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.
Yeah, adding 10k to the cost of a 550k home ( https://www.zillow.com/ca/home... ) is going to be the tipping point to price the middle class out of homes in California. You're a frick'n genius.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
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). So even if you finance the whole additional amount, you end up in the positive by about $33 per year, not to mention the health benefits of less pollution.
(In addition, poor people tend to face more negative health affects from pollution because they tend to live in more polluted areas, so they will likely experience more of the benefits as well.)
Uh, we do not get as much fog as everyone thinks. Maybe 7-10 days where there is fog for more than 8 hours during the day. And it's just in the northern section of the city, by the bridge. We have microclimates here, it's a thing. I would guess daytime fog is closer to 3 days. Regardless San Francisco is only about 800,000 people in a 7x7 mile section of the state, in a state that represents about 65% of the west coast and 40 million people.
Most of the bay sees 280-300 days a year of sun.
Also most of Oregon is desert, and very sunny.
Also, most of the central valley of california is flat and dry, and blisteringly hot.
Please reference a map. Thank you.
p.s. Germany has way worse weather conditions, like snow, and being way further north, and they have more installed solar than we do and produce more solar power than anyone else in Europe.
Given how cheap solar is, there are few places in the world where installing solar is not a net positive. Even in as you say "foggy" san francisco. Get out more dude.
moox. for a new generation.
That's nonsense.
1) The cost of solar panels includes all the costs associated with making them, including energy. If it took more energy to make them than they would ever produce, then they would never pay for themselves. Even without incentives, that's no longer the case, so obviously this is wrong.
2) Solar panels stand up to extreme weather just fine, excluding things that destroy your home. They will still be producing plenty of power after twenty years. The question isn't when they will stop working, but when it will make sense to replace them with newer panels.
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.
4) Companies have always been motivated to use the cheapest tech, and existing solar installations have been extremely reliable. Regulations like this won't change that.
4 [sic]) Lithium Ion batteries are easy to recycle. Also, like solar panels, they don't typically just fail; they degrade in capacity over time. Battery systems being installed today will likely stay in use for a decade or longer.
The tech does meet real criteria: efficiency, longevity, and safety -- you just don't want it on your rooftop.
I'm from southern New York, which is about as far north as northern California. We also get lots of snow. Like actual snow, not just at ski resorts.
The largest PV installation in the US is the Long Island Solar Farm, which is slightly farther north than Redding, CA.
Our solar panels work just fine.
=Smidge=
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.
Net savings is about $30 a month, maintenance in the first 10 years is usually less than $1000, storm damage isn't really a thing, people have been mounting these things on ocean going sailboats for almost 20 years with no issues. Generally the mount wears out before the solar panel does. All these things were solved almost 25 years ago, it mostly sounds like either you are spreading FUD, or you don't understand solar, or possibly both.
moox. for a new generation.
I'd like to see your math on the solar nonsense you just spewed. I looked at my electric bill very carefully, looked at 5KW system cost, and figured out my break-even point would arrive in 8 years. Since panels have a 20 year warranty, everything after the 8-year point is gravy. Beyond that, the major utility of Northern California (PG&E) has been steadily eroding the number of KWh for Tier-1 pricing, meaning that each year, more people are spending more money more quickly as they get pushed into Tiers 2, 3, and 4. A minimalist solar install can get people out of these higher tiers and save tons of money in the process.
And no, nuclear and hydroelectric do not "win out" environmentally. No solar panel ever made the news for spewing radioactive waste after a critical failure, and damns are actually creating huge problems for people living down river with damaged fisheries, reductions in fertile soil, and ultimately suffer from sedimentation.
The US is the only sovereign nation which allows non citizens to own land.
Except of course for Argentina, Australia, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic. All right, I got to C. You can read the rest at https://internationalliving.co...
Every end has half a stick.
How much does a full roof of solar panels cost?
That isn't relevant, since the regulations do not require a full roof of solar panels.
To comply with this change, TFA says it would cost about $10k, on homes that cost on average $550k.
Also, if you're concerned about cost, complying with the state's earthquake protection parts of the building code cost several times more.
Maintenance?
Solar panels don't require much. The occasional washing which generally happens via this thing called "rain".
Repair after storms?
Nothing in the building code requires the solar panels continue to function after the final inspection. So, if you can't afford to fix the panels after a storm, don't. Also, CA doesn't tend to get too many hurricanes or that much hail.
The initial cost is closer to $10,000 when you figure in the subsidies. The latest figures I've seen show that solar costs the home-buyer $4 per watt and adds $4 per watt to the value of the home. When you figure in lower electric bills, it's pure benefit.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
It's not quite as large a difference as you suggest. Assuming a 5% rate of return on the market, if you invested the $10k you would indeed have about $43.2k at the end of 30 years. However, if you spent the $10k on solar panels up front and invested the $52.78 you're expected to save in energy costs each month at that same 5% rate then you would have $43k at the end of 30 years, plus some 30-year-old solar panels which may or may not be worth something. Disregarding any residual value in the used panels, that means buying solar panels only costs you about $200 after 30 years compared to investing the same money in the market, which is practically zero given all the approximations and unknowns involved.
Of course, the expected market rate of return makes a huge difference. At 4.75% APY the panels come out $950 ahead; at 5.25% the investment wins by $1400. The 5% rate used as a baseline is very nearly the breakeven point (~4.96%). Similarly, a 5% variance in the energy savings (~$50-55 vs. the estimated $52.78) would shift the balance by around $2100.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
How much does a full roof of solar panels cost? Maintenance? Repair after storms?
I can add some personal experience.
Cost: Very little in comparison to the power it offset. Admittedly there were good incentives at the time which caused the system to pay for itself in well under 2 years but now with those incentives gone I see systems cost less than what I paid for for my 10kW setup.
Maintenance: $0. I mean when it doesn't rain for a long time the power output goes down but a good storm sorts that out. Once I washed them. Waste of time, next time I'll just wait for another good storm. My inverter has only been running for 7 years so I expect it it about half way through it's life but effectively this system has paid for itself over many times.
Repair after storms: Not sure what you mean. I mean the last big storm we had damaged roof tiles, wrote off two cars, and I had to replace 3 windows thanks to first size hail which was about at round as a tetrahedron and just as sharp on the edges. My neighbour was hospitalised because she was out at the time both her cars were written off too, but the panels? Zero damage. I mean they are made of tempered glass mounted against a rigid metal structure. I highly doubt I could break them if I attacked them with a hammer. During the 2013 storms we had the area of my roof with solar panels was the only area which didn't need repairs.
right now I hear nothing buy young people complaining about the cost of housing
Now imagine if they had solar panels to reduce their utility costs. I drew on my mortgage to buy solar panels. Best investment I ever made.
Hmm, $43,219 vs. $41,786 after 30 years. I suppose you're right.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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.
Nope. California required "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" to disclose they do not provide abortions and abortions are available elsewhere. Apparently, having to tell the truth violated the religion of the people operating these centers.
The applicable provisions in that law were struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the free speech of non-medical clinics and putting an undue burden on medical clinics.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!