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.
It adds about $10,000 to the cost of a new home, which is about 1-2% of the cost of new home construction in the bay area. It's tiny.
And cost will come down. As will the cost of installation.
moox. for a new generation.
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.
Your talking point is decades out of date.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?
When the fuel is free, the notion of 'efficiency' is largely irrelevant in this context: it only constrains maximum generation from a given roof space.
Given that in a small London UK home I am net energy zero with what is on my roof with 10 year old technology, it is even less likely to be a critical constraint in CA.
It would be nice to have nearer 100% capture efficiency (eg with a ferroelectric system) since then I could cover all my local electrical consumption through practically all of winter with fairly small storage, and would only need a seasonal heat store, but in effect that's an engineering optimisation.
Rgds
Damon
PS. Of course, I'm assuming that your comment is in good faith. But your comments are rather tired old straw men already extensively discussed. Thank goodness we never put lead in our road fuel and let mercury and thorium out of our coal smoke stacks or allowed people collecting fossil fuels to die in large numbers! All energy systems have pros and cons.
http://m.earth.org.uk/
What do you think the electricity rates will be in 10, 20, and 30 years?
How much do you think the $10,000 you spent on those panels would be worth in 10, 20, and 30 years, if you had instead invested it at an annual return of 6%?
If you're going to project forward in time you have to do so for all of the relevant factors, not just the ones which make your argument look good.
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.