SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Right now, about one in five new homes in California comes with solar panels already installed. In two years, it will be all of them.
On Wednesday, California Energy Commission's vote was unanimous: California will soon become the first state to require solar panels on all new homes and on residential buildings smaller than four stories.
The law, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2020, specifies the minimum size of the system would be based on the size of the building and can vary between 2 and 7 kilowatts of output per dwelling.
California mandates solar panels on all new homes by 2020
Also at https://www.nytimes.com
An editorial in the Los Angeles Times expresses support for the measure.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
California Mandates Solar Panels on New Homes Under 4 Stories by 2020
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 29 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
For a man to truly understand rejection, he must first be ignored by a cat.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Saturday May 12 2018, @07:40AM (10 children)
While I do like the idea, primarily because a lot of California has power capacity problems (rolling blackouts/burnouts during high use periods like summer), I'm not sure this is taking the current markets into account. At all.
It's insidious, because for the vast majority of people they will just tack this on to the end of the mortgage. Which makes it easier to hide unreasonably expensive items in the costs. The developers will just pass off the cost, or worse, lower quality in other parts of the building to pay for mandated parts. Even worse, they must just go for market garbage just to be in compliance with the law.
Until the tariffs and trade wars settle down a little, or we rebuild/extend our national manufacturing abilities, solar is going to get more expensive, not less. Worse, the c-suite hellbound fucking scum that run everything are in petulant child mode, deliberately tanking their own industries. It's either that, or be prepared to pay living wages and deal with unions. C-suite cocksuckers just love unions, so the immediate response was to batten down the hatches, jettison some payroll "baggage", give themselves bonuses and titles because they thought of it, and then loudly complain how the tariffs hurt our economy.
Solar has gone downhill since the tariffs, and I've not seen anything get better yet. Many people in Nevada are still apoplectic about the specific tariffs, and it has absolutely effected employment. California better be prepared to shell out some of that sweet weed money in subsidies to help people pay for it.
Just to be clear, Orange Anus is hellbound fucking scum himself, but anything putting the screws to the c-suites and forcing manufacturing back to the USA is a good thing. About the only thing he is getting right. Including that Christmas is in fucking December, not May :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday May 12 2018, @08:04AM (1 child)
And the utilities will further jack up their costs to recoup some of their lost earnings.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 12 2018, @11:41AM
Yes, and as they do that the cost-benefit calculation to drop the grid or zero out your consumption entirely becomes more attractive.
That is the game the utilities will play--you're right about that--but it's the game the don't want to play.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by kanweg on Saturday May 12 2018, @09:47AM
Does the law prescribe that it is the developers who must put it on the buildings?
The measure makes a lot of sense. Solar is available when demand is at the highest. So, it saves on the cost of infrastructure.
A mortgage is the cheapest way to finance (compare to personal low or credit card debt). So, the solar panels earn themselves back quicker. After they have been paid for, they earn more than interest on an equivalent amount of money. It makes financial sense if you look ahead. That, of course, is not everybody's cup of tea so I like the law.
All of the above advantages, and I haven't made mention of the environment, depletion of fossil resources and AGW.
Bert
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 12 2018, @11:48AM
The manufacturing cost of the panels has come down a lot in the last decade. The installation costs have not kept pace with that decline, so that's where a law like this will help. Since it's a mandate, more contractors will perforce have to retrain to install them and that in turn will bring down the costs.
Within the larger context of other requirements new construction in California must meet (setbacks and ground cover to prevent wild fires during Santa Anna winds, erosion control to prevent mudslides during El Nino rains, and that sort of thing), requiring solar panels will not feel too onerous. Also California has had a lot of electrical shortages and disruptions in the past 20 years, so homes that are self-sufficient in power will be attractive.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday May 12 2018, @12:36PM (4 children)
Much like my grandparents were able to buy a clothes washer that lasted thirty years with minimal to no repair, but nothing sold at home depot today will last more than three years, suspect the "contractor grade" solar systems will be about as reliable and long lasting as "contractor grade" garbage disposals.
So the financials that made sense when you could buy solar panels that would work reliably for decades are going to screw Californians when mandatory panels all rapidly fail.
