If we could rely on everyone always doing the right thing, we wouldn't need governments at all. But that leads to plenty of problems where an individual's best interest does not align with the entire group's best interest.
So we created governments to deal with these Tragedy of the Commons style problems. Which means governments are always acting in a non-laissez-faire manner. Even when the people enacting these policies claim to be libertarian (ie. Rand Paul picks a lot of winners and losers when he votes).
What's a government to do? Well, they should act in the best long-term interest, since that's the one that will naturally get the short shrift. Doesn't always work that way.
Shingles are attached to a roof via nails punching through the shingle, the underlayment, and frequently the plywood sheathing. That's a hell of a lot more holes than bolts/screws from the solar panels.
We used to rely on the shingles overlaying each other, which is why roofs leaked a hell of a lot more. Now all of the relevant materials are self-sealing, so they seal up the holes caused by the nails.
If the solar panels require any significantly-large bolts, they'll be sealed with material similar to how you seal a flat roof (old days: asphalt emulsion. Now: some black goo that behaves similarly)
Shingles are there to protect the underlayment. That used to be something like tar paper, but there's more advanced products now. The underlayment is what actually makes your roof water-tight. But it degrades from UV light and physical damage from wind-blown things falling on the roof.
So if you are installing the solar panels as part of building a new house, you generally do not put shingles on the parts of the roof that are covered by solar panels. The solar panels give you the same light and physical protection, so shingles under the panels are just a wasted expense.
Now, that still means less shingles need to be replaced in the future, since the solar panels will still be in place and still be protecting the underlayment.
I'm struck that in hot climates, buildings have typically had flat roofs. I don't know why.
Maximum interior volume for minimum building materials. A sloped roof either reduces the volume of the living space, or it requires you to build an attic.
When you don't have to worry about snow load, you tend to go with what gives you the most space for the least money.
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.
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.
No. They have pricing structures on their water bills to make it very expensive to use a lot of water. Use a little, pay X. Use 50% more, pay 2.5X. Use 100% more, pay 10X.
You'll find that all of the 'extreme' stories about CA are primarily about convincing non-CAians that they're better off not being in CA, not about reality.
If all you think exists in the country are coastal cities and middle-of-nowhere Nebraska, you're speaking from a place of deep ignorance
If you are unable to understand the concept of "an example", you are speaking from a place of deep ignorance.
You are wrong about the job situation. Very, very wrong.
Ok, show me the rural location with 1000 IT jobs posted today. And there will be another 1000 posts tomorrow....and the next....and the next....and the next....
You don't need much rain to wash the dust off the panels. And the horrible consequences of not doing so is they make less power. Since it's your house and not a power plant where you are banking on a particular generating capacity, that's not exactly a horrible consequence.
Unless they also start making grid-tie optional state-wide, what is the incentive here?
A house. Can't pass your final inspection without it, so there's a pretty strong incentive to install it.
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?
If only there was some sort of article that covered these questions.
What about houses at elevation where the panels may be more likely to fail under snow weight?
What about houses where you'd like to have lots of South-facing windows? South-facing windows got limited by the building code after Enron's fraud caused CA's power problems.
The answer to both is: the architecture is changed to comply with the building code.
Will it become mandatory to repair the solar system when it fails?
Building codes everywhere are only enforced during construction. If you rip off the solar panels after the final inspection, the state can't do anything.
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?
The power meter still knows how much power you used, even in net metering scenarios. So your war on drugs is safe.
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.
You generally do not shingle under the solar panels, if they are being installed when the structure is built. You just use whatever underlayment would be under the shingles, and then the solar panels act as the shingles.
Which also means you generally do not remove the panels when re-shingling the roof. Because there are no shingles to replace.
That's a lovely philosophical argument. But you completely ignored the use-case. Where's the Android phone with 4+ years of updates with premium hardware?
I'd like to switch, but if I do companies like Samsung won't send out updates after a ridiculously short period of time. Resulting in me paying Samsung far more money than I pay Apple since I have to upgrade the hardware at least twice as often.
Competition is competition. Your claim is Net Neutrality forbade competition.
