tariff is. A tariff is when you artificially inflate a cost of an imported good, by putting a tax on it. This was not even the remotely the case for you. Trump did not raise the cost of your solar panel above market. He just wanted you to pay market price.
Since an average high school student does grasp this level of economics, this means that you are either full of shit because you chose to ignore this fact, or it means that you ARE shit, because you are below the sad standard of modern high school. Any which way you swing it, you are a shitty person.
The better solution would be to keep Diablo Canyon open past its planned 2024/2025 shutdown. The reactors are the best in the world. Reopen the San Onofre power station in San Diego -- even if we only open it at half capacity.
We also need to restart construction of the Sun Desert Nuclear power plant near Blythe. We could purchase 96 NuScale nuclear reactors. NuScale reactors should also be installed at the Rancho Seco Complex near Sacramento.
If we do this California's electricity could be nearly carbon free by 2030. If we go with solar-roofs we will still be polluting and will have wasted a lot of money.
Solar panels sound great but the fact of the matter is that currently even the best ones only operate at about a 22% efficiency rating. Most other panels - and likely the panels that fall in the 10K estimate - operate at only about 15-17% efficiency. Battery technology, while improving, still has a long way to go. When someone comes up with a 50% or better efficiency rating I'm all ears. Until then the economics just don't add up.
Making the panels mandatory will introduce a whole host of problems, not the least of which is the cost. The process of making solar panels introduces something called Nitrogen Trifluoride, a common byproduct of electronics manufacture including those used in solar cells, and it is a greenhouse gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In most places panels can only collect energy about 12 hours a day. After that the batteries kick in and the batteries used with solar panels contain some nasty chemicals including heavy metals. With the rapid charge/recharge cycles those batteries will eventually give out. What then? Same goes for older and future obsolete panels. How do we get rid of them responsibly?
Now I'm not suggesting that fossil fuels are necessarily the long term answer but before we make them mandatory let's at least let the technology mature and come up with some answers on how to dispose of them.
So 2014 wasn't far enough back for you, now you are using 2002 numbers?
Remember when talking about efficiency, China's coal is more efficient than US coal.
California should just declare independence. What's the point of being is such a regressive country?
I was hoping everyone would realize I was joking.
The California government is often sloppy about communicating, in my experience.
I've been looking and stumbled upon this interesting fact
Chinese coal plants produced 3,573 MT of CO2 in 2017
American coal plants produced 1,056 MT of CO2 in 2017
You can see where this is going can't you Windy...
Yes, per person America (less than 1/4 China's population) produces more CO2 from coal plants than China does...much more...OOPS.
What about parts of the roof that receive no direct sunlight?
J
"jealous midwestern rural coal miners angrily ranting on and on about how solar panels are simultaneously a threat to their well being "
There are 5 times more employees in the solar industry than the coal one.
Coal is dead.
"you'll see that Big Solar is going to make a killing. Now is the time to buy stocks in those companies."
Unfortunately they are almost all located in China.
"What about parts of the roof that receive no direct sunlight?"
Those parts receive indirect sunlight.
The environmental cost of
Let me stop you there, because that has been disproven for every form of commercialised environmental initiatives be they energy saving, energy generating, or clearing existing emissions.
actually, it depends on how they are produced. When you get solar from China, you are getting about 3/4 of the energy into it coming from coal. Pretty dirty.
The exact number does, the outcome does not. You can take a shitty coal fired station from the 50s, plug it into a solar power manufacturing plant and still well and truly get an environmental benefit over the life of the panel.
Queue a bunch of Siberian astro-turfers and jealous midwestern rural coal miners angrily ranting on and on about how solar panels are simultaneously a threat to their well being while still somehow paradoxically being both unsustainable and worse for the environment than oil or coal.
No, brace for house after house in poorer areas having old overpriced-when-new-because-government-mandates solar panel systems that have become 'rooftop salvage' and dilapidated & dangerous obsolete-by-then eyesores in a few decades when the owners can't afford to repair or replace them because so many jobs have been automated away by AI including most of the high-paying Silly Valley software jobs that have driven local property values and rents through the roof, as it were.
They make the same tile "cases" but with none of the internal components. You install those in the areas which don't get much sunlight so your roof looks and performs consistently while keeping the cost down.
You mean that a country which is building thousands of brand new coal power plants is achieving higher efficiency than a nation which is operating mostly decades-old designs? No way! Wow. Mind blown.
That's a retarded comparison. Total energy use in US is higher than in China. Not just higher per person, but higher overall.
Last time imresearch3dmswitchimg to solar for our house!imfound that the warranty on them would run out at about the 25 year mark and that is about the expected lifespan of the product. That is also the point at which it starts to make a cash return. That is, up until the lint where the panels life is basically u have not made the money back that it cost to build it.
So... no... I passed. Iâ(TM)m not spending $30k for something that wonâ(TM)t save me any money.
