California To Become First US State Mandating Solar On New Homes (ocregister.com) 305
OCRegister reports that "The California Energy Commission is scheduled to vote Wednesday, May 9, on new energy standards mandating most new homes have solar panels starting in 2020." From the report: Just 15 percent to 20 percent of new single-family homes built include solar, according to Bob Raymer, technical director for the California Building Industry Association. The proposed new rules would deviate slightly from another much-heralded objective: Requiring all new homes be "net-zero," meaning they would produce enough solar power to offset all electricity and natural gas consumed over the course of a year. New thinking has made that goal obsolete, state officials say. True "zero-net-energy" homes still rely on the electric power grid at night, they explained, a time when more generating plants come online using fossil fuels to generate power. In addition to widespread adoption of solar power, the new provisions include a push to increase battery storage and increase reliance on electricity over natural gas.
Okay (Score:5, Informative)
You know Califorinia's more than just SF (Score:2)
Was California first with flush toilets too? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just imagine how mind-blowing it must have been when some municipality dictated that all home built after a certain date MUST have flush toilets. "Oh, come on, the outhouse idea has been working for a long time. Why change it? Now I need to reserve space in the home and put in plumbing. Home prices are going to skyrocket so only the rich can afford it."
Re: (Score:2)
Home prices are going to skyrocket so only the rich can afford it.
Nothing is quite as expensive as living in a cheap house.
YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally! This is the direction we need to move all newly constructed homes. We could power almost every home off of isolated power systems (solar+battery) if we only made the effort. It doesn't solve all our energy needs but if you are looking for a silver bullet then you aren't really looking for a solution.
TCO will go down (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"But that $25,000 to $30,000 will result in $50,000 to $60,000 in the ownerâ(TM)s reduced operating costs over the 25-year life of the homeâ(TM)s solar system, Herro said." So the proposed legislation will make homes more efficient, and cost less to own in the long term. Let's see how the fossil fuel lobby try to twist this.
My guess they would resort to basic math.
PG&E claims to have amongst the lowest energy bills in the nation.
http://www.pgecurrents.com/201... [pgecurrents.com]
50 to 60k is twice my 25 year total energy bill at current rates and we normally have several days around 0F during the winter up north east close to the 49th parallel. More than half of our total yearly costs go to heating in winter months.
Assume PG&E isn't full of total shit (which it is) then the average monthly bill for PG&E customers is $127.11.
That's
Re: (Score:2)
My current bill is about $2k/year but that has doubled in the last ten years, and we know nothing ever gets cheaper.
I cited a source offering data on average utility costs from largest power utility in CA.
You are offering antidotes about your situation and hand waving the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Anecdotes? Or is there a poison involved in this discussion I missed?
Re: (Score:2)
Invalid comparison. The $30k is an upfront cost, and needs to have interest and maintenance and insurance added to make the comparison valid.
Re: (Score:2)
"Maintenance? You do know how solid state technology works right? "
Well, you do have to wash them periodically - about once a year. That takes a hose, a long-handled brush, and about 1 hour of effort.
Perhaps the parent poster was talking about....deep breath....paying for someone else to do it. Sheesh. If you're afraid to walk on your roof to wash your PV, perhaps you should just avoid it altogether - go live in an apartment.
Has anyone mentioned the reduced airconditioning costs from having part of your roo
Fossil Fuel lobby will lose out to power lobby (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Wishful thinking much ?
" 1st, the cost of electricity does not go up over that 20 years, "
Just what effect is forcing people to buy solar going to have for those that aren't using it ??
Right now if I were in California and not using solar, I would be hell yeah get those idiots to lower my bills by reducing demand while I enjoy my gas range and gas heated pool.