Lets see... how to value engineer a solar panel to fail rapidly... poor to no seals, design the back so drainage is difficult or impossible, very fine wires interconnecting so that they won't last long with corrosion sets in, or even better have a low pressure mount be one of the terminals (dissimilar metals to enhance corrosion). Thin easily breakable glass in a mount that poorly supports it to intentionally make it easy to break. Connectors that intentionally cannot be weatherproofed. Have the wiring support some of the physical weight of the cells or panels so metal fatigue can snap the wiring.
The only purpose of California is to screw over and destroy the middle class, particularly white people, whenever you're dealing with CA you can always predict the outcome by looking at the negatives. Going along with the racial thing, it'll be "too expensive" for everyone but whites and asians so there will be a special race based exception program.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 12 2018, @01:48PM (1 child)
How sure are you of that claim? There is a refrigerator in my kitchen, bought at Home Depot, more than 20 years ago. I think it might be 25 years, but I'm not certain exactly when we bought it. That refrigerator recently stopped refrigerating. We had another old refrigerator at a son's house, which we moved into the kitchen. I still haven't had our fridge checked - maybe it just needs coolant added, maybe a thermostat, maybe it's dead beyond economical repair. But, whatever, it is considerably older than 3 years.
Also, in the washroom is a dandy newfangled energy efficient clothes washer. It's closing in on three years. Do I need to fear that it's going to die this summer?
Or, were you referring to smaller, less expensive items, which people might expect to last a year or five, then die? Window air conditioners, maybe? I don't think I've ever had one that lasted more than five years, before it required some kind of service. Overall average is probably close to three years. But, as often as not, the air conditioner gets serviced, and lasts for another year or two.
Items less expensive than air conditioners aren't generally expected to be heirlooms, for the most part. Please describe some of those items you are referring to, so that we can make an informed agreement, or disagreement.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday May 12 2018, @06:54PM
I had one from LG, it failed in about 4 years. I repaired it (bad electrolytic caps.)
(Score: 3, Touché) by Whoever on Saturday May 12 2018, @04:56PM
While it's possible your depressing prediction may be correct, I think that there is a factor and a supplier you are not considering.
I think this will be a huge boost for Tesla. While Tesla Solar Roofs are expensive in comparison to slapping a few panels onto a roof; the economics make a lot more sense in the context of building a roof for a newly constructed house. What is the warranty on those? Lifetime?
People who buy solar systems now are usually somewhat knowledgeable about what they are buying and expect a 20-year warranty, but if it's just part of buying a new house, people may not realize that 20-year warranties are the norm for solar panels, so allowing low-cost, short lifetime panels to be developed and sold.
Of course, if CA had mandated a specific warranty for the solar systems on new houses, you would be screaming about how this is anti-free market.
Oh, wait, CA law already requires a 10-year warranty for solar systems. So your post is mostly BS. What a surprise.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Sunday May 13 2018, @05:37AM
> how to value engineer a solar panel to fail rapidly
You do realise that the home builder will be on the hook if things fail too quickly, right?
While that won't bother those who build crap before declaring bankruptcy every two years, those who rely on name recognition will demand trouble-free roof materials.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday May 12 2018, @06:56PM
They said the same thing about requiring electricity in homes, egress windows, and sewer connections, and adherence to electrical codes.
Its bullshit, as is most of your rant. (Seriously, what are you going on about?).
If there's any place that should have massive solar, if for no other reason than to charge the electric car, or run the hvac, it is California.
If the panels 15 years, and ALL they do is run the air conditioning, it saves money. It also saves damming another river, building another fossil fuel generation plant, or another nuclear facility.
How can you mention rolling blackouts/burnouts in your first sentence, and spend the rest of your post raging about obscure imagined problems?
There's no point in waiting till its perfect before requiring it. There's no way it gets cheap before it gets plentiful. And there's few places in the country where ROI within 3 years is as guaranteed as California.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by SomeGuy on Saturday May 12 2018, @11:18AM (2 children)
Wait, aren't solar panels known by the state of California to cause cancer or some such? :P
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 12 2018, @01:50PM
Well, of course. Is there anything that is NOT known by the state of California to cause cancer? Life, sex, eating, not eating, lack of sex, lack of life, too much life, sunshine, moonshine, sobriety, drunkenness, you name it man!!