So, if Net Neutrality forbade competition, how'd they manage to compete?
And again, if you want to complain about that competition not being municipal broadband, you'll need to take that up with my state's legislature, since they're the ones who forbade municipal broadband.
You don't understand. Pai is there to lay the groundwork for removal of some of the regulatory functions of the FCC and moving them to the Congress where they belong.
Uh....they already belong to Congress. Congress decided the way to implement these regulatory functions was to create the FCC. That's why Congress passed several laws to do so.
Did the internet improve under the new federal NN rules?
Yes
The same approved and NN ready paper insulated wireline kept the monopoly net slow for many.
That monopoly is why you need net neutrality. Internet service can not be an efficient market because of the natural monopoly by the incumbents.
Federal NN rules protected a set of monopoly telcos from new competition.
[Citation Required]
Also, two new Internet providers (AT&T and Google) started providing service to my house under Net Neutrality rules. How'd that happen if net neutrality forbade new competition?
(Btw, they did that because their pockets are deep enough to be able to pay for the rollout despite the natural monopoly of my cable company. But you'll note Google has stopped rolling out fiber to new cities, largely due to problems caused by the incumbent's natural monopolies)
A wealthy community can ask for its own community broadband now they are free of federal rules.
Net Neutrality never required ISPs to serve poor areas, nor did it forbid wealthy areas from installing their own community broadband. You're thinking of the laws passed by Republicans in several states to forbid community broadband.
Slashdot Mirror
It's California. There's not that much of it covered by forest.
If we could rely on everyone always doing the right thing, we wouldn't need governments at all. But that leads to plenty of problems where an individual's best interest does not align with the entire group's best interest.
So we created governments to deal with these Tragedy of the Commons style problems. Which means governments are always acting in a non-laissez-faire manner. Even when the people enacting these policies claim to be libertarian (ie. Rand Paul picks a lot of winners and losers when he votes).
What's a government to do? Well, they should act in the best long-term interest, since that's the one that will naturally get the short shrift. Doesn't always work that way.
Shingles are attached to a roof via nails punching through the shingle, the underlayment, and frequently the plywood sheathing. That's a hell of a lot more holes than bolts/screws from the solar panels.
We used to rely on the shingles overlaying each other, which is why roofs leaked a hell of a lot more. Now all of the relevant materials are self-sealing, so they seal up the holes caused by the nails.
If the solar panels require any significantly-large bolts, they'll be sealed with material similar to how you seal a flat roof (old days: asphalt emulsion. Now: some black goo that behaves similarly)
Shingles are there to protect the underlayment. That used to be something like tar paper, but there's more advanced products now. The underlayment is what actually makes your roof water-tight. But it degrades from UV light and physical damage from wind-blown things falling on the roof.
So if you are installing the solar panels as part of building a new house, you generally do not put shingles on the parts of the roof that are covered by solar panels. The solar panels give you the same light and physical protection, so shingles under the panels are just a wasted expense.
Now, that still means less shingles need to be replaced in the future, since the solar panels will still be in place and still be protecting the underlayment.
I'm struck that in hot climates, buildings have typically had flat roofs. I don't know why.
Maximum interior volume for minimum building materials. A sloped roof either reduces the volume of the living space, or it requires you to build an attic.
When you don't have to worry about snow load, you tend to go with what gives you the most space for the least money.
Why do taxpayers have to subsiduze the installations?
For the same reason taxpayers subsidize the installation of every nuclear plant. And most coal plants. And a good chunk of gas plants.
So what's going to happen when the utility companies start losing revenue and going bankrupt?
The utilities will be starting less fires, since they're no longer being operated by MBAs.
Because without significant wind, not much rain hits the windows.
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.
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.
No. They have pricing structures on their water bills to make it very expensive to use a lot of water. Use a little, pay X. Use 50% more, pay 2.5X. Use 100% more, pay 10X.
You'll find that all of the 'extreme' stories about CA are primarily about convincing non-CAians that they're better off not being in CA, not about reality.