Re: (Score:2)
"Solar PV Cells degrade over time expected life 20 years"
Yes, they do. In fact I've just replaced some - they weren't top-quality to begin with, but they'd been there since about 1991 (previous owner), so I'm not complaining. The rest of the array are high-quality items, warranted for 80% of their rated output for 25 years. In the 22 years I've lived in a (mostly) solar-powered house, the price of quality PV has dropped to about 1/3 of that when I started - so it's cheaper to replace when it does lose its e
Nope. (Score:2)
Some HOAs will demand that you only install/replace roofs with cedar shake. Can't use tile, metal or asphalt. Because "Muh aesthetics!" And in spite of houses burning down right and left because embers land on flammable roofs, not one fucking politician has ever overruled an HOA. So just move into a neighborhood that prohibits solar for similar reasons.
Re: Nope. (Score:3)
Itâ(TM)s been illegal to install shake roofs in CA for over twenty years due to the fire hazard.
Unintended Consequences? Higher Home Costs (Score:2)
This could have unintended consequences such as jacking up the cost of new homes. That will hurt the poor.
Or perhaps that was intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Because California home prices (Score:2)
...aren't quite high enough yet.
I wish they mandated ethernet wiring and port (Score:2)
for each room. please.
We need nuclear (Score:2)
Home owners associations (Score:2)
I guess this better need legislation preventing home owner associations forbidding people from installing panels on their homes because it "spoils" the look of the neighborhood.
I have heard this is pretty common in the states. These associations putting random restrictions on what a person can do with his own home. Luckily, this isnt something that ever caught on in Europe. It would be illegal in most EU countries anyhow.
Bitboin (Score:2)
Tell me again about facism? Socialism? (Score:2)
I'm just wondering. For a country that always prided itself on personal freedoms, capitalism, and democracy, it would seem like there's a lot of new laws forcing people to do things in certain ways.
Hmmm .... a way to deal with neighbors (Score:2)
.... that don't want "ugly" solar arrays polluting the esthetics of their pristine neighborhoods...
"The GOVERNMENT made me do it!"
Mandate clothes lines (Score:2)
Why not just mandate clotheslines for all homes in California?
Add to that, whole house fans.
The major electricity users in my California home is the electric clothes dryer and the air conditioning system.
Both of these are a lot cheaper than solar electric systems and will provide significant electricity savings.
Stupid government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries are poison.
That's a very generic statement. Which one are you worried about poisoning you?
Re: (Score:2)
'Batteries are poison'
A bit over-simplistic, they are fine if not eaten. They should be recycled, the materials are rare enough that it makes financial sense to recycle them. In many cities space is at a premium and batteries will likely be the smallest option.
I'm not against flywheels, condensed gas storage etc but these technologies are still in their infancy and need investment. Batteries work now and the technology is improving rapidly
Re: (Score:2)
#NotAllBatteries
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm serious question (and I'm about to go on a google adventure) but if you can put a flywheel in a car why would earthquakes be an issue? I mean that in the context that the vibration and acceleration involved in an automotive application (especially in F1 and Le Mans) would seem to be mostly solved science. No? I'd think some relatively basic damping, maybe even active damping like used in skyscrapers if you're talking about critical storage like hospitals etc; otherwise a home based system could just us
Re: (Score:2)
People who know more about the subject have already thought about this [...] We don't have to work it out here, smarter people than us are already working on solutions
You're like the evil twin of a mansplainer; condenscending and submissive at the same time, it's truly fascinating.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll assume you're an aspie who needs things to be spelled out, and not a moron.
There are plenty of things out there that we all use on a regular basis and that are harmful. The fact that they exist does not mean we have to settle for status quo.
Batteries are currently the mainstream energy storage technology but they come with environmental issues, so as we strive to find eco-friendly energy solutions (like solar) it's a good idea to also think about ways of storing power that are less damaging for the env
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.seattletimes.com/b... [seattletimes.com]
It's common for bidding wars to drive prices 10's of thousands over asking price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The market continues to be red hot despite increasing interest rates.
