7 ms·

New homes will now require solar panels in South Miami

87 points by xbmcuser 9y ago

vibrant 9y ago
What a disaster, end of American freedom. Now politicians telling you what to do or not do about your home.
- new299 9y ago
  There are a huge number of laws that apply to building a home, and have for a long long time. To single out this law, which appears to be an overwhelmingly a good idea, as the "bad" one, seem a bit nonsensical. If your against all regulation of building, then that might be a stand that you could try argue for. But to pick out this one new law seems weird.
  - loudmax 9y ago
    I'm in agreement that solar panels in south Florida are a good idea, and that to single out this law as an end of American freedom is ridiculous. But we have to admit that this isn't the best way to address the problem. The law exempts houses in the case of shade, but there are are bound to be other edge cases where solar panels don't make sense. IMHO, the ideal way to address the problem of carbon dioxide emissions would be to tax it. A hefty carbon tax combined with a flexible electric utility infrastructure would do more to reduce emissions than compelling one particular house design over another. Given that one of America's political parties has rejected the scientific evidence behind anthropogenic climate change and more or less equates taxation with theft, I don't foresee a carbon tax in the US any time soon. Compelling people to buy solar panels isn't a good law, but it might be the closest we can get in the current environment.
    - KekDemaga 9y ago
      My thoughts are it seems that you either have to pick "mandate solar panels on homes" or "build more affordable housing" as both views don't seem to work together.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  That's nothing new though, right? City councils have had guidelines for building appearance and colour schemes for I don't know how long. And anyhow, the democratic process itself led to this ordinance.
- pmarreck 9y ago
  um... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code
- shoo 9y ago
  i remember feeling outrage when i first realised just by being born in a country one is subject to the country's laws. completely non-consensual. tangentially: book recommendation: "The Wake" by Paul Kingsnorth. fictional account of life in England following the Norman invasion of 1066, written in a unique form of english. Here's the part I am reminded of - the narrator is enraged when the local official comes to his land to collect tax for the conquering foreign king: > well i wolde not gif them geld no i wolde not gif naht to this ingenga bastard for what he done. i had naht to gif after all the wars and the fyr what had cum from him and these cyngs all feohtan ofer the right to play with small folc lic sum fuccan game and this is what i telt the fuccan weosul when he cum to me for geld on another hand, now i slowly appreciate the "tragedy of the commons". oh to live in a world where nothing i did impacted anyone else, and nothing they did impacted me. how simple and independent and free we could all be. but the world is not like this, and becomes even less like this as time passes.
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
“So even if we were were going to give up one-sixth of that, it would still be 1 percent of our budget. Where is the substitute?” Well, if the Mayor himself has an electricity bill of ~$10 per month then the shortfall in city's budget could be made up by increase rates. The article doesn't address how the city thinks it will handle intermittent nature of solar power. I don't know much about Miami's electricity generation to know whether there are existing peaking plants that can cope?
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  The Wikipedia article about Florida Power and Light[1] shows 68% natural gas generation in the mix, 23% nuclear, 4% coal, and 5% purchased from other suppliers. The 68% natural gas number lends me to believe the state ought to be able to handle intermittent solar, if the poewr stations are willing / able to load follow. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Power_%26_Light#Power_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Power_%26_Light#Power_...
- usrusr 9y ago
  The intermittent nature of solar power correlates nicely with the intermittent nature of air conditioning power consumption. Miami is unlikely to run out of airconditioning demand any time soon.
  - vonmoltke 9y ago
    Not in South Florida. Air Conditioning demand is 24-hour there, and day/night temperature swings are pretty small.
    - criddell 9y ago
      That's true, but off peak hours it's easy (and cheap) to buy power from neighboring states.
CalRobert 9y ago
Neat and all, but I wonder how this affects people who barely use electricity? In San Diego in winter months my normal load was 50-70 Watts with an electric bill around $10 per month; this seems like enormous overcapacity. Negawatts are better than megawatts... That being said, I'm still very much in favor.
zappo2938 9y ago
Huge parts of Miami and Fort Lauderdale are completely underwater on a full moon. Climate change is going to be a disaster for the area with billions if not trillions of dollars worth of property underwater.
humanrebar 9y ago
I understand the desire behind this sort of regulation, but it ends up pricing working and middle class families out of homes in the long run: https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_architect_in_la_specializing_in_multifamily/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar...
- melling 9y ago
  I don’t think mandating ground parking is the same as requiring solar panels on the roof. Solar will eventually pay for itself?
  - ars 9y ago
    > Solar will eventually pay for itself In 10 to 30 years. In the meantime you have to pay the capital costs upfront, so the home will be more expensive upfront.
    - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
      I wonder how hard it would have been to have partnered with FPL so FPL puts up the capital for the panels, the resident pays their electric bill as usual, but a portion goes to pay back FPL for the panels. FPL is allowed to make, say 10% over on the panels.
    - dx034 9y ago
      The whole house will take that long to pay for itself. Any new home that pays off earlier points towards a bubble. So if you assume that it takes 30 years until the house has amortised (via rent or saved rent), why not assume the same for the solar roof?
    - graetzer 9y ago
      Can't you get solar panels essentially for free and just pay for the generated electricity? I thought that was the business model of companies like SolarCity
  - humanrebar 9y ago
sheldor 9y ago
Doesn't the aesthetic factor count at all? The panels are ugly (to say the least) and they tend to blind you when the sun is at certain angles. I'm all for efficiency and green-er energy, but I think we should find a balance between an effective solution and an aesthetically acceptable one.