I like a solar option and would love one for my residence. However, I don't need the government mandating my use of it or my non-use of it. Thank you for trying to help, government; I will now go about my business without you babying me.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
Yes, Americans use way way more energy than Chinese. That's the point.
Even though America has cleaner energy, they still use more coal per person just because of how much energy they use.
The other said of the coin is that even though Chinese use dirty energy compared to America, they don't use nearly as much of it per person.
One person in America is responsible for more CO2 from electric coal power than one person in China.
Your mind wasn't necessarily blown. But Windy still fails to understand...
Yes. That is why they all coal plants need to be stopped. America continues to shut ours down. China needs to do the same. In fact, if they would quit adding new ones that would go a long ways to solving issues.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, it is not. Total energy is higher in china than America. Not by much though. China continues to build out new coal plants which is increasing their co2.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Kind of curious. If that is table of co2 plant, how is it that china has co2 coming from announced plants? Or is this just another of your lies where you grabbed a table, changed the header, put in some false values for china and America, and then think that ppl will not notice that you are lying?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yes, Americans use way way more energy than Chinese. That's the point.
Your "point" is a well known fact which nobody disputes? Cool. What's the point of your point?
Even though America has cleaner energy, they still use more coal per person just because of how much energy they use.
The other said of the coin is that even though Chinese use dirty energy compared to America, they don't use nearly as much of it per person.
The difference being that Chinese power consumption is increasing dramatically as they upscale their economy, while american power usage is comparatively holding steady ... AND Chinese are building more coal power plants while the US is mostly decommissioning them.
Nobody is arguing that China produces more emissions per person; you're the only one who seems interested in that strawman. People are pointing out that Chinese pollute more per unit of energy produced. When you project for the growth of their economy you can easily see why this would be a concern. If current trends continue, the US is going to continue reducing emissions while China continues drastically increasing. In a few decades Chinese pollution could completely eclipse the rest of the modern world put together.
Of course the Chinese have made attempts recently to become more "green", which is a welcome sign. That's rather the point of criticising their contribution to the pollution problem; it's perfectly valid to point out that their current figures aren't sustainable if they continue to grow, and to encourage them to put tighter reigns on their power generation industry now I'm order to minimise future impact.
"Queue"? To form an orderly lineup? From Siberia to the Appalachian Mountains?
Why is it that people that can't spell "cue" can somehow always spell "queue" properly?
Actually, it is not. Total energy is higher in china than America.
You are correct; I was thinking of numbers which are now a decade old. Much has changed in the intervening years. Thanks for the correction.
true but the cost of a tesla roof is very expensive, and not really comparable to the cost of a normal roof. we replaced our roof with 50 year shingles and it was about 10 grand. i did the tesla roof calculator, they wanted 24 grand for the lowest power option and over 50 grand for the highest.
so in the most expensive state to live as it is, you now need to factor in the cost of solar, which means instead of that 3 bedroom home you wanted, you are stuck in a 1 bedroom trailor. 20-50 grand (for a proper solution) is not a small sum of money to be forced to spend.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
America continues to shut ours down
Clearly not fast enough if you are still using more than China, who you have been ranting about for years.
Or is this just another of your lies where you grabbed a table, changed the header, put in some false values for china and America, and then think that ppl will not notice that you are lying?
That's funny coming from the king of lies himself. It came from that that coal tracking site you mentioned a few times.
Where did your 75% number come from again...?
That's right, your ass I forgot...
actually, it depends on how they are produced. When you get solar from China, you are getting about 3/4 of the energy into it coming from coal. Pretty dirty.
OTOH, when getting it from America, Germany, or Japan, coal accounts for less than 45% of the energy, and for American, less than 30%. And Solar City will shortly have theirs at less than 10% fossil fueled.
I would love to see the day that a solar panel production chain is powered entirely by solar panels.
"jealous midwestern rural coal miners angrily ranting on and on about how solar panels are simultaneously a threat to their well being "
There are 5 times more employees in the solar industry than the coal one.
Coal is dead.
It's not dead. It's just pining for the Fords.
(CAPTCHA: emission)
The environmental cost of producing solar cells virtually negates the green benefits for many years.
All energy production has environmental costs. What are you even comparing it to? Coal, gas, nuclear, wind, hydro? Solar is on the low end of the spectrum when it comes to environmental costs.
This is actually a gift to the solar energy companies and a direct result of their aggressive lobbying efforts.
It's not just solar energy companies lobbying for this stuff. Normal people, solar employees, green tree thumpers, and other advocacy groups are in the mix too. You're making this sound like some kind of secret conspiracy instead of normal everyday par for course capitalistic, liberal, and democratic behavior.
If you follow the money, you'll see that Big Solar is going to make a killing. Now is the time to buy stocks in those companies.
This is how capitalism works. Companies see/create demand, they meet that demand. Then they collect profits. I dunno, you should try it sometime.
The Tesla roof seems to mix real solar panels with simple glass tiles which look the same. You would only get energy from the parts of the roof with the actual PV tiles, but they all look the same from the street.