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/... [geekwire.com]
If phucking phantastic news to those of us who already own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$400 billion is $10,000 per person per year. At current bond rates, service cost is under $400 per person per year. Not a big deal, especially since some of the debt is actually held by CA residents (directly or indirectly).
But yeah, if money weren't funneled away from CA to support less solvent states (by way of DC), CA would be in even better shape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Debt is because of ballots full of bond measures that are never required to explain how anyone will ever pay for them. People will always vote for bonds and those same people will always vote against taxes. That's direct democracy for you. But the state budget is running a surplus and filling the rainy day fund, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Homes in California are already only for the r (Score:5, Informative)
I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
Nobody claimed they were free but dude, solar panels are cheap as hell now. I mean, have you even looked at the price per watt in recent years? [netdna-ssl.com]
Re: Homes in California are already only for the r (Score:5, Insightful)
I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
Nobody claimed they were free but dude, solar panels are cheap as hell now. I mean, have you even looked at the price per watt in recent years? [netdna-ssl.com]
The cost of the solar panels themselves is only part of the issue--the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account, as well as the simple fact that California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing. They shouldn't be adding to the problem for anything not required for safety or basic habitability.
If they want something like this, it'd be better to offer money up front for new houses to have solar panels on the roof than flat-out assume anybody wanting to own a house or build their own has money to burn.
Re: (Score:3)
There is plenty of standards that go beyond habitability - there are rules about power, water, heating, even storage space.
Heck, in my neighborhood there are rules about requiring fencing, a minimum number and maximum height of screening plans, the paint color, the current state of your shingles, there are rules about car washing, parking large vehicles and so on and so forth.
If there was a rule about solar power it would be just an additional item on the list of things one has to do to build and own a prop
Re: Homes in California are already only for the r (Score:4, Interesting)
There is plenty of standards that go beyond habitability - there are rules about power, water, heating, even storage space.
Heck, in my neighborhood there are rules about requiring fencing, a minimum number and maximum height of screening plans, the paint color, the current state of your shingles, there are rules about car washing, parking large vehicles and so on and so forth.
If there was a rule about solar power it would be just an additional item on the list of things one has to do to build and own a property.
The difference is, if you don't like the rules of an HOA, you can go find a different neighborhood. If your job is in California, you can't just go find a different state.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure you can... you can move to one of the republican paradises like Kansas, Wyoming, or Oklahoma where low regulation and and taxes have produced places where everyone wants to live.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure you can... you can move to one of the republican paradises like Kansas, Wyoming, or Oklahoma where low regulation and and taxes have produced places where everyone wants to live.
The trendy thing for Californians to do these days is move to Phoenix and drive up our housing prices. It's so rare these days to find another person besides myself who is actually from this area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Homes in California are already only for the (Score:2)
One of the nice things about living in the midwest is that you don't have to live in a congested urban shithole.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Homes in California are already only for the (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Homes in California are already only for the (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, solar panels are light and easily put on roofs that weren't designed to 'handle the weight.'
Agreed. In addition, about half the cost of rooftop solar is the installation, which should be significantly cheaper if it is done as part of the construction.
Also, the cost issue is bogus. The FHA is offering 3% down mortgages to first time buyers, at less than 6% APR, and the cost of solar can be part of the mortgage. Since solar in California (where power costs are high, and sunshine is plentiful) has an ROI of about 8%, this means the house with solar has LOWER monthly payments than the same house without.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as if Americans weren't into enough debt already...
America over consumes and under invests. Going into debt at 6% to invest at 8% is very sensible, especially since that 6% is tax deductible for most low and middle income homeowners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is California's revenge on the energy companies for the Enron crisis when the state was forced into expensive long-term energy contracts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Enron wouldn't have been a thing at all if...
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand what actually happened. [wikipedia.org] You should watch Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room [wikipedia.org] which is on Netflix.