- parkersweb 9y ago
  I grew up in sight of 4 coal-fired power stations - I know which of those two I find more aesthetically acceptable :)
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    I'd venture a guess that without either form of power generation the site that's suitable for windmills is going to be much more aesthetically pleasing than the place where there's four power plants.
    - r00fus 9y ago
      How'd we get to windmills? Panels don't make noise or belch local pollution, and actually reduce the heat load of the surface.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  Perhaps we can alter what people think looks beautiful so they find solar panels pretty.
  - usrusr 9y ago
    Happens automatically: a few years of seeing clean new buildings with panels and badly maintained buildings without will rewire many brains. It's the basic mechanism of fashion and design trends.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      It's like how after 20 years of jellybean cars all the OEMs slap an angry looking grill on their jellybean to prevent people from associating it with the clapped out 90s Camry the janitor drives.
spodek 9y ago
A great idea for 20 years ago. Better late than never, and a law 20 years ago would have to have been appropriate for the technology of the time, but the something of this spirit.
gravypod 9y ago
It's important to remember that if something is mandated than people can charge anything for that product/service.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  This makes no sense. There still can be competition
- CPLX 9y ago
  That is literally nonsense. Consuming food is effectively mandated by biology and there is incredible competition in the sector.
  - panzer_wyrm 9y ago
    Because we have supply glut. Not sure if this is true for solar panels. Also food does not require a load of paperwork to be able to eqt it after purchase.
  - RoyTyrell 9y ago
    > Consuming food is effectively mandated by biology and there is incredible competition in the sector. While I understand your point, I don't agree with your analogy. The reason is because yes food production has a lot of competition, however it is easier to produce and less expensive. You can grow small quantities of food at home with about a $20 investment into pots, soil, and seeds - of which that $20 can be spread over multiple years. However you can't as easily produce solar panels at home. Solar panels with the efficiency they have now has taken decades and billions of USD spent in r&d. The production itself takes multiple large buildings, expensive equipment, and many specialized people. While yes my family in Nebraska has thousands of acres to produce corn, or my family in California has hundreds of acres of pasture land for milk production, I can guaranty you that they couldn't easily and cheaply switch to solar panels. Then there's the whole aspect of installation. Not everyone in the country can install solar panels in South Miami but it's a hell of a lot easier for a farm in California to sell tomatoes to a supermarket in Ohio. I'm sure the state of FL requires some kind of license, including bonds and insurance for contractors to operate. Probably also requires at least one licensed electrician. You can't just be a CraigsList handyman today and do solar-panel installation tomorrow; at least legally and correctly.
exabrial 9y ago
Why is it ok to force someone to buy something?
- Sleeep 9y ago
  We do this all the time. If you want a car you're forced to buy a catalytic converter, it's illegal to buy a car without one and it's illegal to operate a car without one. If you want to drive on public streets you are forced to pay to register your car then on top of that you are forced to buy liability insurance. You're also forced to buy a car seat if you're driving with a small child. In many states you are forced to pay for regular safety and emissions inspections and forced to pay for any negative findings. It's also generally illegal to dump human waste in your front yard so you're forced to buy a toilet and pay to connect it to the sewage system or pay for a septic tank. And then forced to pay to maintain that septic tank. You're also forced to buy flame retardant building materials that are structurally sound and appropriate for the location you're building. Businesses generally have to pay to dispose of environmental waste properly too so that cost is bundled into many products. Why? Because nobody lives in a bubble where their actions don't have an effect on everyone else around them. We try to balance individual liberties with collective good.
- majewsky 9y ago
  Why is it ok to force someone to buy a car with seatbelts? They just make the car more expensive. Also, no one is "forced" to build a house over there.
- allengeorge 9y ago
  Without referring to this specific rule, there are times where there are societal benefits to having individuals do something so that the aggregate is better off. Examples include: requiring that drivers have car insurance, having home builders include proper sanitation and safe wiring, etc
- Kurtz79 9y ago
  No one is forcing you to build a new house in South Miami. I imagine if you would like to do so, you would need to comply with the many requirements established by the local authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code "The main purpose of building codes is to protect public health, safety and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures. " Would you be equally bothered if you were "forced" to make your house compliant with fire prevention standards ?
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
> If the house is built under existing trees, the shade may exempt it. Maybe this will stop them from simply clearing a site. We have many beautiful old trees in Florida that just get destroyed when new housing goes up. They then plant of bunch of tiny junk trees after construction. It's truly sad.
brudgers 9y ago
For context, South Miami is a small city (~12k population) in the Miami Dade Metro. It is pretty close to 100% built out. There are not large developable tracts for subdivisions. I suspect that most new homes are teardowns (and hence the 75% rule). In terms of regulation, Florida has had an energy code for new houses since the 1970's. Florida has regulated windows by orientation (i.e. solar gain) and air conditioning efficiency and insulation for decades. This is just one small local addition to an existing regulatory framework. In terms of politics, South Miami is not a libertarian paradise and Florida is not a do what you want with your land state. That's why its happening there and not in Wyoming.
Fej 9y ago
Good! We need every inch we can muster in the fight against global warming/heating. And I mean, come on, Miami is perfect for this.

