5 ms·
So I guess putting up shade trees to reduce cooling costs isn't a thing any more? Is it net positive to use solar panels? Trees and houses just won't go togethe
by darkstar999 8y ago
So I guess putting up shade trees to reduce cooling costs isn't a thing any more? Is it net positive to use solar panels? Trees and houses just won't go together any more?
- esaym 8y agoThat's a good point... and pretty sad actually... Edit: And I can't help but think of the driven up cost of roof repairs. So 10-15 years down the road when you get a leak in your roof.. now you got to pay labor to pull the panels before you can even repair the roof...
- toomuchtodo 8y agoSolar panels increase roof structural strength through the racking used for mounting and increase roof material longevity by directly shielding the roof from solar irradiation.
- esaym 8y agoThe problem is still there though. Roofs can and do leak.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoAnd your panels disconnect and pop off relatively easily for patching or shingle replacement. Let’s not argue against taking bold action when bold actions are required because it’s inconvenient, especially when this is a net financial win for homeowners (you’re just trading a high utility bill for a slightly higher mortgage payment). It’s a better ROI than the S&P500.
- nv-vn 8y agoWhy is "bold action" required? This entire concept seems flawed to me.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoRun away climate change caused by global CO2 emissions?
- nv-vn 8y agoAnd how is California going to reverse that exactly? Even if this happened on a federal level, most houses would still be using fossil fuels and most of the world wouldn't even bat an eye.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoYou continue to incentivize the generation and consumption of renewables until you’ve put fossil generation in a position where it’s no longer profitable to operate, thereby accelerating the transition to renewables and storage? It’s pretty straightforward. A single actor acting alone doesn’t solve the problem, everyone taking small actions does.
- 15155 8y agoThe same way California apparently solved the cancer-causing components issue: by feel-good edict.
- fjsolwmv 8y agoCalifornia didn't mandate material changes, just stupid labels.
- acdha 8y agoThe same way California moved the entire world forward on car emissions. LA smog used to be so bad you couldn’t see the other side of the street, reactionaries predicted that doing anything would destroy the economy, but they wrote laws requiring cleaner cars anyway. Since everyone wanted to sell to California, they did the R&D to make it work and eventually economics won out against the cost of making different models for different states. The economy was destroyed right into being the 5th largest in the world. This takes a ton of usage away from conventional power and more importantly it tells multiple industries it’s safe to make big investments because California will buy your solar panels, build your designs, etc. Everyone benefits directly from those economies of scale and research investments and indirectly from being able to pass similar laws in their states when it turns out not to wreck California.
- nickodell 8y agoIs this a net financial win? Presumably, homeowners have been doing the math and adding solar panels if it is a net financial win. Now, homeowners are required to do it whether or not it's a net financial win. ie. the new solar installations either don't make economic sense, or it made sense all along, but homeowners were too stupid to do the math.
- maxerickson 8y agobut homeowners were too stupid to do the math This is kind of true. Builders will do things that lower the up front price and long term value of the home, because that's how their incentives are setup.
- philipkglass 8y agoIt didn't make sense all along. 10 years ago this would have been crazy because PV hardware was so much more expensive then. A lot of people do fail to do the math. Many people are not quantitatively analytical, even in situations where such analysis is in their material self-interest. A few years ago I encountered an engineer who was really angry about lightbulb minimum efficiency standards. "I already switched to LED bulbs where it made economic sense. Anyone with a brain did! Now the government is forcing me to buy these expensive bulbs for places where they run for less than 10 hours a year, like my attic. It's worse for the environment too when you consider the additional embodied energy in LED manufacturing." His technical analysis was perfectly sound. His social analysis wasn't. A huge number of people won't do the smart thing as soon as it becomes the smart thing. (Or maybe ever. My mom stockpiled incandescent bulbs in anticipation of efficiency standard upgrades. She also complains about how high her electric bill is, after running 8 incandescent bulbs for several hours a day in the kitchen ceiling lighting...) Much to the annoyance of people who are perfectly able and willing to do their own analysis, it can take too much effort to judge who's rationally avoiding higher up-front costs because they won't pay off in the long run and who's just being myopic. A one-size-fits-all rule forces smarties to do something worse as the price of forcing fools to do something better. There's an aggregate benefit because the fools outnumber the smarties several times over.
- 8y ago
- AmVess 8y agoOne good hail storm would be a much more expensive fix. Insurance paid nearly $10k for my new roof after hail ruined it. Solar panels would have tripled that cost.
- rs999gti 8y agoSolar panels == sexy, shade trees == not sexy.
- josefresco 8y agoAlso, in my area residents see trees as dangerous to their investment. New neighbors (second home buyers) cut down trees like they're invasive weeds, all because of the remote chance that one of them might, some day, hit the house.
- darkstar999 8y agoYou should teach them about insurance...
- sp332 8y agoYou can still put a tree up. You will also be required to put solar panels underneath it.
- Retric 8y agoSolar panels are vastly more effective than a shade tree for keeping a home cool. The geometry of trees and solar panels changes with latitude, but in California you can still have tall trees fairly close to your house while using solar panels. Further, roof panels can also shade your roof though with proper insulation that should not be significant.
- alacombe 8y agoAre you taking into account carbon sequestration and oxygen production "features" of trees instead of net carbon cost ?
- dragonwriter 8y ago> So I guess putting up shade trees to reduce cooling costs isn't a thing any more? Trees are still great for shading windows and unlikely to interfere with panels in that role, and it takes a much bigger and older tree to shade a roof, anyway.
- mmanfrin 8y agoTrees very rarely go very far over your roof, otherwise it'd be a legitimate hazard.
- darkstar999 8y agoTrees don't have to go over your roof to shade your house.
- _rpd 8y agoThe rules make explicit exception for shaded roofs, see section 150.1(c)14 ... http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02/TN223257-3_20180423T083004_2019_Standards_Part_6_Chapter_8_Section_1501_Revised_Express_Te.pdf http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02...