Slashdot Mirror
California Gives Final OK To Require Solar Panels On New Houses (npr.org)
Solar panels will be a required feature on new houses in California, after the state's Building Standards Commission gave final approval to a housing rule that's the first of its kind in the United States. From a report: Set to take effect in 2020, the new standard includes an exemption for houses that are often shaded from the sun. It also includes incentives for people to add a high-capacity battery to their home's electrical system, to store the sun's energy. "These provisions really are historic and will be a beacon of light for the rest of the country," said commissioner Kent Sasaki, according to The Mercury News. "[It's] the beginning of substantial improvement in how we produce energy and reduce the consumption of fossil fuels."
The rule marks a new phase in California's environmental policies, which have often set trends and established standards nationwide. The state has set the goal of drawing 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources and sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The solar panels rule was initially endorsed as part of the state's Green Building Standards Code by the California Energy Commission back in May.
The rule marks a new phase in California's environmental policies, which have often set trends and established standards nationwide. The state has set the goal of drawing 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources and sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The solar panels rule was initially endorsed as part of the state's Green Building Standards Code by the California Energy Commission back in May.
Improve the environment by destroying the middle/lower class's ability to buy home. How about just tax rich people and force out coal and oil companies? The difference in benefits is several orders of magnitude, but no, we can't harm our generous donors.
A low-cost way to reduce the need for fossil emissions = a low-cost way to reduce the need for fossil emissions. Anyone upset by this is probably ideologically retarded.
Other states will follow the lead, again.
California Gives Final OK To Require Voting for Trump
When does it end?
I can see the utility letter now. "Our costs are rising due to less profit from solar, we will be raising your electric bill to be more in line with your mortgage payment"
What the brainiacs in California government seem to have forgotten is how far north to south California really goes.
Sure this makes sense maybe down in Palm Springs.
But what as you travel more and more north? SF and the surrounding areas have a ton of fog. The more north you go, the more you are basically almost in Oregon and we all know Oregon is not really known for vast amounts of sunshine...
I love solar power and think it will grow prominent in a lot of areas naturally. So why drive up the price of solar panels everywhere by forcing a lot of people who will get no benefit to install solar? To my mind this move actually delays the inevitable adoption of solar energy across many other areas of the country that could really benefit from it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This will raise the bar on starter home for young people. They should all be in apartments anyway. Only the wealthy should be in individual homes.
Some people are more equal than others in California.
I am actually designing a house to build in California Desert. Good design and energy efficiency dictates sloping roof inclines in a northern direction. So how is this new requirement to place solar panels on a roof going to effect building design?
Or, since they would all look similar and not stand out from the norm, you'd probably not even notice.
Unless they also start making grid-tie optional state-wide, what is the incentive here? And while we are at it, what is the minimum capacity? Can I put a single 300 watt panel on my roof plus a grid tie and call it a solar roofed home? Does it have to be a whole roof fixture? What about houses at elevation where the panels may be more likely to fail under snow weight? Will it become mandatory to repair the solar system when it fails? What about reporting your available solar capacity to the government so they can scrutinize your energy use in case it fits the patterns for suspicious activity?
Having looked around, just building permits in California range from 30 to 100k dollars, even in regions that are rural and were in the past not heavily scrutinized.
That's because they look better on actual houses, rather than in trailer parks. You need to get out more.
in 2020 I'd go to the coal miners (who are likely to swing the election) and offer them jobs in gov't run factories building solar panels. That's the kind of infrastructure spending and green jobs that would make a real difference.
It's all well and good to see what California's doing, but getting onto renewables should be a national effort. Not just to Shave the Whales, but because I'm tired of my country being OPEC's whipping boy. And I'd like to breath cleaner air. My family is prone to lung cancer from smoking, and while I don't smoke I get a lung full of carcinogens every time I go outside.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I Russia government forces YOU! Wait... Oh, its that was all over now.
Let's mandate another $20k ( 6Kw system assuming no subsidies ) on top of an already outrageous market for homes in CA.
Perhaps they should also come with built in homeless shelters and illegal immigrant watering stations :|
Yeah, woohoo! The 3 new houses built in the bay area in the coming years will all have solar panels! Way to fight climate change Cali! So WOKE!
No, I don't want to Google it. Common sense tells me that it takes more energy to manufacture the solar panels, batteries, etc., and certainly more money to pay builders, and more space in landfills when they're at the end of their useful life, than you'll actually get back in energy savings and money.
Solar roofs are looking better and better. All While blending into your neighborhood.
