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.)
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.
Really?
How much does a full roof of solar panels cost? Maintenance? Repair after storms?
I'm not saying it isn't a good thing to have them....however, right now I hear nothing buy young people complaining about the cost of housing, and mandating solar panels on all new homes, will add a not insignificant amount of extra money on top of the already $$$ new home.
And it isn't just going to be the cost of the panels and labor to install, the builder will also write in some profit on top of that.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
This is actually a thing up here in the Pacific Northwest. I have city-owned power. They did a huge energy conservation program, promoting the transition from old bulbs to newer CFL/LED bulbs, plus replacing CRT TVs with LCD/LED TVs. The result? Power consumption dropped by a large enough margin that the city-owned power company didn't have the budget to continue to operate, so instead they just raised everyone's power bill rates. So after making the city more efficient, our bills remained the same higher price, even though "lower price" was the #1 "incentive" to change out all the equipment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Am too typical stereotypical Californian. Name is Rex Doobieson and live just south of San Francisco in Los Angeles. In mornings surf in Pacific Ocean before going to day job as rookie cop with mismatched partner. In evenings eat tacos like all good Californians. Too am against solar panels on house. For one, panels too easily damaged by vodka. For another, too easily broken by bears. Repair costs would be many hundreds of dollars (thousands of rubles.) Why use solar when can use good clean energy like oil products from Gazprom?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Name one california regulation or government over reach? Name one? Waiting?
Requiring solar panels on new homes.
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.
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.
I thought I'd read, at least in the past...that in CA they had laws/regulations against even watering your yard, due to rain shortages out there. If this is still true, have they provided exceptions for using your water hose to go up and wash your solar panels?
If not, I can just see the "to collect and serve" police guys out there catching people washing their mandated solar panels.
Not trying to be funny, I'm serious.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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.