Fords?? Did you mean "fjords"??
What State is next?
It's unfortunate, but you appear to have just stumbled into something not completely relevant to the article, I apologise for being slightly off-topic. Windy has a nasty habit of calling me a liar without any evidence. So recently I've been pointing out some of his lies when I get the time. The per capita thing is part of that and his ongoing smear campaign against me.
I'll address your other post when I get home later.
The difference being that Chinese power consumption is increasing dramatically
But it will never reach american levels.
Except for Kuwait and a few other states there are no states with people that use as much energy (for no sane reason) as americans do.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Trump has not yet forbidden to buy stocks in China, or has he?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Wouldn't being unsustainable and bad for the environment be also bad for their well being? Why is that paradoxical?
With brown outs etc you better be ready to compensate...
"The Golden State has long been at the vanguard of progressive energy policies" ....that are paid for by everyone else.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Having recently talked with a solar installer; they claim that most of the cost of solar and most of the jobs in solar are not in the actual manufacturing of the panels themselves (which is apparently mostly robotic, which makes sense). It is with everything else around the panels (such as installation, which has to remain local).
How much can you SAVE without following fire regulations?
Air quality regulations (which we lived without forever and only shorted life expectancy a tiny bit.)
Building safety regulation add a HUGE expense! Odds are you will be just fine.
You probably have to have power and water and sewer. City water hookups are not cheap.
Some places require a roof that lasts a while-- because to save money some builders would put up a roof that lasted only 3 years! So houses cost more... (but do they really? it costs you more to do the roof over again properly in 3 years; assuming you do that before damage happens.)
This is a tiny portion of the total home costs. 30% of solar install costs are BS red tape in my state and Germany does it cheaper by about that amount. Designing houses FOR solar and improvements in integration that will result along with the housing development cost savings will save serious $$$ and likely a chunk of that 30% BS will go too.
THE REAL COST IN CA IS LAND. $10k is NOTHING. People reading here are thinking of their area. Hell, in the midwest where I live, the real estate agents each walk away with about $10k per sale. If 10k is your breaking point then skip having a buying agent! and why are you living in CA? you can't spare $10k on your 30 year loan? WTF is the bank thinking? housing crisis 2.0 here we come.
Except for Kuwait and a few other states there are no states with people that use as much energy (for no sane reason) as americans do.
That's a hilarious comment. "Except for all the countries who use more energy than the US, nobody uses as much energy as the US!". It's great to see you continuing your proud tradition of being either wrong or retarded in literally every comment you post.
For the record, the US is #10 on the list. Iceland is #1 at more than double the US per capita consumption. Trinidad and Tobago comes it at #2, using almost as much as Iceland.
For making solar panels more expensive!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Yes, you are top ten on (your) list. ... go figure and stop your stupid nitpicking when nitpicking has no point.
The world has 300 countries
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Ah, and I forgot: Icelands is in high north, half of it beyond the arctic circle. AND: it has like 450k inhabitants. Just a bit more than the town I live in. And: it is HUGE, people drive around.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Epic fail. It's not even 200.
Solar panels from the 70s are still working in the upper 60% range today. Panels easily last over 20 years.
NOTE: Energy prices rise every year as well.
A 30 year roof costs something too. an integrated replacement roof would remove the roofing costs. Another thing: shingles are an industrial WASTE from oil refinement. As oil use goes down eventually and it's cost rises that waste oil should become more expensive to use for roofing. If we could also use some of that solar for power instead of heating up our houses so we must use more AC... it saves on that too.
BTW: It's not an investment. It's energy consumption. Sure you can run on the thin edge all the time so you can invest everything possible and not have any security like many businesses do... Build the most shitty house possible and get rid of regulations... invest that money instead! Forget about long term investing; when something goes wrong later on you can just go bankrupt and move to the next house! Keep in mind the grid costs and taxes cover the aging power grid which needs work that will rise taxes and fees... but go ahead and don't invest in stability or think long term-- gamble on the market instead. We can always do better gambling in more risky situations as long as our luck holds out.
Why should I train employees? I can fire them and hire new kids. invest that money in the market. then buy out another business. I will do better as a fund... than as a real business that gainfully employs people and contributes to society in a meaningful way.... as opposed to doing the minimum possible to get me as much as possible...
...but the signs probably WILL be required on every solar panel. Solar panels use a variety of toxic materials in the manufacturing process and in their actual makeup.
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
The end-of-life cleanup impact of this decision will be staggering.
The world has 300 countries
195
go figure and stop your stupid nitpicking when nitpicking has no point.
If you would just stop saying retarded things I wouldn't have to keep pointing out that you have no clue what you're talking about. It's hilarious that you can say shit like "hurt durr except for all the planets that are larger, Mars is the largest!" and then complain that someone is "nit picking" when they point out that you're an idiot.
Perhaps you define country different :D ... so 300 is close enough for me. Actually 300 is close enough to 195 for me.