It doesn't take much research to find far better options to the bulky solar panel design.
Is the State going to pay the removal and re-installation every time you need to get roof shingles or a leak repaired? This is going to add thousands to a almost every roof replacement or repair.
"According to the article, it increases the initial cost by $10,000 ($50 per month on 30-year loan) but decreases overall costs by $19,000 over 30-years of ownership ($52.78 per month over 30 years)."
You're a moron Cayenne. An ideological moron.
It doesn't need to be traditional ugly rectangle solar panels. Take a look at solar roof tiles, some of those designs actually look quite nice.
Lighten Up Francis.
This will drive prices UP. Most people can't install the panels on their own, so anyone offering solar panel installations can ask any price, especially as demand jumps to "everyone" and installation capacity does not.
I'm being serious. I had solar panels installed on half my roof a few years ago. They completely cover the shingles and when it rains, barely any rain/water ends up on the shingles. It just sheets away on the panel itself. Same for snow.
I bet, in 30 years time when the shingles on the other side have to be replaced, the ones under the panels will be pristine. There's still a 2" gap between the shingle and panel so airflow can evaporate any moisture but the elements aren't beating down on them.
The cost of replacing shingles should probably be factored into the overall cost of the panels - which are coming down in price year over year.
1) Nobody believes you're either in CA or "a Dem"
2) "Solar panels require more energy to produce than they will ever produce " IS A LIE TOLD BY A FAGGOT, YOU ARE A FAGGOT.
3) "We have extreme weather" - Not compared to most Red States, you're a moron.
4) "hurts non-rich" Prove it faggot.
5) "Companies will be motivated to use crappy solar tech -- higher margins" - Nope, only specced panels are approved. We enforce our laws. Try it sometime.
6) "Where will all batteries go when they die -" THEY GET RECYCLED YOU NITWIT INBRED
You are a moron. Anyone who thinks you know anything about this is even more of a moron than you.
Always resort to name calling if you can not back up your claims any other way.
> Imagine what it would be like with nothing *but* solar panels everywhere! Disgusting.
Imagine what it would look like with electric utility poles and telephone poles and cell phone towers everywhere! DIsgusting.
We must BAN ALL Electric Utilities, Telephone Companies, and Cell Phone Towers! The more quickfully this happens the more gooder it twill bee.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
This kind of thing interests me in how and when a government needs to push their people to make a change for their own good? Take the example of mandating energy efficient appliances that cost more now but save people in the long term.
The laissez-faire in me says that people should be allowed to do what they find most economically rational and desired, within the rules of the market and forecasts of costs that they believe.
On the other hand, most / many people will not do something unless required to, and then later they get mad when energy costs (for example) suck 50% of their paycheck. cf. Paris riots right now.
So what is a government to do? Act in its (society's) long-term interest and piss some people off who think it's not in their short-term interest? Or act in government's short-term interest to help people now, but face long-term costs that they didn't act deeply enough to address?
I think in democratic govts, it ends up being the 2nd choice. That is one shortcoming of that way of governing I suppose...
> in California's environmental policies, which have often set trends and established standards nationwide
When you agree with it, it's a good thing for one state to dictate to the rest of the nation such as how California required DVD players to use less than a certain amount of power which forced it on the whole nation.
When Florida dictates to the rest of the nation something Californians don't like will it also be OK? Something like a $500/month state cash payment for persons over 70 years of age.
We have some people around us that have a large range of solar panels on the roof, like yours they cover most of the shingles... however I've always wondered if that many support struts being attached to the roof did not create a lot of opportunity for leaks over time.
That's why I've been kind of waiting for true solar shingles, which would act like real shingles and be more durable also. They seem to be coming along really slowly though in terms of wider adoption, and it seems like they would probably be less efficient.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Solar panels now required on cardboard boxes!
I wonder how fast fake solar panels will become available in the California market. Did they bother to specify in the law that the solar panels had to work?
Does this law include a $25,000 subsidy for low-income earners to purchase a new home? How does CA justify itself adding $25K to the cost of every new home, willy nilly? I just don't see how you can do this without disproportionately affecting low-income earners, most of which are minorities.
"Set to take effect in 2020, the new standard includes an exemption for houses that are often shaded from the sun."
I'll be forming a company to plant full sized shade trees in new developments so they can be exempted. /s
It's already been a no-brainer for a house owner to install solar panels, assuming the house gets sun. The problem is that many people don't own houses. And there's no incentive for a rentier to install solar panels since they don't pay the electricity costs. And no incentive for a renter to install panels in a place they are going to leave in a few years.
