California has become the first state to require solar panels on all new homes

[psycros]

I remember when people actually bothered to understand a bit about science before trying to sound like experts. Co2 is not, was not and never WILL be a major contributor to climate change. An increase in Co2 is a *symptom* of climate change, not a cause, and the increases we've seen since we started measuring such things are far smaller than ones that occurred repeatedly LONG before human civilization existed.

As to solar panels being required on new housing, how is it fair for a government to MANDATE that private citizens spend their own money to build tiny power plants on or near their homes? Are they going to next require every Californian install Co2 scrubbers? The infrastructure needed to make solar viable is expensive, highly toxic and almost totally non-recyclable. How does creating more hazardous industrial waste help anyone? As others have stated, there are only a handful of desert areas in the US where solar even makes sense, and except for southern CA and a small number of big southwest towns those areas are sparsely populated. Yes, solar will be a major part in our transition from fossil fuels but the technology needs to be utilized on a large scale to maximize efficiencies. It also needs to become far more eco-friendly. Putting yet another massive burden on homeowners is the wrong way to leverage solar power.

 

[ChrisH1]

Are you serious? 3kw of solar panels for $8,000US? Where are they getting the panels from, Spectrolab? You can get a 6.6kw Tier 1 system in Australia for well under $4000 and that's in Aussie dollars!

 

[xxLCxx]

...

You can get a foot print from me.

 

[Sertis]

Are you serious? 3kw of solar panels for $8,000US? Where are they getting the panels from, Spectrolab? You can get a 6.6kw Tier 1 system in Australia for well under $4000 and that's in Aussie dollars!

Unfortunately it's not too off the mark. California solar costs are mostly labor, so the hardware is cheap but paying the workers who also live in California is expensive. I added 2.5 kw of capacity this year to an existing system (no added inverter), it cost 7k. However our power rates are also higher so it balances out eventually.

 

[David K]

Huh??? They keep getting cheaper by the day. Especially wind power has still a universe of applications to come. There are small (inaudible) turbines, that can produce 1KW or more. There are huge ones, which can be placed in the sea (they don't disturb anyone as well and space is almost limitless).
Therefore, electricity is not going to become more expensive.

I think you need to compare the cost of electricity produced by coal or gas versus the electricity produced by let's say your turbine, by the kilowatt.

'Keep getting cheaper' isn't a very good line of argument. Lamborghini Aventadors keep getting cheaper. That doesn't now make them low cost compared to an old Honda Civic as a method of transport.

Electricity produced by your chosen example is massively more expensive per kilowatt than shoving a load of gas into an existing power station and burning it. There are a massive variety and number of factors here, it's a complex argument. However it's a given that building huge wind capacity isn't remotely as cheap as continuing to use or modify existing infrastructure. Otherwise governments wouldn't be sitting around still fighting for their coal industries on an economic basis, they would just be buying up wind and nothing else.

Offshore wind power as you suggested is estimated to cost MORE than coal with expensive carbon sequestration in the USA! Taking your example.

Just speaking to the cost of home PV systems here, but my parents installed solar a decade ago on their SoCal home. The system has been paid off for a little over 2 years. Their average electricity bill is about $10-30 a month, because they need to blast the AC living in the Palm Springs area where it's 120 degrees in the summer. Their bills before solar we're about $300/month with a program that averaged out the payments through the year so they weren't paying $600 payments in the summer. Anyone who is saying that solar is more expensive is wrong. It takes upfront money which isn't always easy for people to stomach, but it's cheaper in the long run. And if you're not planning on staying I'm the home to recoup the cost, the value of your home is higher with owned solar so it will more than make up for it when you decide to sell.

 

[Lounds]

In the UK this could easily be implemented, 6-12 panels doesn't add anymore than £10k to the cost of a home. Make this legislation and the cost of panels could drop further. It's a no brainer and the only reason people will be contesting it is because they have vested interests/money/stock in energy companies.

 

[xxLCxx]

In the UK this could easily be implemented, 6-12 panels doesn't add anymore than £10k to the cost of a home. Make this legislation and the cost of panels could drop further. It's a no brainer and the only reason people will be contesting it is because they have vested interests/money/stock in energy companies.

I don't mean to criticize, but when I think about the UK one thing springs into mind immediately: Wind! ;-)
There are small wind power plants which can be built really cheap. They should be able to go down to a few hundred bucks for 1KW, once China picks up production.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Anyone who is saying that solar is more expensive is wrong. It takes upfront money which isn't always easy for people to stomach, but it's cheaper in the long run.

I think the 'long run' is longer than people want to stay in their homes. And when you go to sell your house in 7-8 years you won't recoup the cost in increase market value because your home will have solar panels from 8 years ago, which by then will need upgrading. At least, we hope it will because we want solar tech to improve.

