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.
You misspelled government regulations and overreach.
To be fair, the middle class was already priced out of buying homes in CA thanks to capitalism and property investors.
Care to explain what community based zoning boards, requiring solar panels on new homes, size regulations, density requirements, and arbitrary building restrictions have to do with capitalism?
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/
That's a bunch of bullshit. It'll cost less to install them while the home is being built versus installing them afterwards, and a company building an entire tract of new homes will buy the panels and other specific materials for less because they'll be buying them in quantity. The addition to the price of a new home will be negligible and new homeowners won't even notice since they're on loans paid over several decades anyway. Meanwhile there will be immediate monthly cost savings to the new homeowner in reduced electric bills. The solar installations might even be more efficient and higher capacity overall since how the house is built and situated on the lot might now be optimized when they lay out the tract, so even more value added for the homeowner.
Solar panels don't pay off in many locations, even in CA. Good luck getting that exemption approved!
Further, the environmental cost of producing solar panels is huge. As is the environmental cost of producing large batteries to store energy (not to mention the safety issues of having one on your property for decades). At least the battery is only currently being "incentivized".
The cost of putting solar panels on a house and connecting them up is pretty big, and the cost will skyrocket now that it's required. For reference, see health insurance. The payback period was already measured in decades when including government incentives/rebates, the utilities being forced to buy the electricity back at a given rate, and a specific cost for panels and installation. The incentives/rebates are going away, the cost the utility will pay to buy power from people will go down, and the cost to buy and install panels will go up.
If we had better solar panels, or at least equivalent panels that weren't so nasty to produce, I'd be for buying them for myself, but not for requiring them.
From an environmental perspective, the best modern options are nuclear and hydroelectric, by far. From an economic standpoint, those are near the top if you consider a free market. Coal, oil, and natural gas win out in a world with no regulation. If you consider a sane market, with some regulation (emissions controls for coal, safety and transparency requirements for fracking and mining, safety and security standards for nuclear, environmental assessment and protection when building dams, etc.) hydroelectric is the winner in places that have it as an option, and nuclear is the winner elsewhere.
For a single individual it would be too low. For a major home developer buying in bulk and likely doing the installation themselves it's probably about right even without subsidies.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
So in other words it costs money. If I invested 10K one time and never made another contribution, over a 30 year period I'd have about 43K. That's assuming a modest 5% annual return. Last time I checked 43K > 19K.
So what's going to happen when the utility companies start losing revenue and going bankrupt? Higher taxes, as usual. So you're still supporting the utility companies and were forced to buy an expensive add-on to boot.
Have we investigated who is funding these politicians? How are they profiting from requiring homeowners to buy things? Because you know this is the case.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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...
If solar is so wonderful then why does the government have to force people to have it on their homes? Why do taxpayers have to subsiduze the installations?
It it wasn't for the Oil Iobbies putting doubt in Green Energy, Solar Energy would seem to be a Conservative dream.
Take your homes off these Highly regulated and expensive infrastructure, allow you be independent and generate your own power for your own land, with less government control on the power you make. In case of war the American Power infrastructure would be resilient. As there would be less of an infrastructure to attack, and every self sufficient citizen could carry one and endure.
If you want less government, green energy is a good solution, because you yourself can make your own power.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Isn't California trying to mandate gender quotas on corporations? Didn't California mandate pro-life agencies had to post info on how women can obtain abortions?
It's a testament to how deeply repugnant the Left regards Conservatives, that they can make such an attractive idea seem like a terrible abomination. Unfortunately these schemes always serve to increase government control over our lives, because that's what the Left loves. Like here, being forced to buy something. If it was economical and made sense, you wouldn't have to force people, they'd do it with a smile on their faces. But that's not what it's about. It's about control and despising the outgroup. Read this link, it explains the situation I'm talking about.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Can you describe these requirements in detail? Seems like having solar on the roof (PV and hot water) would be the most efficient option.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Isn't California trying to mandate gender quotas on corporations?
Nope. California is considering requiring a percentage of board members to be female. Less than 50%.
Didn't California mandate pro-life agencies had to post info on how women can obtain abortions?
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.
Oh look, a leftist who is in favor of more government control over our lives, and has no problem with corrupt officials as long as they advance the control agenda. How unusual.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!