Also, in high growth areas like Austin, houses usually get torn down for condos and apartments, so it probably doesn't make sense to put in lasting improvements there either.
Now require California to make and use it's own water...
We are at the tipping point already. Solar is 1.25 $/watt installation cost at utility levels. Battery is 125 $/kWh at pack level already. We consume 11 Terra Watt hours a day. Making that much at in 8 hours of sunshine would need 1.4 TW of installed capacity, costing 1.75 trillion dollars. We need to store half that energy in battery for night use, so at 125 $/kWh we need 750 billion in battery. Works out to 2.5 trillion dollars. Interest on that investment would be 100 billion a year at 4%. This cost needs to be added to annual production 11 Twh /day * 365 days, 4 billion kwh, works out to 2.5 cents per kWh. Electricity retails for about 6 cents/kWh, not counting distribution. Fuel, the sunlight, is free. So only other cost is maintenance of equipment. It is far simpler to maintain solar panels than powerplants. So the economics will work out.
The existing power plants all have life running into decades. But as they die off, replacement will be solar panels and batteries.
It makes economic sense to use solar, wind and batteries. Whether or not you believe in climate change or environments, pure economics is going to drive this industry.
Soon the traditional fossil fuel companies and powerplants will come with hats in hand begging for tax payer assistance.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Here we are a century and change later. People are apparently still confused about efficiency and economies of scale. Apparently way too hard to grasp increased efficiency and less environmental impact is achieved when done at scale rather than thru piecemeal generation.
But this is California the land of bureaucratically imposed artificial scarcity whether energy or housing the state does its level best to fuck over its citizens for no reason.
I know California is probably more ideal then some places for solar. But to say every new house must have it means even if you build in area where sunlight isn't as prevalent or able to expose panels properly for maximum effectiveness. Does mean your paying for something that may not actually benefit you. Its a blanket building code that is not always beneficial to all.
I've discussed this at length with people before .... but there are many reasons your statements aren't quite accurate.
1. The costs of many of the cheaper solar panels in use absolutely did NOT take into account all of the associated costs of producing them! One of the problems the industry has struggled with are all the cheap Asian panels on the market, often sold at below cost, thanks to government subsidies from China. They were willing to fund these losses at the government level, to help destroy the competition and gain a secure foothold selling them in places like America.
2. As far as I've seen? Solar panels do stand up pretty well to the weather. But they won't work in the normal configuration, supplying AC power back onto the grid to earn your credits on your electric bill, unless you have expensive inverters attached to them. My installation has 2 inverters -- one for a set of panels on my roof, and a second one for a set of panels on my detached garage roof. The inverters generally only get a warranty for about half the length the panels are warrantied, and they're more likely than the panels themselves to have a failure.
3. I've never heard of these banks you speak of, who would allow a person to take out a larger home loan if they felt the person might use less electricity thanks to solar panels (or anything else)? That would be risky on a lender's part, especially not having any guarantee the new homeowner wouldn't just use additional power, knowing some of their bill was supplemented by solar.
4. As for battery technology? I looked into that, but it's really too costly to make much sense in many situations. When the financials work out on it? It's usually only because that person's utility company decided to arbitrarily give discounted electric rates for power used at night ("off peak"). If you're able to time-shift your power consumption via battery storage, while making the power during the peak period when the sun is out -- that saves you money. But again, that's just an artificial construct the power company decided to put in place. My power company bills the same amount for my electricity, no matter when I use it. I'd hate to invest a lot of money in battery storage for PV solar on a home, only to find the power company decided to change the billing around shortly after that and eliminated the only reason it made financial sense!
As an overall thing? I can see how solar does pay for itself in the sunniest parts of the country. Nevada, California or Hawaii? Yeah ... probably a good investment. In much of the country though? You'll really not even do better than possibly breaking even on them. Here in Maryland, for example? A solar system installation similar to what I've got (a 7.64Kw sized setup) will typically cost a person around $34,000 to install. You can shave 30% off of that with a Federal tax credit, for now -- but that's still money you only get back a year after you have to buy the thing. But ok -- you're at $23,800 after said credit. Most people don't have that kind of money just lying around to pay up-front, so now you're looking at some kind of loan to cover that $23,800. Interest on that is going to chip away at the monthly electric bill savings the system makes, until you've got the thing paid off. Meanwhile, given our power rates out here? I'd say at BEST (only a few summer months out of each year), my panels make enough energy to shave about $100 per month off the bill. In months like December or January, it's likely the panels will generate as little as maybe 800 watts of power total on a snowy or rainy/overcast day. Enough of those, and you're looking at a month where the panels only saved you $20-30.