Last time I looked it up it was 270
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Even the dirtiest types of solar panels, the thin-film kind, only produce about 1/10th of the pollutants as the next closest fossil fuel, which is natural gas. Compared to coal or oil, it's closer to 1/50th.
This implies that coal or oil produce ~5 times the "pollutants" of natural gas. If you're talking about carbon dioxide, this is false. Coal produces ~2 times as much carbon dioxide as natural gas, for a given amount of heat. (See numbers.) If you're talking about something else, like particulates, the numbers could be almost anything, depending on the type of plant - but carbon dioxide is the relevant one if you're concerned about the greenhouse effect.
Given that your comparison between gas and coal is either irrelevant or false, why should I trust your claims with respect to solar power?
For that matter, you're not even using the right dimensions. Producing solar panels emits a certain amount of carbon dioxide; using them to generate power does not. Producing power by burning fossil fuels, in contrast, emits carbon dioxide continuously. The correct comparison would be something like "Manufacturing a solar panel of a given power output emits as much carbon dioxide as producing the same amount of power from coal for X years.". (And then you also have to clarify whether you're talking about ideal power output, or output in a particular realistic climate.) Note that the figure of merit, X, has dimensions of time: claiming a ratio of "1/10th" or "1/50th", with no dimensions, is nonsensical.
Last time I looked it up it was 270
Well there's the reason why you're always wrong about everything; you're confusing "looked it up" with "made it up".
http://www.worldometers.info/g...
It's unfortunate, but you appear to have just stumbled into something not completely relevant to the article, I apologise for being slightly off-topic. Windy has a nasty habit of calling me a liar without any evidence. So recently I've been pointing out some of his lies when I get the time. The per capita thing is part of that and his ongoing smear campaign against me.
I understand that it can be frustrating to have a third party step in when you're engaged in a heated exchange with someone you dislike. Obviously I don't know your history, and I'm not looking to pick sides anyway. Just keep in mind that what he has or hasn't done has nothing to do with me.
I'll address your other post when I get home later.
I look forward to it.
I'm not just talking about carbon dioxide. I'm referring to the entire soup of pollutants that coal and coal mining produces.
This discussion wasn't about the amount of carbon dioxide created, because if it was, the figure for solar panels would be 0. When a solar panel is producing electricity, it's not emitting any CO2 at all. It has to do with the pollutants released over the entire lifecycle, including manufacture, getting the raw materials, etc etc. If you treat coal the same way, it is by far the filthiest, by a long shot.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You do realize it's cheaper for the builder to install them than to do an aftermarket install. So the cost for you to install would be higher than for a builder.
Even sunny Hawaii realizes that not every roof gets lots of sun all the time, so its law (in effect since 2010) requires new single-family construction have solar hot water OR photovoltaics OR other renewable power for water heating OR a high-efficiency gas-fired tankless on-demand water heater.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Yes, Americans use way way more energy than Chinese. That's the point.
Your "point" is a well known fact which nobody disputes? Cool. What's the point of your point?
The point isn't that they use more, but that they use way way so much more. So much more that all their rhetoric about being greener than China just isn't true.
It's likely not that well known. I didn't know until I saw the evidence and double checked to make sure. I'm sure all the people pointing fingers at Chinese coal didn't know.
Did you know? Windy found it so unexpected He accused me of lying and making it up. And he thinks of himself as some kind of expert on these things.
Even though America has cleaner energy, they still use more coal per person just because of how much energy they use. The other said of the coin is that even though Chinese use dirty energy compared to America, they don't use nearly as much of it per person.
The difference being that Chinese power consumption is increasing dramatically as they upscale their economy, while american power usage is comparatively holding steady ... AND Chinese are building more coal power plants while the US is mostly decommissioning them.
Yes, increasing from a very low level. America is holding steady at a very high level. Why is that a bad point for China and not the US? China's percentage of energy they get from coal has been decreasing in the decade that you haven't been paying attention to. And will continue to. They are installing more renewables than coal, and coal actually peaked back in 2013.
Nobody is arguing that China produces more emissions per person; you're the only one who seems interested in that strawman. People are pointing out that Chinese pollute more per unit of energy produced. When you project for the growth of their economy you can easily see why this would be a concern. If current trends continue, the US is going to continue reducing emissions while China continues drastically increasing. In a few decades Chinese pollution could completely eclipse the rest of the modern world put together.
Many people are falling into the trap of just comparing country to country with no regard to the sizes of the countries. Should America produce the same total CO2 as Canada?
Again are you surprised that a fast growing economy building massive amounts of infrastructure, that is also the manufacturer to the world, and has over a billion more people than America is more polluting?
Polluting more per unit of energy is a meaningless number without considering what that energy is doing. You could double your energy with 100% renewables, halving your pollution per unit of energy, and then use all that extra energy to fire a gigantic laser into space or see how much ice you could melt. Actual pollution would be identical.
