6 ms·
Saw this in my rss this morning: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/rooftop-solar-expensive-inefficient.html https://marginalrevolution.
by koube 8y ago
Saw this in my rss this morning:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/rooftop-solar-expensive-inefficient.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/ro...
>I just became aware in the last few days of the proposal in the new building energy efficiency standards rule making to mandate rooftop solar on all new residential buildings. I want to urge you not to adopt the standard. I, along with the vast majority of energy economist, believe that residential rooftop solar is a much more expensive way to move towards renewable energy than larger solar and wind installations. The savings calculated for the households are based on residential electricity rates that are far above the actual cost of providing incremental energy, so embody a large cross subsidy from other ratepayers. This would be a very expensive way to expand renewables and would not be a cost-effective practice that other states and countries could adopt to reduce their own greenhouse gas footprints.
>I agree and would add that allowing more building near transit and other hubs as with California’s rejected SB827 would not only lower housing prices, rather than raise them as with this proposal, it would also be a much better way of reducing carbon emissions and saving energy.
- rwbt 8y agoEven though rooftop solar might not be the most economical solution to reduce greenhouse gas footprints, I would argue it's very effective. The costs are directly baked into the real estate mortgage and requires zero changes with regards to zoning and planning. In an ideal world SB827 makes sense, but it was rejected. So I'm glad CA is trying something more pragmatic instead of waiting for a 'perfect' solution. Even if something similar to SB827 is passed in the future - worse case, we'll end up a bunch of rooftop solar installations. That's not so terrible.
- trimbo 8y agoWon't this new law actually disincentivize more affordable housing?
- Analemma_ 8y agoMy cynical side would say that the California housing market is already so completely fucked, with only millionaires and Chinese expats able to buy new houses, that if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) one might as well do this to get something useful from the situation. It's like a tax on the 1% that funds renewable energy programs. I'd rather have cheap housing, but if the NIMBY's are going to have their way, I can at least extract more money from them for useful purposes.
- slededit 8y agoCalifornia is not just LA and San Francisco. People wonder why rural voters vote differently.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 15155 8y agoImagine if "winner takes all" weren't the strategy used to elect officials.
- nv-vn 8y agoDeath by a million paper cuts
- dragonwriter 8y ago> if there's no chance of getting it fixed (and with SB827 dead, that seems to be the case) The actual dynamics of the SB827 defeat don't really clearly support that. There is certainly an opportunity for a YIMBY/PHIMBY convergence on density policy.
- NickM 8y agoIf the cost of the PV is now baked into the mortgage, then depending on payback periods, interest rates, etc., the reductions in utility costs may meet or exceed the increase in your typical monthly home payment. This could effectively make housing more affordable via lower electrical bills. Without knowing the numbers, I'm really just speculating, though; my point is just that it's not a given that this will increase everyone's cost of living.
- jvm 8y ago> Even though rooftop solar might not be the most economical solution to reduce greenhouse gas footprints, I would argue it's very effective. Inefficient and expensive systems can do harm, regardless of the good intention behind this law. Rooftop solar has substantial embedded carbon and impacts on the grid that could easily outweigh the small benefits. We need a solution that provides the right incentives to use it when it makes sense, and not use it when it doesn't make sense, rather than a hamfisted blanket mandate.
- dv_dt 8y agoThere is more than straight out energy efficiency. Nuclear power plants are very energy efficient, but because of their needed financial structure, end up not being very cost effective. Decentralized financing for energy is nice, it improves individual independence and freedom.
- bitexploder 8y agoThere are parasites in this industry. One of the largest home builders in the United States, Lennar, owns a subsidiary, SunStreet Solar. When you buy a Lennar home, SunStreet then offers to sell you these panels at a very, very above market price. Or they offer to lease you the panels where you indefinitely pay for ALL of the energy the panels produce, even if you don't actually use it, at some "discounted" rate. Meanwhile, you are opted into the lease if you buy a Lennar home. Or you can always pay above market rate for panels that are often under or oversized due to lazy workmanship and practices by SunStreet. Without even researching it, I feel pretty sure Lennar, very active in CA, lobbied for this. It is probably a net win for the environment, and our energy independence, but these guys have found a way to turn it into a recurring revenue stream that benefits them the most in the long run and not the consumer. I have consulted a lawyer and they advised me it quite likely violates consumer protection laws in my state. Other states have had similar difficulties with shady solar providers cashing in on this wave of relatively inexpensive panels.
- giarc 8y agoWhy not mandate that new homes need to have equivalent solar built somewhere. So I build a home with a 700sqft roof, an additional tax is added that goes towards building 700sqft of solar at a solar farm. In fact it would be cheaper since installation would be much cheaper on a large scale and solar farm can buy panels in bulk.
- Retric 8y agoI doubt this is accurate. Most California homeowners can save money by going 100% off grid vs. 100% grid which suggests home solar + battery is cheaper than an same panels - increased efficiency + electricity distribution system + billing. That said, currently it's usually cheaper to stay grid connected vs 100% solar. But, the economics of that can shift around as solar becomes more common.
- jpao79 8y agoI'm not clear on why SB827 high density housing near transit and solar panels for single family homes are mutually exclusive. A solar rooftop on a 4 story high density building is like a rounding error compared to all the other costs. California should be moving forward on both initiatives, no? The great thing about the requirement is not that it is the absolutely most carbon friendly solution but that it creates a viable alternative to the PG&E monopoly on energy in California. They pretty much can effectively hike prices at will under the current setup. We need to reduce the amount of pricing power of all monopolies via credible competition.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> I'm not clear on why SB827 high density housing near transit and solar panels for single family homes are mutually exclusive. They don't even seem to be in much tension, much less opposed.
- r00fus 8y agoIt's definitely a false equivalence.
- gascan 8y agoIt may not be the cheapest solution. But it does accomplish some good things. It reduces attic temperatures (and thus cooling demand), and the ecologists I know observe that wind & solar farms contribute to habitat loss, while rooftop solar does not.