If all you think exists in the country are coastal cities and middle-of-nowhere Nebraska, you're speaking from a place of deep ignorance
If you are unable to understand the concept of "an example", you are speaking from a place of deep ignorance.
You are wrong about the job situation. Very, very wrong.
Ok, show me the rural location with 1000 IT jobs posted today. And there will be another 1000 posts tomorrow....and the next....and the next....and the next....
You don't need much rain to wash the dust off the panels. And the horrible consequences of not doing so is they make less power. Since it's your house and not a power plant where you are banking on a particular generating capacity, that's not exactly a horrible consequence.
Unless they also start making grid-tie optional state-wide, what is the incentive here?
A house. Can't pass your final inspection without it, so there's a pretty strong incentive to install it.
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?
If only there was some sort of article that covered these questions.
What about houses at elevation where the panels may be more likely to fail under snow weight?
What about houses where you'd like to have lots of South-facing windows? South-facing windows got limited by the building code after Enron's fraud caused CA's power problems.
The answer to both is: the architecture is changed to comply with the building code.
Will it become mandatory to repair the solar system when it fails?
Building codes everywhere are only enforced during construction. If you rip off the solar panels after the final inspection, the state can't do anything.
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?
The power meter still knows how much power you used, even in net metering scenarios. So your war on drugs is safe.
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 cost is about $10k on a house that costs $550k. That $10k is not going to be the tipping point.
The costs for complying with the earthquake protection parts of the building code are much, much higher.
You generally do not shingle under the solar panels, if they are being installed when the structure is built. You just use whatever underlayment would be under the shingles, and then the solar panels act as the shingles.
Which also means you generally do not remove the panels when re-shingling the roof. Because there are no shingles to replace.
A remodel can be regulated under the "new construction" standard if you change enough of the structure.
In a similar manner that the regulations after Enron fucked the state altered building design.
New buildings will have to be significantly different than old buildings.
That's a lovely philosophical argument. But you completely ignored the use-case. Where's the Android phone with 4+ years of updates with premium hardware?
I'd like to switch, but if I do companies like Samsung won't send out updates after a ridiculously short period of time. Resulting in me paying Samsung far more money than I pay Apple since I have to upgrade the hardware at least twice as often.
Yes, but cost of living and other prices are not "coastal".
COL is quite a bit higher than most of the interior of the country.
Raleigh is considered "Coastal", because it's a coastal state.
I know, it's pretty arbitrary.
Only two big brands AC?
Competition is competition. Your claim is Net Neutrality forbade competition.
So, if Net Neutrality forbade competition, how'd they manage to compete?
And again, if you want to complain about that competition not being municipal broadband, you'll need to take that up with my state's legislature, since they're the ones who forbade municipal broadband.
You don't understand. Pai is there to lay the groundwork for removal of some of the regulatory functions of the FCC and moving them to the Congress where they belong.
Uh....they already belong to Congress. Congress decided the way to implement these regulatory functions was to create the FCC. That's why Congress passed several laws to do so.
One approved politically connected telco company supports their federally approved NN network. No community broadband competition ever.
Why?
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with community broadband. Community broadband is forbidden by laws passed in several states. Not the FCC.
Did the internet improve under the new federal NN rules?
Yes
The same approved and NN ready paper insulated wireline kept the monopoly net slow for many.
That monopoly is why you need net neutrality. Internet service can not be an efficient market because of the natural monopoly by the incumbents.
Federal NN rules protected a set of monopoly telcos from new competition.
[Citation Required]
Also, two new Internet providers (AT&T and Google) started providing service to my house under Net Neutrality rules. How'd that happen if net neutrality forbade new competition?
(Btw, they did that because their pockets are deep enough to be able to pay for the rollout despite the natural monopoly of my cable company. But you'll note Google has stopped rolling out fiber to new cities, largely due to problems caused by the incumbent's natural monopolies)
A wealthy community can ask for its own community broadband now they are free of federal rules.
Net Neutrality never required ISPs to serve poor areas, nor did it forbid wealthy areas from installing their own community broadband. You're thinking of the laws passed by Republicans in several states to forbid community broadband.