The people out here who brag that their solar panels make their monthly power bills 0 are usually living on farmland where they put rows and rows of panels up on metal frames or poles, taking up a big chunk of land. Not only did that probably cost them FAR more money than they'll ever recoup -- but it means they
"3) In the short-term these regulations will increase house prices, but they will also lower utility prices, so the total cost of ownership may go down. I believe some banks take into account expected utility costs in determining mortgage qualifications, so this may not impact the ability of people to buy homes."
If EVERYONE has them then the power company will sell less power and have to raise prices...rinse...repeat....
Or the shareholders and CxO's will takeless dollars forever goinf forward...sure
California energy policies are penny-wise and pound foolish. The unwashed masses cannot think for themselves, so... mandate!
This same mentality didn't work out so well for French President Macron. What's truly ironic is that a band of miscreant French in Paris helped a young Ceasar Julian overthrow his uncle - Byzatine Emperor Constantius II, because Julian lowered taxes, closed loopholes, and reduced corruption. Left to his own devices, Constantius would have continued taxing the shit out of everyone. As a result, Julain's overall tax revenue went way up, as did his popular support, which helped fund his little military escapade back to Constantinople to take over the empire. To bad he got speared to death by a Scythian right when the empire needed a strong and insightful leader. Oh well, at least the western world still celebrates the Roman December Festivities.
You'd think modern politicians would learn the difference between a mandate and an incentive. A poor incentive largely gets ignored and goes away, but heavy handed mandates lead to revolutions like the Boston Tea Party and the French Yellow Vest riots.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Then why aren't more people installing solar panels of their own volition? It seems that right now they are a lifestyle choice, or a virtue flag. If they really are practical, people would be installing them in droves, like indoor plumbing or electric lights.
Lol, you think solar panel companies can outbid oil companies?
You might want to look into how the California "energy crisis" was completely, purposefully engineered by power sellers. They literally shut down and sold off plants, it's a matter of public record.
So, here's what's interesting. The new autocratic dictates...er...breakthrough regulations don't require you have the panels on your house. TFA mentions you can pool together and install the panels somewhere else if you'd like.
What I don't know is how far away those panels can be. Can I put them 100 feet away? 100 meters? 100 miles? Because what I'd like to do is buy a 5 kW share of a solar farm in the middle of the Mojave desert. I expect that will be, by far, the cheapest way to install and maintain "my" panels, and keep them upgraded as solar technology improves.
Of course, this begs the questions of why couldn't I buy a share of a wind farm instead but I guess the fine people on the building codes committee thought about that and realized there is no doubt that solar panels are and always will be the most economical and effective approach. Wow, I wish I was as smart as they are! I can't even tell what the price of eggs will be next week let alone the relative price of solar vs. wind 20 years from now.
We want Freedom, not Socialism.
I'm not "anti-gov't", but trust me, you don't want the gov't running factories. I'd estimate they are only about 60% as efficient as the private sector in manufacturing, based on experiments in other countries.
Solar panels mostly pay for themselves over time. (There may need to be minor subsidies, but worth it to get off oil.) The gov't could essentially require panels but issue the home-owner and/or builder a loan which is paid off via their power bill just like regular power utilities. The owner or builder would buy the panels on the private market made by private industry.
Whether those panel factories are in the US or elsewhere depends issues that are probably outside of this topic.
Table-ized A.I.
Rather than require a set size of solar, they need to instead require new homes to install enough UNSUBSIDIZED AE (likely solar) so that the energy => the energy used by HVAC. By doing this, it enables developers to figure out how best to build things. In addition, utilities that will fight solar, will not fight this. After all, they will technically have to buy the extra energy. This approach makes a winner of all.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Bastiat tackled your claim in 1850:
I'll add to that: The smart people in society don't aspire to become governmental paper-pushers, making your point even dumber.
Instead of merely bumping energy efficiency requirements on houses to something like Passive House?
Because building houses to a better standard, so they use a fraction of the power would be a Dumb Thing.
Just keep building shitty homes that guzzle energy and offset it only partially by slapping on $5-10K in solar panel bling that increases the cost of the house, doesn't REALLY offset most of your power bill, and has to have components replaced over time...