If solar is cheaper, why do they have to pass a law to force new homes to have solar panels?
From the story 'the additional cost of the solar panels is $40 per month while the electricity savings are $80 per month.' If this is actually true, there would be no opposition to this plan because the cost of owning a home would be going down. There would be no need for a law because builders would be doing this on their own to save their customers money.

Sorry to sound cynical, but I'd bet the govt used the best possible numbers to come up with their costs and savings numbers, and the actuals will be much different. If this was a good deal they wouldn't have to convince anyone.
that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. Maybe the solar power increase is worth the cost, or maybe they don't care - they just want solar. But they should at least be honest about it, not tell everyone it'll be cheap when it isn't.

There is only a single coal plant left in California. Taxing it wouldn't do anything but make power in that small area more expensive.

Fine - not coal. Tax whatever power you want people to use less of. Solar must be replacing something.

My point is - when something costs less people use more. this isn't some prediction I'm making, this is what actually happened when CA forced energy efficiency standards years back. They expected homes to use less power because they were more efficient. They didn't. What happened was people changed their habits after their bills went down and used more.
The efficiency helped people save money, not use less power.

 

[wiyosaya]

I remember when people actually bothered to understand a bit about science before trying to sound like experts. Co2 is not, was not and never WILL be a major contributor to climate change. An increase in Co2 is a *symptom* of climate change, not a cause, and the increases we've seen since we started measuring such things are far smaller than ones that occurred repeatedly LONG before human civilization existed.

I don't believe this site is still up https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange//kids/basics/today/greenhouse-gases.html What it says about CO2 differs.

 

[Gulesbaron]

Yea

Well I hate most if what Califonia does but I can get behind this. Frankly, if you're building a new home you can afford this. Same argument can be made with a new car vs a used car.

Fact of the matter is that we need to move towards different types of energy sources. I live a few miles from a coal power plant and the air quality sucks. Regardless of your opinion on goibal warming, we will run out of fossil fuels and living near coal powerplants sucks.

Well I hate most if what Califonia does but I can get behind this. Frankly, if you're building a new home you can afford this. Same argument can be made with a new car vs a used car.

Fact of the matter is that we need to move towards different types of energy sources. I live a few miles from a coal power plant and the air quality sucks. Regardless of your opinion on goibal warming, we will run out of fossil fuels and living near coal powerplants sucks.

Yeah, but requiring something does little to make it affordable. How'd that work out with Obamacare?
Say it with me "Supply and demand".
Those are principles that worked correctly for millennia and bypassing those economic laws by making a product REQUIRED (artificial demand) does nothing for the consumer except increase the cost and put home ownership further out of reach. In CA that's a disaster.
If the government owned the Sahara desert they would manage to create a shortage that made sand too expensive.
In what world can you say that you disagree with most everything CA does and still support this which is a MASSIVE intrusion into both the free market, violates basic principles of free trade and violates the consumers freedom of choice.
If you want people to buy solar panels then the market needs to do something that will make them affordable, attractive and efficient because it is a huge stretch for CA government to make the assumption that Americans just oppose green energy. That is a lie and has been for decades. What people oppose is tech that is going to cost them more money than they are willing to afford with very little tangible return.
All you have to do is look at the success of Tesla to have a clue. People LOVE the Tesla. It is cool looking (as opposed to the Volt/Prius/and most other specialized hybrids), is reasonably affordable and performs like a Ferrari.
Plain and simple, people WILL buy responsibly if they feel something is worth it. Solar has not proven that yet.

 

[yRaz]

Yea


Yeah, but requiring something does little to make it affordable. How'd that work out with Obamacare?
Say it with me "Supply and demand".
Those are principles that worked correctly for millennia and bypassing those economic laws by making a product REQUIRED (artificial demand) does nothing for the consumer except increase the cost and put home ownership further out of reach. In CA that's a disaster.
If the government owned the Sahara desert they would manage to create a shortage that made sand too expensive.
In what world can you say that you disagree with most everything CA does and still support this which is a MASSIVE intrusion into both the free market, violates basic principles of free trade and violates the consumers freedom of choice.
If you want people to buy solar panels then the market needs to do something that will make them affordable, attractive and efficient because it is a huge stretch for CA government to make the assumption that Americans just oppose green energy. That is a lie and has been for decades. What people oppose is tech that is going to cost them more money than they are willing to afford with very little tangible return.
All you have to do is look at the success of Tesla to have a clue. People LOVE the Tesla. It is cool looking (as opposed to the Volt/Prius/and most other specialized hybrids), is reasonably affordable and performs like a Ferrari.
Plain and simple, people WILL buy responsibly if they feel something is worth it. Solar has not proven that yet.