87 points by xbmcuser 9y ago

vibrant 9y ago

What a disaster, end of American freedom. Now politicians telling you what to do or not do about your home.

new299 9y ago
There are a huge number of laws that apply to building a home, and have for a long long time. To single out this law, which appears to be an overwhelmingly a good idea, as the "bad" one, seem a bit nonsensical. If your against all regulation of building, then that might be a stand that you could try argue for. But to pick out this one new law seems weird.
- loudmax 9y ago
  I'm in agreement that solar panels in south Florida are a good idea, and that to single out this law as an end of American freedom is ridiculous. But we have to admit that this isn't the best way to address the problem. The law exempts houses in the case of shade, but there are are bound to be other edge cases where solar panels don't make sense. IMHO, the ideal way to address the problem of carbon dioxide emissions would be to tax it. A hefty carbon tax combined with a flexible electric utility infrastructure would do more to reduce emissions than compelling one particular house design over another. Given that one of America's political parties has rejected the scientific evidence behind anthropogenic climate change and more or less equates taxation with theft, I don't foresee a carbon tax in the US any time soon. Compelling people to buy solar panels isn't a good law, but it might be the closest we can get in the current environment.
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    My thoughts are it seems that you either have to pick "mandate solar panels on homes" or "build more affordable housing" as both views don't seem to work together.
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
That's nothing new though, right? City councils have had guidelines for building appearance and colour schemes for I don't know how long. And anyhow, the democratic process itself led to this ordinance.
pmarreck 9y ago
um... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code
shoo 9y ago
i remember feeling outrage when i first realised just by being born in a country one is subject to the country's laws. completely non-consensual. tangentially: book recommendation: "The Wake" by Paul Kingsnorth. fictional account of life in England following the Norman invasion of 1066, written in a unique form of english. Here's the part I am reminded of - the narrator is enraged when the local official comes to his land to collect tax for the conquering foreign king: > well i wolde not gif them geld no i wolde not gif naht to this ingenga bastard for what he done. i had naht to gif after all the wars and the fyr what had cum from him and these cyngs all feohtan ofer the right to play with small folc lic sum fuccan game and this is what i telt the fuccan weosul when he cum to me for geld on another hand, now i slowly appreciate the "tragedy of the commons". oh to live in a world where nothing i did impacted anyone else, and nothing they did impacted me. how simple and independent and free we could all be. but the world is not like this, and becomes even less like this as time passes.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