China is using it's energy to build infrastructure, bring hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and into a middle-class. Manufacturing things for the whole world like solar panels and windmills. Rich countries are using their energy for driving their SUV's heating and cooling their massive homes. Is it necessary for American households to use 8x the electricity as Chinese ones?
China is already leveling off and becoming greener, it's extremely unlikely they will reach US levels. Even if they did reach US levels (for arguments sake), why is it China's problem and not the US's? Why should America be entitled to a free pass? They should both be trying to be greener, but the US has a long way further to go.
What if the sizes were reversed. And America was 4x bigger than China...America would be producing 4x what it is now, and China would be 1/4 the size producing 1/4. In that scenario America would be 32x more polluting. Would everyone still be pointing their fingers
100% true.
The only "war" is on coal *miners*, by coal companies. Decades ago, they went from underground mines to open pit, and mountaintop removal, and can use huge trucks, etc.
Proof: 50 years ago, the coal industry employed well over 700,000 miners. Today, that's just over 78,000 - yes, one tenth as many.
They have a government that thinks it knows better than you do and can control how you spend your money. Most people most of the time make far better decisions than local government. California is a failed state because of this, and grows worse by the second. I live in Texas and we mandate almost nothing of our people. We have common sense laws, but nothing as draconian and anti individuality as California does. I guess people in California are incapable of making their own decisions, managing their own money and in fact are not really smart enough to handle anything because they keep voting moronic control freaks into office and let themselves be controlled, and taxed to death. For those Californians who are against all this deep state madness I exclude you from my broad brush and really feel for you. California is a sad sad state.
What happens if your house is on the North side of a mountain, or in a redwood forest or shaded by a tall building? Are you required to put up solar panels which will never see the sun?
Not as curious as to why you constantly call me a liar, but have still failed to show a single time I did.
You would think by now you would have found at least one. Then you could just link to it and people would believe you. Why haven't you?
Hardly seems credible for you to not show one, since you claim they are so common.
As others have pointed out, many new homes already are built with solar power generation, so that part of this isn't such a great leap.
However there's going to be some unintended consequences, very similar in nature to the rise of hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles.
What's going to happen, is rates from grid electricity providers will go up. The reason for this has actually already been discussed: the cost of maintaining the electric grid remains the same (or increases) while revenues from selling electricity goes down because homes will be generating some of their own (or in some cases, all) power -- and even selling the excess back to to the electric company. In fact I wouldn't at all be surprised if electric companies stop buying the excess back from homeowners, or at least reduce the rate per kWh they pay for it, in response to the 'glut' of electricity. Of course the response from some homeowners to that will be to buy a battery bank like Musk/SolarCity are selling -- which might just make electric companies charge even more. There might even be court battles over this, and 'protectionism' lobbying to try to block this or at least make it less cost-saving for homeowners, so the electric companies don't lose so much money.
How this parallels hybrid and electric vehicles, is this: substitute 'highway infrastructure maintenance' for 'the electric grid', and 'State gas tax revenues' for 'cost per kWh'. Less fuel used has meant less tax revenues which has meant less money in the State funds to maintain and repair highways. So they raise the gas tax to compensate.
Just like hybrid and electric vehicles, though, the addition of renewables has to happen and has been happening, and is overall a good thing, but there's going to be some hurdles to overcome and some growing pains during the transition. In the end though I think everyone will be better off. I can't see decentralization of at least a fair percentage of electric power generation as being a bad thing in the long run.
Pick your sarcasm 1.0:
A. This will help the housing crisis there, and the gentrification issues!
B. They build new homes there anymore?
C. On the positive side, $50,000 for solar panels won't increase the fractional price of new houses by nearly as much as the $10M environmental study.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Your invested money isn't paying the power bills; so you are leaving out that expense eating your compound interest.
After the panels pay for themselves they provide nearly FREE power. Electrical prices rise and have additional upkeep fees burred into them as well. You need to use electricity; you save all that cost at lower price than the electrical grid rate. Amortize it over your time at that house... forget that home value goes up with panels. It'll SAVE money on your necessary consumption cost in the long term. Maybe you gamble now and make enough to beat the gains you have over the long term as well as pay for the electric bill. maybe. This isn't a race to see how much money you make over 10 years or 20 years. It's for 20+ years and it also is a responsible secure move for society..health, security, wars....house value.... smug. (because you ARE better than other people.)
You can leave out details and make evil seem good.
Solar energy collection is generally a good idea. Free energy is falling out of the sky, and energy is basically The Thing in life. Sunlight is worth more than even chocolate bars, beer and bitcoins, and that's saying a lot.
I live in a very sunny state a little east of California. Most people in my city, should be using solar collectors. The reason they should, is that if they did, they'd probably come out ahead. Most of them.
But it would suck for my house. Unlike 99% of the houses around here, I have something they don't: cheap water. Here in the middle of the burning desert, in a valley fiarly near an intermittent river, I have TREES to the west of my house. They shade it and keep it cool at the same time of day when everyone else is running a however-many-Watts cooling systems just to dump heat out of their houses. Heat my house doesn't have, because I stopped the light at the trees.