And, as others have pointed out, there are going to be places where slapping on solar will net you NOTHING, as you may not be optimally placed for solar production.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What happens when something better comes along, or if I want wind energy instead of solar?
What happens when fusion is ready and I want that instead?
What if I can't afford a house with solar panels?
Does that mean I can't live in a house?
Why does this retarded Republican inbred faggot and known liar think anyone looks to them for factual or pertinent information, lol? WHAT A MORONIC FAGGOT LOL, STUPID REPUBLICAN PROBLEMS AGAIN?
Kick them to the curb like CA did, and the nation followed. 40 seat wave = dishonest Republican faggots are on their way out, so long, don't let the door hit you where your invisible false God splitcha!
"Solar won't work" -debunked "It's not sunny!" -debunked "B-b-but storms are scary!" -debunked "NO COLLUSION!" -debunked
Prison for faggot frauds like you can't come soon enough. You produce nothing. You are being replaced.
Have gnu, will travel.
You misspelled government regulations and overreach.
Government regulation is how I afford my California house. The 1% cap on property tax is the only way I am not financially ruined.
Don't feed the troll.
You are comparing $10k now vs $19k spread over 30 years. It's much less positive if you take present value into account. Additionally, the monthly savings amount is undoubtedly based on a net-metering pricing policy. The odds of that lasting for 30 years in a heavily solar state are about zero. Net-metering subsidizes solar producers by paying the same amount for solar power generated when solar is plentiful (daytime) as is charged for electricity when solar power is unavailable (night). It can't last, certainly not for 30 years.
My roof is terracotta tiles. The area covered in solar panels is the only area that hasn't been damaged by hail (the solar panels survived the hail).
You libertarian morons who pretend you don't need society crack me up. SO LEAVE THEN, MORONS. GO TO SPACE, leave society alone you dipshit Libertarian children. WE DO NOT NEED YOU, YOU NEED US.
Instead of merely bumping energy efficiency requirements on houses
They already did after Enron fucked the state over. New CA houses are more energy efficient than any other building code in the country. Also, much of the concepts and technologies in Passive House does not work well in places with earthquakes.
And, as others have pointed out, there are going to be places where slapping on solar will net you NOTHING, as you may not be optimally placed for solar production.
Could you actually read all the way to the third sentence of TFSummary next time? There's an exemption for houses that are shaded.
While it is not a requirement - it is customary to have solar-panel-powered water heaters on Israeli condominium buildings (not the super-tall ones) - and has been this way since the 1970s if not earlier. Now, sure, they don't generate electricity, but panels are panels. This is not such a big deal, building-wise.
The costs of many of the cheaper solar panels in use absolutely did NOT take into account all of the associated costs of producing them! One of the problems the industry has struggled with are all the cheap Asian panels on the market, often sold at below cost, thanks to government subsidies from China.
These circumstances applied only to panels from specific manufacturers for a fairly limited period of time. Most solar panels are not "dumped", not even from China.
I've never heard of these banks you speak of, who would allow a person to take out a larger home loan if they felt the person might use less electricity thanks to solar panels (or anything else)?
You may be unaware of it, but all banks consider the monthly expenses of every prospective loan recipient. Power very much factors in to their loan-making decisions, varying only by the demands of the local power company for money.
As for battery technology? I looked into that, but it's really too costly to make much sense in many situations. When the financials work out on it? It's usually only because that person's utility company decided to arbitrarily give discounted electric rates for power used at night ("off peak").
Which applies to quite a few people's houses. You may not be one of them, but millions upon millions are, including all of California. Even I am subject to time-of-day billing here in the Midwest.
A solar system installation similar to what I've got (a 7.64Kw sized setup) will typically cost a person around $34,000 to install.
That is indeed a stupidly high price, and it's largely an artifact of yesteryear's panel prices. When a solar panel cost $5/watt, installers could demand premium prices and know their demands would be lost in the noise. Now that panels are right around $1/watt (post Trump tariffs), installers charging double or triple what the equipment costs is really noticeable. It will change. It will obviously change. There were a whole helluva lot of people clambering around on my roof when I replaced my shingles after the last hail storm made a hash out of them, and it didn't cost me any $20,000. It cost half that, including the price of shingles. So $28,000 to install less than $8,000 of panels is ludicrous, and can't last.