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday May 12 2018, @02:22PM
Coffee, they say coffee causes cancer. I canceled my Select by Trump line of coffee pods when I found out.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Saturday May 12 2018, @11:46AM (12 children)
Less affordable housing. Good job.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday May 12 2018, @11:50AM (7 children)
That already happened, entirely without solar panels.
People really can't commute any further than they already do, and traffic can't get any worse than the standstill it already is. California will have to come up with different solutions since the free market is failing to deliver the housing stock that is required.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 12 2018, @12:29PM (6 children)
How are government restrictions a failure of a free market?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 12 2018, @01:17PM (1 child)
Let me introduce you to a little book called economics in one lesson. http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/ [steshaw.org]
The book shows how many gov restrictions if not carried out correctly can have the exact opposite effect of what they intend. Also remember big businesses can basically BUY laws to help lock out little players and lower competition. It is an interesting theory and a subset of the broken window fallacy.
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap06p1.html [steshaw.org]
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap18p1.html [steshaw.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday May 12 2018, @07:03PM
Oh, do carry on. You are SO making his point for him.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 12 2018, @05:08PM (3 children)
Regulatory capture. You know how people like to say "guns don't kill people, people do?" Well s/guns/regulations/ and s/people/businesses/. It really is that simple.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday May 12 2018, @07:34PM (2 children)
Exactly...
...
...
The question was rhetorical. But in a nutshell:
1) Phoenix666 blames free market for the housing problem, suggests government step in
2) AC points out that the government ALREADY controls every aspect of building in CA, and therefore Phoenix666's expecting government to fix it has already proven a failed course of action, but in any event, the current situation is not the Free Market's fault because there is no free market in housing, and there hasn't been such for 50 years.
The housing industry in California is not dying. Its just building what it is allowed to build.
ALL OF THAT says nothing about the requirement to start requiring solar on houses, because that does NOT increase the cost of housing over the mid term. (For California, the Average savings per year of the average solar installation is $1709.4 ($142.45 per month), Estimated time for the system to pay for itself: 12 years, 4 months). [decisiondata.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Sunday May 13 2018, @05:42AM (1 child)
I love how many people are reacting as if a $5k to $10k system was that big of a deal on a new building. As if the law didn't include an exception for really cheap (e.g. mobile) homes.
Do they realise that we could save buyers a lot of upfront cash by not mandating that houses have electricity, plumbing, HVAC, or insulation, too?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 20 2018, @03:21AM
How many times can California mandate the addition of $5 to $10k systems on houses? I bet it's a lot more than once.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday May 12 2018, @01:51PM (2 children)
Yeah, million dollar McMansions will go up to 1.4 million now. What a shame.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday May 12 2018, @05:00PM (1 child)
You don't get a McMansion for $1.4M today.
A million dollars buys just an average house is large parts of CA. The average price of houses sold in San Jose is close to $1M. Where I live, 2000 sq ft ranch-style houses cost almost $2M.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 13 2018, @02:35AM
Ahhh, the cost of having the fifth largest economy in the world, right? Everything is grossly overpriced and overvalued.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14 2018, @04:59PM
Suppose they incentivize higher density housing, perhaps by adding costs to lower density development, would that help? Like, say, require every building under 4 stories to have solar panels?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 12 2018, @07:37PM
Some parts of CA do have existing trees/forests. What's the point in putting panels on the roof of a house under a canopy of evergreens? I hope there is an exception/exemption in the law for this. Same for houses that are on the north side of another taller building.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 12 2018, @10:35PM
Mandating solar panels on roofs will likely end up with more problems than they started with. It might work well for many houses it too precise of a solution to fix any real world problem. So what is the actual problem they're trying to fix? Is there not enough electricity to go around? Are they trying to get improve an environmental image? I can see just how farcical this will end up being - a booming business is creating solar panel print for glass. They look like they're part but in reality have no benefit. A better option would be to mandate that new houses had to be energy neutral, and if some houses decide to use PV or solar hot water that's great. The solution will vary from house to house, lot to lot. But the builders/owners will generally choose a better solution to the actual problem than a blanket mandate from government.