If those other people had solar collectors, it would probably help. Most of them.
If I had solar collectors, they would starve, because I use that energy to grow shade trees. My roof is dark, shady, and cool.
Solar energy is a good idea. Mandated solar energy is a stupid idea. So fuck your LAW, California, and know that once again, you've shown how smart people always find a way to turn their smartness into stupidity. Your stupidity is called law. You point guns at peoples' faces ("do this, or else we'll harm you") instead of using your words ("do this, and you might like the results"). Valuing persuasion over force, is one of civilization's best inventions. And you threw it away, you fucking savages.
(BTW, we're stupid too, but in very different ways.)
u lie constantly. I hae showed it over and over. FOr example, you lied about the 750 GW vs 700 units.
I have read your other postings. You are a CONSTANT liar, no matter if you are posting as porky, or red tide.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Let's do some math:
You are paying $50k, but a contractor, making a bulk negotiated purchase from the solar company, and installing at the time of construction, should be able to do it for significantly less. Let's say $40k. But a "normal" shingle roof would have cost $10k, so the differential is $30k.
$30k amortized over 30 years at 5% is $161 per month. That is the cost for both interest and principal repayment.
So what are the savings? 1000 sq ft would have about 100 kw of incident energy, so at 15% efficiency for 6 hours per day, would generate 90 kwh per day. At a typical California rate of 12 cents per kwh, that would be savings of about $11 per day. This is California, so figure 80% of days have full sun, or 24 days per month. So the savings would be $260 per month.
So savings exceeds the costs, and adding the solar makes the house MORE affordable, not less.
Porky is a troll that posts as Crimson tsumani (or red tide) as well as porky here.
He is CONSTANTLY trolling. I post facts about the energy, esp about CHina's continued growth of Coal/CO2, while he continues to defend it, while claiming that I am ignoring America's emissions. I do nothing of the kind. I have worked on this emissions issue with various groups. I used to know the key players from back in the 90s and 00s. I still have friends that are working these problems and tell me the inside scoop.
WHat it comes down to, is if China continues on their path, we are all fucked. If Trump were to win out, and start to grow our emissions like CHina is doing, we would also be fucked. The fact is, that China had a serious economic issue that actually lowered their emissions. Now, their economy is going again, and their emissions are climbing. Yet, idiots like Porky, continue to lie and push his BS around and make up total shit.
And if you look at Porky/red tides postings you will see that not only are they the same language, but in general post at the same time.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Now, if you were porky, you would accuse me of lying and then make up shit without any links. Or pick links that are WAY wrong.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
C6, you have seen me on here for a LONG time. Never have I had to deal with a troll this bad.
what porky is trying to cover up is that America is at 1/4 of the coal plants of china and ours continues to close up. CHina's emissions have grown 400%, while America's has gone down 25%, all since 1990.
In addition, we put in a mix of AE and nat gas. However, porky seems to think that coal will approach nat gas or AE for least amount of CO2.
It is PHYSICALLY impossible for that happen. The worst nat gas electrical plant will still burn cleaner than the best coal plant. So, building out coal makes little sense, esp since CHina can simply tap those coal mines for their nat gas. They choose to not do that because they want to burn ALL OF THEIR COAL. If they do that, even if the entire rest of the globe goes to zero emissions (yeah, right), then we are fucked.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Depends on which group in china is posting information. However, the federal bureau said 69% in 2015, then admitted that they were 17% UNDER-REPORTING. Others claim 75-80%. However, it does not matter. Chinese gov lies like you do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Not all homes have the facing to take advantage of solar
Good thing this is about new home construction then. 'Cause you'd get to design the house such that facing isn't a problem.
I not confusing look up and make up.
To make something up you actually need to make it up.
There is absolutely no point in making up a number of countries.
Or do you see any?
Point is: America is in the top ten of energy consumption. And people think "that is normal" and "fear other countries aim" for the same amount of energy consumption. Which they don't. Why would I want to pay for so much energy when I can securely life on 25% or 20% of your footprint?
Same for the Chinese ... why would anyone directly aim to use such much energy when he is in an emerging country and has full control about how the energy market, housing, heating, cooking, driving will evolve?
There is absolutely no need to live like an american moron to have a high/higher standard of living ... look e.g. oh, Germany, Switzerland, France, Spain, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Japan ... in no particular order, I just put Germany first as I'm stupid german :P
If the US had energy/electricity prices like the rest of the world, that problem would quickly settle. However: they are to proud to admit that a huge deal of the population lives at or below the poverty line and can not afford higher prices for food, housing, heating, electricity.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So...you completely missed the part about the panels being required on new home construction then?
New construction for right now. This will be put into mandates on significant rennovations before long. That typically causes slums to prosper as landlords avoid updating the properties.