Not only did that probably cost them FAR more money than they'll ever recoup
They didn't. Ground-mounted solar panels are far cheaper to install, even in this over-inflated installer market, and as stated above, installation price is the expensive part right now. Installing on the ground is incredibly easier than a roof-mount install. There's zero money or effort required to evaluate the load-bearing capabilities of the roof, since there's no roof. The insurance costs are dramatically lower since no one is climbing around on a roof. Even the time required is much lower since there are no logistics of dragging heavy, awkward panels up onto a roof to worry about.
It would be a really BAD idea to mandate solar panels in our state, and even worse for Missouri, where I was born and raised. They get less sun than we do.
Fact checking you, I see that NREL shows that Missouri is at least one category better than Maryland in almost every month of the year for solar insolation.
All of your opinions seem to be informed by your personal experience, which is obsolete or inapplicable. A decade ago, you were suffering early adopter tax, and definitely paying more for the non-financial benefits than any financial benefit you could hope to gain. Today and in the coming years, things are different and will become still more different. It will be (and already is) considerably easier to buy solar panels for the financial benefits, as well as the quality of life benefits.
You should definitely buy the geothermal heat pump system though.
She didn't even offer to pay them for it. She offered to give them slightly better terms on student loans. To people in their 30s and 40s that couldn't make it through college when they were in their 20s and didn't already have kids to watch.
The problem with Hilary is she's one of those people who found school easy-peasy and can't understand why everyone else isn't just like her. Romney had the same problem. It's that whole "Why can't the poor just buy more money?". When you say it like that it's a joke, but what it really means is that for some people life is just easy, and all they have to do to get rich is reach out their hands and take it. Those folks can't comprehend why those of us who are struggling don't just do the same thing. I don't even mean that as an insult to them. They're not immoral, they're amoral. They literally don't understand.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
to build factories. The government runs the bloody factories. Like the Post Office. Otherwise it just turns into corruption.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the way are, not the way you want them to be. Is it crazy to transform our entire civilization for 70,000 coal miners? Maybe. But it's either that or they vote another 4 years of Trump. And nobody wins then. Trump will screw them and us over.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
pull out of the Palo Verde reactor in Arizona and we can get more of the benefit of its output locally instead of selling the power to LA and San Diego at a premium. That should allow the easy retirement of some older marginal facilities here and reduced prices in Arizona.
It's usually only because that person's utility company decided to arbitrarily give discounted electric rates for power used at night ("off peak").
It's the US that's the weird one on this. It costs more money to produce electricity during the day, and it costs more to buy it at wholesale during the day. Most large businesses actually pay different prices during the day vs at night. Some power intensive companies only run during the night because of the price difference. Aluminium is normally produced at night because it consumes so much power. Some countries even have consumers billed like this. Because it reflects the true cost of the business. I'm surprised more american energy companies don't work like this, because companies love charging for everything they can. Most smart meters are capable of doing the multi-rate billing, so my guess is it's in the future...
The reason why is that some power plants take a long time to spin up (like nuclear takes days to come online), so they can't just turn it on and off. And they can't just unplug, all that energy needs to go somewhere. Normally it's transferred as electricity via wire to other places, and those places convert it to motion/heat/etc. The power plant can't just "unplug" itself without risking breaking something or costing a lot of money. This is why you hear about negative prices sometime. Most power plants can't just shut themselves off.
But, some are designed so they can, and they only really only operate during peak power hours. Those plants are usually natural gas power plants. But natural gas is one of the most expensive per KWH, but they spin up/spin down quickly. So you just run them for a few hours during peak when power is most expensive.
So. It's not totally arbitrary. OTOH, if it makes business sense, I should be able to build a power-storage company, and have it be viable, and there should be a ton of competition for it. If it's good at small scale, I'll should at least be able to install a bigger one, cheaper, a couple blocks away, at a much lower price, with centralized maintenance... And that's sort of what Tesla is doing in Australia with the big power banks there.
Homes in Paradise were "often shaded from the Sun"--by dry pines. I wonder what kinds of unintended consequences will be wrought by this, aside from the obvious ones of placing more restraints on development when there's a housing supply shortage. You see, building on the north side of a hill surrounded by grass and oaks in a virtually indefensible space is going to look like an attractive option... sigh.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
No shit you don't understand, lol. Stupid Lib(ertarians)
I'm talking in regards people shopping for a home. They can buy an existing one, or foot the bill of solar for a new one. If existing home owners come out of this with a slight win, then that might help explain the lack of enough resistance to the law compelling solar. Sure, some home owners will buy new, in California down the road, but but then the cost of solar will have come down, and it likely will blend in better to the home's look. Other home owners will sell, and then move out of state. Though if they move to a state on the southern extreme, or near to it, solar would be a good idea there. Building costs in general, and solar in particular, might be less expensive though. Most of California has pretty high costs, relative to sun belt states, afaik.
