4 ms·

The problem is still there though. Roofs can and do leak.

by esaym 8y ago

toomuchtodo 8y ago
And 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 ago
  Why is "bold action" required? This entire concept seems flawed to me.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Run away climate change caused by global CO2 emissions?
    - nv-vn 8y ago
      And 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 ago
        You 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 ago
        The same way California apparently solved the cancer-causing components issue: by feel-good edict.
        fjsolwmv 8y ago
        California didn't mandate material changes, just stupid labels.
      - acdha 8y ago
        The 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 ago
  Is 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 ago
    but 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 ago
    It 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

The problem is still there though. Roofs can and do leak.

by esaym 8y ago

The problem is still there though. Roofs can and do leak.

And 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 ago
Why is "bold action" required? This entire concept seems flawed to me.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Run away climate change caused by global CO2 emissions?
  - nv-vn 8y ago
    And 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 ago
      You 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 ago
      The same way California apparently solved the cancer-causing components issue: by feel-good edict.
      - fjsolwmv 8y ago
        California didn't mandate material changes, just stupid labels.
    - acdha 8y ago
      The 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 ago
Is 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 ago
  but 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 ago
  It 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