Re: (Score:3)
but thanks for playing the information game. [wikipedia.org]
Enron could only do what it did because California thought it was better than the free market at setting energy prices. The ensuing arbitrage across State lines was PREDICTABLE, the politicians of California were WARNED IT WOULD HAPPEN, but they thought their good intentions would beat market forces... again.
You Californians ar
Re: Homes in California are already only for the r (Score:5, Insightful)
the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account,
It has been taken into account. No additional changes to regulations to support the weight of solar panels. I guess you don't know about fire codes but your roof has to be able to support a fully geared up firefighter.
California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing.
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
They shouldn't be adding to the problem for anything not required for safety or basic habitability.
This is required for the basic habitability of our planet.
Congratulations on failing to make a competent argument!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
Why do you suppose that is? Is there not enough room for housing in California? What makes California so different from other states that housing is so expensive?
The reality is scarce availability is a direct result of out of control NIBYism implemented by those with power over the states regulatory regime. This solar thing is just one more drop in California's massive over-regulation bucket that is hurting real people in order to protect those with money/power by erecting even more barriers.
One need onl
Re: (Score:2)
Yes- there isn't enough room. The problem isn't that there's no affordable housing int he state- go out to central valley or Bakersfield. The problem is that there's no affordable housing in San Francisco (LA and San Diego to a lesser extent) because there's no more land to build on and they won't allow them to build up to higher density.
Re: (Score:3)
California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing.
And that literally has nothing to do with the cost of the houses themselves but rather their scarce availability.
Not so. California's housing prices are a huge part of their affordable housing problem. In the booming tech cities, housing prices have gone up so much that minimum wage workers can't afford to live in the city they work in.
Here’s how many minimum-wage hours it takes to afford a two-bed in SF [curbed.com]
Low-wage jobs are plentiful in S.F., but where can you live? [sfchronicle.com]
I tried living on an $8 per hour salary in San Francisco and it was a disaster [businessinsider.com]
This is required for the basic habitability of our planet.
You are dismissing an entirely valid line of thinking. In this specific
Re: (Score:2)
California's housing prices are a huge part of their affordable housing problem. In the booming tech cities, housing prices have gone up so much that minimum wage workers can't afford to live in the city they work in.
It's called price and demand. High demand with limited availability results in scarcity which drives up the price. This isn't rocket science.
There's many ways to do that other than solar panels. Maybe someone wants to use a geothermal energy system, or a wind turbine.
But neither of those are for housing and would imply they must be subsidized in some manner to displace existing energy producers. This is an inexpensive way to ensure the proliferation of renewable energy. Also, geothermal by a fault line? A bold move for sure!
Often times regulations that tell people *how* to solve the problem are really corporations trying to use the regulations to steer people toward their products. Like requiring a particular safety valve, that only one company has a patent on.
Nobody is requiring any special patented solar panels, just solar panels. Considering most solar cells
Re: (Score:2)
your statements are correct but seem to be assuming that by "cost of the house" he means "price of the house", where I would expect he means "cost of construction"... the majority of the price of a building in the bay area is the land. The structure on top of the land is just gravy.
Re: (Score:2)
"the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels also has to be taken into account,"
If your roof can't handle the additional weight of (for example) 3KW of PV, then I agree you've got more important things to worry about.
Honestly, that's such a stupid argument.
Re: (Score:2)
the cost of building a roof capable of supporting the weight of solar panels
I have never seen a roof in a developed world that needed to be reinforced to support the weight of the small number of panels we are talking about. Such a roof would not be safe to step on.
as well as the simple fact that California has areas with serious problems with affordable housing
One of the great things that keep the poor poor is that we put them in housing so cheap that it becomes expensive to run. Poor insulation, poor quality windows, lack of solar panels, expensive to run hot water systems, cheap flooring that scratches and breaks when you look at it funny.
There is nothing quite as expensive
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The affordable housing problem has fuck all to do with what it actually costs to build a house, and everything to do with investors from all over the world buying up California real estate.