Requiring solar panels on houses in California is a no-brainer: It saves the bill payers a lot of money in the long run for a small increase in construction costs that may not even affect the sale price significantly. It's especially useful if air-conditioning is likely to be used. It's like requiring cost-effective insulation and heating for homes in cold climates. Any environmental benefits from this are an added bonus. BTW, it'd probably be more effective to implement energy efficiency regulations on new homes rather than specific energy-saving strategies.
sick of these authoritarian fucks bossing everyone around. why do we put up with it? why not just kill them all instead of letting them control everyone's private property?
Both the Republican establishment and the Democrat establishment (who are effectively the same unnamed party) have been using that lie for decades. They enable their Wall St backers to outsource jobs and import cheap foreign workers and they tell the American middle class workers whose careers are destroyed that there will be "job retraining". They never actually commit to retraining anybody and never actually have any real jobs to retrain for in mind. The only people who benefit from these new programs are the government bureaucrats who are hired and paid to plan these programs and study the problems and make proposals to congress, etc.
When we waved goodbye to much of our resource gathering (mining and such) those workers were effectively told "Those were dirty dangerous jobs - you'll get higher-end safer higher-paying clean jobs turning imported raw materials into processed materials".
When we waved goodbye to much of our material processing jobs (converting raw materials to processed materials) those workers were effectively told "Those were dirty dangerous jobs - you'll get higher-end safer higher-paying clean jobs turning processed materials into manufactured parts".
When we waved goodbye to much of our part manufactruing jobs (converting processed materials to parts) those workers were effectively told "Those were dirty dangerous jobs - you'll get higher-end safer higher-paying clean jobs assembling parts into assemblies and assemblies into products".
When we waved goodbye to much of our assembly jobs those workers were effectively told "Those were dirty dangerous jobs - you'll get higher-end safer higher-paying clean jobs writing software".
When we waved goodbye to many of our programming jobs those workers were effectively told "Those were drudge work jobs, and everybody can program now - you'll get at least a $15 an hour livable wage doing something better we're still trying to figure out".
At no point in this process did any government workers come through with any of the "retraining" - what happened was that the workers losing their jobs often also lost their homes and their marriages, and while some landed at Wallmart as "greeters" [at the emporium of imported cheap Chinese crap], or they ended up hooked on opioids or drunk, and eventually retired early or found a doc to register them as disabled so they could get benefits for a few years prior to retirement, and it was actually the next generation of workers who were victims of the next set of lies.
NOBODY should ever fall for this "retraining" lie again. The people deploying this lie never have any actual jobs lined up or actual effective and valuable job retraining planned.
I don't think my experiences are all that obsolete or inapplicable, considering my own solar system is only a few years old now -- and much of what I've cited are just facts that you've brushed aside as irrelevant, since "they don't apply to a lot of people".
That $34,000 price estimate is for name-brand SunPower panels and inverters ... which do cost a premium over getting any old Asian made panel or no-name inverter. I've heard a lot of horror stories already about the cheaper panels having drastic dropoffs in power output after they've aged as little as 5 years though. So that doesn't sound like much of a bargain.
I'm surprised that survey shows Missouri as getting more sun than Maryland does. I can tell you that relatively few people I knew there were too excited about the prospects of going solar, though. I have one friend who did, but he admits he was only driven by the desire to say he had a more "Green" home, and didn't care if it saved him money or not. Maybe it's more a combination of people tending to have properties with more trees shading things and utility rates that are relatively cheap? But I just knew at least in the St. Louis area, PV solar was a tough sell compared to up here.
As far as ground mounted solar panels go? Maybe there's an issue with installers who are only trained to do the roof type installations? I actually had a chunk of space by my garage in back where I wanted to ground mount a row of panels to get more power generation. I couldn't get the installer remotely interested in entertaining doing it! I was told things like, "Those have to take things like high winds into account more than a panel firmly affixed to a roof, and there's extra work involved burying the cabling for them."
Honestly? I suspect with many power companies in America, you're getting billed at a rate that nicely averages the cost to generate each kilowatt during the day and at night, so you just pay one flat rate and they make the profits they're seeking, while keeping the billing from getting more complex.
