California now mandates all new homes come with solar paneling

[Cope]

Fake News.

It's comparing outdated data to new information. Check the IMF's GDP statistics.

[NorseThing]

well, it seems higher housing costs are already a given, solar or not. maybe they need to tackle the reason for that, instead of focusing on a new factor that brings an increase of only 10k?

i wonder why republicans are so focused on something that fits their agenda, instead of the things that are really broken.

https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/05/03...ts-are-so-hig/


lastly, housing is a basic need. making basic needs about profit exclusively never yields good results, just look at britain, where you can actually see the difference over time.

Your link is part of the reason for higher costs in all cities. The problem in not Prop 13 though, since my local 'burb of Aurora Colorado has the same problems without the California meddling regulations. I think part is changing technology and part is a stronger desire to live closer to city centers as costs for transportation seems like a 1970's home mortgage - a second car versus more expensive housing. By the way -- I agree more than I disagree with all but the last part.

The problem with housing in California is a mix of NIMBY's and corporations blocking the expansion of suburbs so they can use it for industrial ranching (or free range ranching, which contrary to popular belief generates more emissions than industrial ranching).

People don't realize that Jerry Brown is an Oil Mogul and most of the Cali government is controlled by corporations who 1. don't want a middle class and 2. don't want to see actual progress in clean energy.

Cali already over-generates from Solar, to the point where they have to pay Nevada and other nearby states to take their excess power or else fry the grid.

Hmmm? How does solar mean that there is excess power that must be exported? Commercial large scale power production is scalable and last I looked there is even an off switch. If turning power production off is looking like a problem, perhaps the rates are too low to allow more off time for the capital intensive plants.

My take is disagreement is different here. The 10K$ cost would be reimbursed in the short term. Like in 5-6 years. It is a smart investment.
What makes me a hesitant and uneasy is that the state demands this. That's too much state interference in private citizens life.
From what I have gathered, California regulates too much of a person's life.

The power that residential houses consume is meagre compared to what giant well-lit business buildings or industry consumes. The greenhouse emissions could be reduced more significantly on that front. Cars, trains and again industry is another contributor to green-house gas; it is not a "it comes from powerplants only".

I am not saying solar panels on homes would be a bad move. It would benefit the environment and it would benefit the person that stays there. What I say is that if the treehuggers the politicians of California are so solar-happy, they could push for programs to educate the public. Telling them "For a mere cost of 10K$ for solar, you will save 50% on your power bill and will make back your money within 5 years! It is an investment, not an expense!" over and over. Have the Solar-panel companies pay for ads. Have Townhall meetings where they tell the people about the benefits.
That kind of thing. Not forcing anyone to do it.


What if my house is next to big building on one side and I have a hill on the other side? Solar panels would be nearly useless to me. What if I have small bungalows for tourists under big trees? Again, solar panels would be sub-optimal.
But still, even if those were not possibilities, even if going solar would save me 10K$ per year... Why the state has to force me to do it? Tell me how good you think it is, and I am not an idiot, I can decide for myself.

Agreed -- that was why I started the thread. I think there is a divide between the California Democrat thinking and even the thinking of other Democrats and it comes down to whether regulation is justified simply because of a desire for good decision making not being left to the people.

[Basil II the B.S]

Most states have construction regulations about safety and limiting the pollution of the environment anyway, under that aspect it's nothing new. It's just California bringing it to a significantly more expensive level.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It would benefit the environment

Actually no, not really. The impact of Solar power is massive, people don't realize the huge amounts of heavy metal mining and toxic waste solar panels generate (300 times more than nuclear power, about 1/4 of the waste of coal not counting gaseous emissions). That is coupled with the severe lack of maintenance that comes with civilian ownership of the panels, which causes problems with grid inefficiencies and the like.

Decentralized grids are in theory a good idea, in practice a nightmare.

Solar panels do protect consumers, so they should be available, but they shouldn't be mandated or subsidized. Subsidized residential solar just takes tax money from the lower classes and puts it on rich peoples' houses.

[swabian]

Any scientific data to link to with regard to the environmental toxicity of solar power?

[NorseThing]

Any scientific data to link to with regard to the environmental toxicity of solar power?

The problem with most products and clearly this is a problem with solar panels -- the production side and also the disposal upon end of life use of the panels side are filled with problems regarding waste disposal. Not quite certain it rises to level of being especially different from other products though. A recent editorial: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...-clean-energy/ takes the negative side of the issue. I think a middle of the road response is probably best though as express in post #24.