“So even if we were were going to give up one-sixth of that, it would still be 1 percent of our budget. Where is the substitute?” Well, if the Mayor himself has an electricity bill of ~$10 per month then the shortfall in city's budget could be made up by increase rates. The article doesn't address how the city thinks it will handle intermittent nature of solar power. I don't know much about Miami's electricity generation to know whether there are existing peaking plants that can cope?

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
The Wikipedia article about Florida Power and Light[1] shows 68% natural gas generation in the mix, 23% nuclear, 4% coal, and 5% purchased from other suppliers. The 68% natural gas number lends me to believe the state ought to be able to handle intermittent solar, if the poewr stations are willing / able to load follow. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Power_%26_Light#Power_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Power_%26_Light#Power_...
usrusr 9y ago
The intermittent nature of solar power correlates nicely with the intermittent nature of air conditioning power consumption. Miami is unlikely to run out of airconditioning demand any time soon.
- vonmoltke 9y ago
  Not in South Florida. Air Conditioning demand is 24-hour there, and day/night temperature swings are pretty small.
  - criddell 9y ago
    That's true, but off peak hours it's easy (and cheap) to buy power from neighboring states.

CalRobert 9y ago

Neat and all, but I wonder how this affects people who barely use electricity? In San Diego in winter months my normal load was 50-70 Watts with an electric bill around $10 per month; this seems like enormous overcapacity. Negawatts are better than megawatts... That being said, I'm still very much in favor.

zappo2938 9y ago

Huge parts of Miami and Fort Lauderdale are completely underwater on a full moon. Climate change is going to be a disaster for the area with billions if not trillions of dollars worth of property underwater.

humanrebar 9y ago

I understand the desire behind this sort of regulation, but it ends up pricing working and middle class families out of homes in the long run: https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_architect_in_la_specializing_in_multifamily/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar...

melling 9y ago
I don’t think mandating ground parking is the same as requiring solar panels on the roof. Solar will eventually pay for itself?
- ars 9y ago
  > Solar will eventually pay for itself In 10 to 30 years. In the meantime you have to pay the capital costs upfront, so the home will be more expensive upfront.
  - JustSomeNobody 9y ago
    I wonder how hard it would have been to have partnered with FPL so FPL puts up the capital for the panels, the resident pays their electric bill as usual, but a portion goes to pay back FPL for the panels. FPL is allowed to make, say 10% over on the panels.
  - dx034 9y ago
    The whole house will take that long to pay for itself. Any new home that pays off earlier points towards a bubble. So if you assume that it takes 30 years until the house has amortised (via rent or saved rent), why not assume the same for the solar roof?
  - graetzer 9y ago
    Can't you get solar panels essentially for free and just pay for the generated electricity? I thought that was the business model of companies like SolarCity
- humanrebar 9y ago

sheldor 9y ago

Doesn't the aesthetic factor count at all? The panels are ugly (to say the least) and they tend to blind you when the sun is at certain angles. I'm all for efficiency and green-er energy, but I think we should find a balance between an effective solution and an aesthetically acceptable one.

parkersweb 9y ago
I grew up in sight of 4 coal-fired power stations - I know which of those two I find more aesthetically acceptable :)
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  I'd venture a guess that without either form of power generation the site that's suitable for windmills is going to be much more aesthetically pleasing than the place where there's four power plants.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    How'd we get to windmills? Panels don't make noise or belch local pollution, and actually reduce the heat load of the surface.
EliRivers 9y ago
Perhaps we can alter what people think looks beautiful so they find solar panels pretty.
- usrusr 9y ago
  Happens automatically: a few years of seeing clean new buildings with panels and badly maintained buildings without will rewire many brains. It's the basic mechanism of fashion and design trends.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    It's like how after 20 years of jellybean cars all the OEMs slap an angry looking grill on their jellybean to prevent people from associating it with the clapped out 90s Camry the janitor drives.