Also, as more people install grid-tied solar, there's a lot of surplus energy getting fed back into the system during most of the "peak" hours when the sun is shining. I've heard where as a general rule, the power companies start having problems when more than about 15% of the homes in a given neighborhood install solar. The grid can't efficiently transmit power for miles and miles. So a lot of energy generation from say 10AM to 2PM in residential neighborhoods means there's more power on that part of the grid than they have customers wanting to use it. (A lot of people are away at work during the week during those hours, don't forget.)
So what happens is that excess power generation just goes to waste, but the utility company is still required by law you pay you back for it by way of discounting your bill at the same rate you normally pay for it.
Put a high maintenance fire hazard everywhere in the state. That is a fantastic idea.
What in gods name are you running? We have barely touched US$10000 and have two fridges, a deep freeze, two computers and a NAS running permanently.....perhaps you have an electric stove?
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Did YOU miss something? I think you did. He said GOV OWNED AND RAN factories. No president has tried that. Is there NOTHING you won't blame on Obama?
Panel Lifespan: 37 seconds
Batter Lifespan: 1.5 minutes
That feeling you get when you figure out the secret that thousands of scientists and engineers couldn't figure out: ARROGANT
Ask a stupid ass question, get a stupid ass answer, stupid ass.
https://www.marketwatch.com/st...
Housing is one reason and they are making it even more expensive now.
Here is Australia a 7.6kw system will cost about $8000 USD to install before any rebate. If it is costing 4 times that where you live then I canâ(TM)t imagine how there is such a cost differnce, but hopefully mandating installations will improve the enonomies of scale enough to bring that down a lot.
China does not engage in any of the practices you describe.
The USD is artificially overvalued by a good 25% or more, because it is the currency the world uses for foreign exchange. Read up on the Triffin Dilemma and seigniorage,
China desperately wants a stronger currency. This is one of the major global policy debates of the present time.
The reason installation costs are low is that the installations are nearly always done by recent Latino immigrants, quite likely in the country illegally, working for a subcontractor. Usually, at best the foreman speaks any English, lending evidence to this supposition.
if you were using what should be a short rinse of your panels as an excuse to dump a few hundred gallons of water on your lawn.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What if I think that centralized energy production - using wind or solar - by a power company is the way to go? Why should I be forced to produce energy on my own?
We live in a 2,400 square feet, 2 story house that was built back around 1905. It's been renovated several times over the years, with the most recent rehab done around 2012 when the owner installed 2 electric heat pumps; one for downstairs and one for upstairs. We don't have natural gas here, so everything in the home is electric including the stove, electric dryer and water heater.
I do have an HP Proliant server that runs 24/7 as a NAS. It runs Plex and NextCloud, as well as serving as a Time Machine backup destination. We have several other computers in the house that are running pretty often. Also have an electric car that I charge from a regular 120 volt outlet out in a detached garage.
In the coldest winter months, an electric bill can easily get up in the $500-600 range for a month, WITH the solar panels I've got in place.
Of course, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Solar shingles have significantly lower power production per square foot than real panels (currently about 12 W/sq. ft. versus 22 W/sq. ft. for panels) and much higher cost per watt than real panels (about 3x as much as panels alone, and about twice the cost of installing standard shingles plus panels). The warranty is about the same (25 to 30 years, typically).
And solar shingles heat up your attic, which means that during the hot summer months, your cooling energy use is going to go up when you use solar shingles. By contrast, PV panels are air-gapped, which means they actually reduce the power you spend on cooling by keeping direct sunlight off your roof.
And for all that extra expense and reduced efficiency, the solar shingles still don't match the rest of your roof. No thanks.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Really?
What about solar orientation, air sealing, mechanical ventilation, and superior insulation methodology in any way conflicts with earthquake-proofing (which is primarily additional anti-racking precautions and tying foundations, walls, floors and roofing together with strapping)?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
which is primarily additional anti-racking precautions and tying foundations, walls, floors and roofing together with strapping
Um....no. It also plays a massive role in the design of the foundation, as well as many building materials and techniques throughout the structure. And those building materials have an extremely low R value. And you can't just spray insulation on top to make up for it because that insulation takes space.
Also, a passive house usually doesn't work well in a climate that requires significant heating and cooling. It tends to forsake one for the other - ie: solar orientation to either heat or cool. So this might work in, say, San Diego where you almost don't need heat. Or Redwoods where you basically don't need cooling. In between, it starts getting problematic. Which means you can't really apply it state-wide.
Also, a passive house typically makes extensive use of the Earth as a heat sink or source. Which is a tad problematic when the ground moves. Also requires a complementary geology, which means you can't require it on all houses.