[swabian]

The problem with most products and clearly this is a problem with solar panels -- the production side and also the disposal upon end of life use of the panels side are filled with problems regarding waste disposal. Not quite certain it rises to level of being especially different from other products though. A recent editorial: https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...-clean-energy/ takes the negative side of the issue. I think a middle of the road response is probably best though as express in post #24.

Where is the evidence that the usage of solar power means even more pollution.

Don't get me wrong. I don't share the delusion that the nation of Germany can become fully non-nuclearly powered by the year of 2025, 2030 or whatever crazy date those idiots promise. IF it would be possible, though, i would be all for it, provided there is at least one nuclear reactor left for research purposes in Germany.

[NorseThing]

I think we are on the same page and do not know it. I did not state that the solar panel are creating more pollution. However, all such panels do contribute to some pollution but different types than a carbon based power supply. The idea of the solar panel bypassing the carbon chain to provide power is attractive. So is nuclear. So is the Hoover dam and other related water power. So I think variety is better than any mythical search for a perfect single solution. So any market driven solutions that minimize externalities get my support. The problem with the California mandating the panels is that it is no longer a market driven solution. When California legislates to minimize externalities, they should be applauded. When they mandate beyond that, they are open to be criticism.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

American Chemical Society on the difficulties of renewable waste and recycling it: https://cen.acs.org/energy/renewable...01585ecd0aee74

Solar Panels currently just get dumped into massive electronics waste dumps in Bangladesh and elsewhere, where Cadmium and lead from Solder leech into the environment with the rest of the electronics waste. But burning them is the real issue, since that takes relatively harmless materials like Silicon and makes carcinogenic compounds out of them as factories try to extract the copper and silver out of the panels.

Hmmm? How does solar mean that there is excess power that must be exported?

California's Solar peaks at a point where they generate like 14 Gigawatts more than the state uses at that time of day (Solar generates at points of lowest demand in the midday). Even ramping all the natural gas and coal plants down means you have 14 GW of excess power that has to go somewhere. It mostly ends up being sent to Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Baja, and other surrounding states. California has to pay them to take the excess electricity.

[NorseThing]

California's Solar peaks at a point where they generate like 14 Gigawatts more than the state uses at that time of day (Solar generates at points of lowest demand in the midday). Even ramping all the natural gas and coal plants down means you have 14 GW of excess power that has to go somewhere. It mostly ends up being sent to Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Baja, and other surrounding states. California has to pay them to take the excess electricity.

I am not an engineer, so maybe that is my problem, but it still makes no sense to me that there is not such thing as an off switch to this over capacity problem. I understand the public utilities have contractual obligations to take in the power generated by the mom and pops, but that simply means paying for the power and that does not obligate them to actually take in the power and then dump it on the open market. Did they ever notice that the government pays farmers not to grow stuff?

[HannibalExMachina]

I am not an engineer, so maybe that is my problem, but it still makes no sense to me that there is not such thing as an off switch to this over capacity problem. I understand the public utilities have contractual obligations to take in the power generated by the mom and pops, but that simply means paying for the power and that does not obligate them to actually take in the power and then dump it on the open market. Did they ever notice that the government pays farmers not to grow stuff?

not an engineer either, but as i understand it, a big problem with energy is storage. energy, once generated, has to go somewhere. sure, you can switch off some stuff (though with solar, can you simply? can you simply bake your cells in the sun?). batteries have max capacities, and more storage needs more batteries.

if you can switch off, youd indeed have to subsidize, and that means paying money for nothing, ultimately. not so easy to switch of big nuclear or fossil plants, so they will always get priority. a highly centralized power grid is inherently inflexible. maybe thats a luxury problem, but if one goes with the nuclear enthusiast idea of simply replacing all fossil with nuclear, what do you do if you create too much power at any given time?

i guess we need some more info

@guy who defeated the huns, some help?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

(though with solar, can you simply? can you simply bake your cells in the sun?)

Yes, but it's uneconomic, unlike shutting down gas (well... actually gas doesn't shut down, they keep the plant running to start generating again when Solar/Wind tapers off).

Also I think it's 4 GW, not 14 GW excess. Sorry. I'll double-check that. But the fact of the matter is that grids typically can't handle more than about 10% solar and wind. Solar deployment tapers off usually around 10% as a result. Cali has cancelled new utility scale solar installations because of this, and that's sorta-kinda part of what the residential mandate is in response to.

[HannibalExMachina]

thanks. as for the inflexibility of centralized grids, what exactly makes decentralization a nightmare? if you can produce energy, isnt it wastful if your grid cant handle it? especially if you want to get rid of emissions.

the waste of solar panels is a problem, but right now, recycling nuclear waste seems to be something that is never handled as well as it should be. like, i see a lot of data that suggests we can reduce that stuff to extremly small quantities, if we only had the right reactors.