spodek 9y ago

A great idea for 20 years ago. Better late than never, and a law 20 years ago would have to have been appropriate for the technology of the time, but the something of this spirit.

gravypod 9y ago

It's important to remember that if something is mandated than people can charge anything for that product/service.

maxxxxx 9y ago
This makes no sense. There still can be competition
CPLX 9y ago
That is literally nonsense. Consuming food is effectively mandated by biology and there is incredible competition in the sector.
- panzer_wyrm 9y ago
  Because we have supply glut. Not sure if this is true for solar panels. Also food does not require a load of paperwork to be able to eqt it after purchase.
- RoyTyrell 9y ago
  > Consuming food is effectively mandated by biology and there is incredible competition in the sector. While I understand your point, I don't agree with your analogy. The reason is because yes food production has a lot of competition, however it is easier to produce and less expensive. You can grow small quantities of food at home with about a $20 investment into pots, soil, and seeds - of which that $20 can be spread over multiple years. However you can't as easily produce solar panels at home. Solar panels with the efficiency they have now has taken decades and billions of USD spent in r&d. The production itself takes multiple large buildings, expensive equipment, and many specialized people. While yes my family in Nebraska has thousands of acres to produce corn, or my family in California has hundreds of acres of pasture land for milk production, I can guaranty you that they couldn't easily and cheaply switch to solar panels. Then there's the whole aspect of installation. Not everyone in the country can install solar panels in South Miami but it's a hell of a lot easier for a farm in California to sell tomatoes to a supermarket in Ohio. I'm sure the state of FL requires some kind of license, including bonds and insurance for contractors to operate. Probably also requires at least one licensed electrician. You can't just be a CraigsList handyman today and do solar-panel installation tomorrow; at least legally and correctly.

exabrial 9y ago

Why is it ok to force someone to buy something?

Sleeep 9y ago
We do this all the time. If you want a car you're forced to buy a catalytic converter, it's illegal to buy a car without one and it's illegal to operate a car without one. If you want to drive on public streets you are forced to pay to register your car then on top of that you are forced to buy liability insurance. You're also forced to buy a car seat if you're driving with a small child. In many states you are forced to pay for regular safety and emissions inspections and forced to pay for any negative findings. It's also generally illegal to dump human waste in your front yard so you're forced to buy a toilet and pay to connect it to the sewage system or pay for a septic tank. And then forced to pay to maintain that septic tank. You're also forced to buy flame retardant building materials that are structurally sound and appropriate for the location you're building. Businesses generally have to pay to dispose of environmental waste properly too so that cost is bundled into many products. Why? Because nobody lives in a bubble where their actions don't have an effect on everyone else around them. We try to balance individual liberties with collective good.
majewsky 9y ago
Why is it ok to force someone to buy a car with seatbelts? They just make the car more expensive. Also, no one is "forced" to build a house over there.
allengeorge 9y ago
Without referring to this specific rule, there are times where there are societal benefits to having individuals do something so that the aggregate is better off. Examples include: requiring that drivers have car insurance, having home builders include proper sanitation and safe wiring, etc
Kurtz79 9y ago
No one is forcing you to build a new house in South Miami. I imagine if you would like to do so, you would need to comply with the many requirements established by the local authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code "The main purpose of building codes is to protect public health, safety and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures. " Would you be equally bothered if you were "forced" to make your house compliant with fire prevention standards ?

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

> If the house is built under existing trees, the shade may exempt it. Maybe this will stop them from simply clearing a site. We have many beautiful old trees in Florida that just get destroyed when new housing goes up. They then plant of bunch of tiny junk trees after construction. It's truly sad.

brudgers 9y ago

For context, South Miami is a small city (~12k population) in the Miami Dade Metro. It is pretty close to 100% built out. There are not large developable tracts for subdivisions. I suspect that most new homes are teardowns (and hence the 75% rule). In terms of regulation, Florida has had an energy code for new houses since the 1970's. Florida has regulated windows by orientation (i.e. solar gain) and air conditioning efficiency and insulation for decades. This is just one small local addition to an existing regulatory framework. In terms of politics, South Miami is not a libertarian paradise and Florida is not a do what you want with your land state. That's why its happening there and not in Wyoming.

Fej 9y ago

Good! We need every inch we can muster in the fight against global warming/heating. And I mean, come on, Miami is perfect for this.