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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Your "heard" anecdotes are not data. It's possible that a large solar installation could cost $30k, but a typical house isn't going to need anything like that.
My solar system, which produces enough electricity to power occasional use of A/C and daily use of an electric vehicle, cost about $18k, which included the cost of installing an EV charger. The cost of solar panels has dropped since then, although Trump's solar tariff may have balanced that out. Bear in mind that a lot of the cost for a residential installation is in planning and permitting. If included as part of the original construction, a lot of costs will be much lower.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
Oh, wait a second, no, they will increase their pricing locally, because you have to use their service.
More solar installers will start up business. People will even come from other states to start installation businesses here. And since California doesn't make grid tie a PITA, the total cost of the installations will probably not be that high. If you don't need batteries, the total cost is quite reasonable these days.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
This reminds me of another benefit I didn't see mentioned (browsing at +X on my phone): there is an infrastructure component to this as well. Having semi self sufficient homes reduces the need for more generation facilities. And the decentralized generation may be helpful when the big one hits.
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 about parts of the roof that receive no direct sunlight?"
Those parts receive indirect sunlight.
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.