Green energy has been cheaper for the last decade, the problem is upfront investment.

And please keep in mind the free trade is bad for the economy. Yes, it makes products cheaper but there is less money to spend domestically

 

[ChrisH1]

Yea


Yeah, but requiring something does little to make it affordable. How'd that work out with Obamacare?
Say it with me "Supply and demand".
Those are principles that worked correctly for millennia and bypassing those economic laws by making a product REQUIRED (artificial demand) does nothing for the consumer except increase the cost and put home ownership further out of reach. In CA that's a disaster.
If the government owned the Sahara desert they would manage to create a shortage that made sand too expensive.
In what world can you say that you disagree with most everything CA does and still support this which is a MASSIVE intrusion into both the free market, violates basic principles of free trade and violates the consumers freedom of choice.
If you want people to buy solar panels then the market needs to do something that will make them affordable, attractive and efficient because it is a huge stretch for CA government to make the assumption that Americans just oppose green energy. That is a lie and has been for decades. What people oppose is tech that is going to cost them more money than they are willing to afford with very little tangible return.
All you have to do is look at the success of Tesla to have a clue. People LOVE the Tesla. It is cool looking (as opposed to the Volt/Prius/and most other specialized hybrids), is reasonably affordable and performs like a Ferrari.
Plain and simple, people WILL buy responsibly if they feel something is worth it. Solar has not proven that yet.

Hmmmyes, but free market also needs controls, e.g. anti-monopoly and so on. There are a lot of things about houses that are regulated. They have to be safe, connected to sewers where available or have viable alternatives where not, electricity installed by qualified personnel and so on. Supply and demand all by itself would see a lot of people settling for a shack that could fall down around their ears at any moment, unsafe services, sewer going to the creek because that's the way granpappy did it, because they can afford it. Supply would supply it, because there would be a demand. This is just one more thing.

Green can be and often is affordable. In South Australia, payback for solar installations is about 3 1/2 years - good sun, not much rain, and as I remarked elsewhere cheaper labour costs. Here you can get a Tier 1 installation, 6.6 kw, for around $3300, that's under $2,500 your money, and hardware is more expensive here. The price is the result of supply and demand here, although there is a little government incentive, a few hundred now due to vast uptake. Given you guys actually make some solar panels there, or your companies are there, it's not the cost of hardware. That is very much supply and demand driven, and is now quite reasonably low. Your costs are so high and green power so unattractive because of your labour costs. That is also driven by supply and demand.

 

[flyboydale54]

Wait until the shingles or other roofing material springs a leak and the roof has to be repaired. The roofing contractor will charge plenty to remove and reinstall these power panels. Did they figure that into the cost for the solar panel requirement?

 

[flyboydale54]

Yea

Well I hate most if what Califonia does but I can get behind this. Frankly, if you're building a new home you can afford this. Same argument can be made with a new car vs a used car.

Fact of the matter is that we need to move towards different types of energy sources. I live a few miles from a coal power plant and the air quality sucks. Regardless of your opinion on goibal warming, we will run out of fossil fuels and living near coal powerplants sucks.

Well I hate most if what Califonia does but I can get behind this. Frankly, if you're building a new home you can afford this. Same argument can be made with a new car vs a used car.

Fact of the matter is that we need to move towards different types of energy sources. I live a few miles from a coal power plant and the air quality sucks. Regardless of your opinion on goibal warming, we will run out of fossil fuels and living near coal powerplants sucks.

Yeah, but requiring something does little to make it affordable. How'd that work out with Obamacare?
Say it with me "Supply and demand".
Those are principles that worked correctly for millennia and bypassing those economic laws by making a product REQUIRED (artificial demand) does nothing for the consumer except increase the cost and put home ownership further out of reach. In CA that's a disaster.
If the government owned the Sahara desert they would manage to create a shortage that made sand too expensive.
In what world can you say that you disagree with most everything CA does and still support this which is a MASSIVE intrusion into both the free market, violates basic principles of free trade and violates the consumers freedom of choice.
If you want people to buy solar panels then the market needs to do something that will make them affordable, attractive and efficient because it is a huge stretch for CA government to make the assumption that Americans just oppose green energy. That is a lie and has been for decades. What people oppose is tech that is going to cost them more money than they are willing to afford with very little tangible return.
All you have to do is look at the success of Tesla to have a clue. People LOVE the Tesla. It is cool looking (as opposed to the Volt/Prius/and most other specialized hybrids), is reasonably affordable and performs like a Ferrari.
Plain and simple, people WILL buy responsibly if they feel something is worth it. Solar has not proven that yet.

We can buy Green Power instead of National Grid for our electricity supplier here, but it ends up costing us more per kilowatt hour, so there is no cost benefit period. Sad