Their is probably some good reason for all intensive purposes.
Of course passive solar is great for keeping the snow off the roof and the path to your door clear, but for things that require electricity, there are of course issues...
Passive solar doesn't help keep the snow off the roof, because "passive solar" means designing windows and overhangs such that you get sunlight energy in your windows when you want it, and not when you don't, and otherwise making intelligent use of solar energy without solar panels. For example, using tile flooring where the sun shines in the winter (through those well-situated windows) so that you get a heat storage effect. I suppose with the right stone walk, you might store enough sunlight to keep the snow off of it part of the year, and/or in some climates, though.
PV solar with heating elements on the backs of the panels can help keep the snow off of your roof, though. Or you could just pitch it steeply. Then the snow slides off.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
15,000 of the 80,000 new home construction sites each year already include solar as part of the build.
And what was the distribution?
C6, you have seen me on here for a LONG time. Never have I had to deal with a troll this bad.
You lucky son. Of late it's about all I do.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fords?? Did you mean "fjords"??
No, Fords. (see second image)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's getting to the point where /. Is not worth it. It is obvious that there is a concerted effort here to troll here .
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Years? Keep lying.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You've got zero experience with the building code.
Mandates are not applied wholesale to old houses. If you've got knob-and-tube wiring in your house in California, it can stay knob-and-tube despite that being forbidden many, many decades ago. Your only mandate to upgrade it is if you are replacing/adding a chunk of the electrical system, the new parts you install must comply with the new code.
Same with insulation, paint, wall construction, foundation construction, roofing materials, plumbing, and every other part of a house. A 1920-built house complies with building code on none of these systems. And is not forced to update any of them.
He just lives in your head rent free 24/7, doesn't he.
You have 'friends' telling you all your numbers do you? Are you CIA or something and are unable to show your 'sources'?
You mean the path that leads to American levels of pollution?
You entitled asshole, how about you drop your levels down to theirs if you think your levels are a problem?
I just showed you per person America uses more coal electricity than China, and you already know Chinese coal is more eficient, yours is worse the Europes. But you still claim Chinese coal is the problem and you are the good guys. Two people use the same language... English...
And maybe live in similar timezones, well there is only 2billion+ people that live in the same similar timezones. Since we are Chinese trolls working for the Chinese government...
Why you constantly call me a liar, but have still failed to show a single time I did.
You would think by now you would have found at least one. Then you could just link to it and people would believe you. Why haven't you?
Hardly seems credible for you to not show one, since you claim they are so common.
Yet you have still failed to show a single time I did.
You would think by now you would have found at least one. Then you could just link to it and people would believe you. Why haven't you?
Hardly seems credible for you to not show one, since you claim they are so common.
So where is the link?
Is there no link because you just made it up? Or does the link instead show that I was right, and you did indeed claim various different numbers seemingly as if you were pulling them from your ass.
Thank you for explaining that.
But I think the California government could explain the underlying reason for each warning. With no explanation, it seems weird.
So you don't remember where the numbers came from? But that they may be a guess 3 years ago. Did you pull the number from your own ass or pull it from those 'others' asses.
At least link to any site you think may be able to justify the 75% you claimed. Jesus show a range even. Find any site to show 70-80 if you like. Then we can check how credible they are, to know how credible you are (not very for those playing along at home).
It most certainly does matter.
You keep claiming I'm lying even when I show where my info comes from. You claim you are telling the truth, but can't even show us where it came from.
Are you intentionally using extremely outdated info to 'make a case' or did you really just make up what suits your narrative.
If i put China 75% coal into google I mostly see good things.
Like this
However, coal as a proportion of China's energy mix peaked at 75% in the late 1980s and by 2016 it had fallen to 62%, the lowest since the establishment of the People's Republic in 1949.
Is this your 75%? The highest level ever, back in the 80's?
Is 2010 far enough back to count as years?
You constantly call me a liar, but have still failed to show a single time I did.
You would think by now you would have found at least one. Then you could just link to it and people would believe you. Why haven't you?
Hardly seems credible for you to not show one, since you claim they are so common.
Really Windy, people used to just believe all your numbers instead of asking you to show where they came from?
Must be a sad time indeed for you to finally have to be accountable for your rubbish.
Yes China up, yadda yadd, America down blah blah, but even after those 28 years you are still over twice China's per capita emissions...
Show where I said coal is as clean as nat gas... You can't because I didn't...
Again what evidence do you have for China wanting to burn all of their coal? All of their 5 year plans suggest the exact opposite. Their decreasing coal consumption since 2013 wold indicate you are living in your own fantasy world.
If the whole world was like India, what would happen?
If the whole world was like China, what would happen?
If the whole world was like America, what would happen?
The world would be saved, but we would all be shitting in fields. .
The world would struggle on as everyone tried to cut back
The would would basically already be destroyed...
And now the entitlement comes out.
Whaaa, I used to be able to post lie after lie, no one asked me where my numbers came from before. Why should I change now.