Re: (Score:2)
arguably, with that affordable housing thing, if you're looking to buy/build you do have money to burn :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, just as soon as fossil fuel companies have to clean up the pollution they are producing... and we cut the subsidies that they get too.
Re: Homes in California are already only for the (Score:2)
Re: Homes in California are already only for the r (Score:5, Informative)
Toilets aren't free, but they require every home have one of those, too (except in West Virginia, I think). In Texas, the state mandates that every house have heat, and furnaces aren't free.
You're not happy about solar energy. We all get that. But don't act like renewable energy is some kind of pie-in-the-sky myth. It just makes you look ridiculous. We've passed the point where solar panels now pay for themselves. Having one on a house actually brings down the cost of home ownership over time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking a credit system would address the desire much more economically.
Re: Homes in California are already only for the r (Score:4, Informative)
From the article:
- Exceptions or alternatives will be allowed when homes are shaded by trees or buildings or when the home's roofs are too small to accommodate solar panels
...
- Builders installing batteries like the Tesla Powerwall would get "compliance credits," allowing them to further reduce the size of the solar system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Homes in California are already only for the r (Score:4)
It can, indirectly. For example, if it obviates a need for burning carbon for heat, which differs from your water example, only because it's atmospheric.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they might as well be compared to solar systems.
I love the idea of having my own electrical production and think it's a good idea but all good ideas shouldn't carry the force of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Building standards prevent builders from installing electric sockets behind kitchen sinks or in stairwells, ensuring that staircases have adequate foot depth and maximum step height, balcony walls are a sensible height and there are railings at any steep change in height, or there aren't holes between stairwells and floor levels (a modern flat with minimalist staircase had 6 inch gaps between the last step and the mezzanine level). When there aren't these codes, accidents happen.
Sometimes it does get carrie
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
First, people should do THEIR do diligence. Second, most houses have these things called walls that cover up wiring, plumbing, and ductwork and that generally prevent inspectors from seeing potential problems.
Building permits and inspections generally mean that you can expect your house to not fall down or burn up, killing you and your family in the process.
Without them, the consumer is totally at the mercy of shoddy builders, contractors, and nitwit DIY'ers who have no compunction whatsoever about running,
Re: Homes in California are already only for the (Score:4)
Building standards are created by the rich elite to ensure that only the companies they own and control can build houses.
Are you too stupid to read a regulation or too weak to lift a 2x4? Or why not both.
Building a house to code isn't hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you folk in the USofA get special training in this heavily-partisan "attack mode" version of discourse?
The whole state is insane? Because they choose something that you don't like? How does it affect you? Do you live in California? Do you work for a fossil-fuel electricity generator company? Or perhaps yours is a job peripheral to that, such that PV uptake threatens your future. Tell us, please.
While you're at it, tell us if the air quality in Ca generally is better now than, say the 1960s and 70s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free.
I didn't realise economics was a religion. I suppose you haven't read The Book of Smith 24:10 "Things that have a short payback period and then save you money effectively are free."
Re: Great idea (Score:2, Insightful)
California doesn't have an affordable housing problem. San Francisco does. Los Angeles does.
A quick Zillow shows tons of houses in the same price range as my midwestern house. Check Sacramento or Fresno.
Yes, Silicon Valley costs a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because people don't like being told what to do, particularly when they live in a country where such things are designed to be nearly impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, where does the $25K figure come from?
3KW of PV, installed, with inverter and other electronics wouldn't cost more than AUD$10K here.
Re: (Score:2)
Given any thought to solar hot water instead of solar PV? Cost effective. Proven technology. When my parents installed it near San Diego 50 years ago, the only permit problem they had was that the 100 gallon or so water tank had to be anchored to the house -- apparently to make sure that the tank destroyed the (quite flimsy) structure in the event of an earthquake strong enough to move the tank.
Wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That issue is long solved. In fact, it's mandatory for grid-feed systems here in Oz to disconnect when the grid goes down.