Let those poor developing posters show facts and evidence. I'm already an established bullshitter, I'm already used to it.
No, he admitted he was incorrect and even thanked you.
The opposite of what you do Windy.
When someone points out your 'mistakes' you immediately jump up and down screaming liar liar..
But it's your pants that are on fire Windy.
So, first of all, it sounds like your monthly power bills are less than or equal to $100 per month on average, so good for you for that. It sounds like you are in a fortunate position.
As for the last time you checked prices, when was that exactly? The 70's? Typical payback time is currently 6 to 8 years and expected lifetime could well be longer than 25 years. For most people, it seems like a good choice.
that was a rant? Keep lying
Like the rest of my posts, it was pointing to SERIOUS issues that we have and I called out BOTH America and CHina.
In fact, I called out Vancouver, but was thinking of a different area of Canada.
The difference between us, is that I call out ALL nations that are emitting so highly. THat includes America, Germany, etc but that esp china, who is by far the worst.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
OTOH, I do regularly though I will never thank a troll that constantly lies.
Per your OWN link, accusing me of RANTING. This is the one that you pointed to from 2010.
Somebody pointed this out,
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...">Vancouver (all of BC) uses no nuke, and no coal (at least not for power). We're about 90% hydroelectric.
To which I replyed
Whoops. Thanx. I think that it was Edumunton that I was thinking of. Basically, it is similar to what We have in Colorado.
So, again, you are a liar.
And I am nearly done answering you permanently.
I will just let you continue to lie and I will ignore you as I should have done. Go away troll. Go back to your masters in China.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
and I showed you lying in this stuff. you constantly post thing without ANYTHING honest to back you up. Basically, you are a constant liar.
You even lie about me all the time. You troll under 2 IDs and lie about constantly. U post as AC as well, pretending that it is not you.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Firstly, in this very thread in the middle of your constant baseless accusations of my lying I asked calmly.
Where did you find your 75% coal number from Windy?
And showed a more useful calculation.
You immediately jumped in and claimed my number was a lie. But still didn't show where your number came from.
Both your links are either broken or don't point to where you claim they do...(intentional? who knows) Here is the actual thread from 2010 I obviously didn't read the whole thread, just searched for you and coal and China and found this
China probably has the most at more than 90% Fossil Fueled (and growing). America is less than 50% Coal (and dropping)
Maybe it's completely out of context, it's possible.
But it shows you were complaining about Chinese coal, praising America, and didn't show any evidence. Even back then 8 years ago.
Wikipedia says 78% coal for 2010 and you were saying 90%+ for 'fossil fuels' It's possible you were right, but based on current events, unlikely. They must have had some non trivial amount of hydro back then.
And then off you go again, calling me a liar with nothing to back it up with. And you still claim I don't show any evidence, laughable.
There is no need for you to answer me Windy.
You keep posting your bullshit, I'll keep pointing it out. I'll be glad you will stop calling me a liar and a Chinese paid troll. Win / win as far as I'm concerned. You add nothing of value anyway.
Because theyâ(TM)re geeks who know their basic data structures but have never seen a play.
interesting. Thank you for that breakdown. I can see how it is better on new building than a retrofit, I still dont believe it should be mandated, nothing but safety should be mandated in the building code IMO but still. doesnt seem quite as bad when you lay it out like that. Obviously this doesnt work everywhere in the country, but maybe it will work there.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Actually I found a graph. Remember you were claiming in 2010...
If I'm extremely generous and use 4000 from 2014.
And 500 from 2007
Also ignoring renewables and nuclear.
Way overestimating/underestimating in your favour. It turns out to be about 89% fossil (but really a few % less than that).
Based on that graph, there is no way it could possibly be more than 90% like you claimed.
Windy - 8 years of lying about Chinese coal.
Either somebody hacked (or is using) you account and are taking the piss, or you are the stupidest person ever to use a computer.
You link to a post that is supposedly a lie of mine where I say this.
No, he admitted he was incorrect and even thanked you. The opposite of what you do Windy. When someone points out your 'mistakes' you immediately jump up and down screaming liar liar.. But it's your pants that are on fire Windy.
And then 2 posts under it I completely proved it was true! With links and everything!
It could hardly be more perfect if I had scripted it myself.
Do some research and stop repeating a right wing talking point from 30 years ago.
Solar panels work under cloudy skies well enough to justify the cost. See Germany.
last I heard CA was still a net exporter of federal tax money.
So...you completely missed the part about the panels being required on new home construction then?
They won't be new in 30-40-50 years from now. That was the point. They'll be old, obsolete, eyesores. Try thinking beyond tomorrow's lunch and read it again.
The only state that can constantly harp on homelessness and worry about housing people-which is a serious issue here-AND simultaneously mandate raising the cost of building new housing. Though I'm sure its' there in other states too.
And yes, I know, you'll say "but but they only mandated for new housing, and the poor can't afford that!" Think a bit and you'll have an answer.