4 ms·

Red tape is a big part of the cost in the US and a problem that needs to be solved. Every locality and state has its own requirements, inspections, licenses etc

by redwood 14y ago

Red tape is a big part of the cost in the US and a problem that needs to be solved. Every locality and state has its own requirements, inspections, licenses etc. A solar industry insider told me one of the worst solar markets in California is Palo Alto. Wealthy, green, suburban, techy: how can this be? The city runs its own utilities and makes it hard to install (apparently). Regulations need to be streamlined.

brudgers 14y ago
Virtually every jurisdiction in the United States has adopted the National Electrical Code [NFPA 70]. Nearly all construction is governed by the International Building Code or a derivative state code (e.g. the CBC). What varies are enforcement standards and local conditions. Some local conditions such as earthquakes and hurricanes are environmental. Others such as zoning and other land development regulations are political (and some of the most extreme regulations are private in the form of covenants upon title to the land). There are sound reasons for regulation and enforcement (and unsound ones as well). Among them are life safety issues. Unlike grid power, solar panels have no disconnect. They remain live while exposed to sunlight. This creates a hazard during fires and similar emergencies. It creates a new class of hazard during electrical repairs and unrelated tasks such as re-roofing or cleaning gutters. Wealthy and suburban tends to correlate with all construction projects being difficult to permit because such jurisdictions have more vocal and resourceful citizens with a concern for maintaining property values. If one goes to the sticks, there are still places in the US which don't require a building permit.
jusben1369 14y ago
My first thought when reading this was that it was really confusing cause and effect and (deliberately?) failing to cover the alternatives to solar. So I was pleased to see the currently top rated comment here started out with:"The reason is because grid power is more expensive in Germany: $0.30/kWh compared to $0.10/kWh on average in the US. Therefore potential customers are easier to convince to use solar in Germany." Many of the issues highlighted in the US simply relate to where the US is in the curve of adoption. If Solar was more competitive with the regular grid then a) There would be more demand = lowered customer acquisition costs = lowered installation costs (vols and skills) = reduced red tape based on political clout from industry and consumers. So everything outlined in this article seems more about symptoms than causes. What we do about that can either be government regulation driven or market driven but either way it feels like a pretty big missing piece from the original article.
- redwood 14y ago
  Good points, but on the flipside, German solar is probably roughly a third as productive as sunny American states could be... so when you factor in the added output per equivalent installation, the 3x grid cost should be roughly mitigated. However, the trouble is the costs are not primarily correlated with size of installation and the cost of the panels themselves are no longer the primary cost driver. This means tertiary costs like installation and regulation, which do not necessarily scale with system size, are an important and complex piece. edit: it's not 3x but still as high as 2.5x in some places: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_germany_spain/pv_map_us_germany_spain.jpg http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_germany_spain/pv_map_us_ge... and more if you compare to northern Germany. Anyway some parts of the US have significantly higher power costs than others (not surprisingly these are generally good solar sales markets)

by redwood 14y ago

brudgers 14y ago

Virtually every jurisdiction in the United States has adopted the National Electrical Code [NFPA 70]. Nearly all construction is governed by the International Building Code or a derivative state code (e.g. the CBC). What varies are enforcement standards and local conditions. Some local conditions such as earthquakes and hurricanes are environmental. Others such as zoning and other land development regulations are political (and some of the most extreme regulations are private in the form of covenants upon title to the land). There are sound reasons for regulation and enforcement (and unsound ones as well). Among them are life safety issues. Unlike grid power, solar panels have no disconnect. They remain live while exposed to sunlight. This creates a hazard during fires and similar emergencies. It creates a new class of hazard during electrical repairs and unrelated tasks such as re-roofing or cleaning gutters. Wealthy and suburban tends to correlate with all construction projects being difficult to permit because such jurisdictions have more vocal and resourceful citizens with a concern for maintaining property values. If one goes to the sticks, there are still places in the US which don't require a building permit.

jusben1369 14y ago

My first thought when reading this was that it was really confusing cause and effect and (deliberately?) failing to cover the alternatives to solar. So I was pleased to see the currently top rated comment here started out with:"The reason is because grid power is more expensive in Germany: $0.30/kWh compared to $0.10/kWh on average in the US. Therefore potential customers are easier to convince to use solar in Germany." Many of the issues highlighted in the US simply relate to where the US is in the curve of adoption. If Solar was more competitive with the regular grid then a) There would be more demand = lowered customer acquisition costs = lowered installation costs (vols and skills) = reduced red tape based on political clout from industry and consumers. So everything outlined in this article seems more about symptoms than causes. What we do about that can either be government regulation driven or market driven but either way it feels like a pretty big missing piece from the original article.

redwood 14y ago
Good points, but on the flipside, German solar is probably roughly a third as productive as sunny American states could be... so when you factor in the added output per equivalent installation, the 3x grid cost should be roughly mitigated. However, the trouble is the costs are not primarily correlated with size of installation and the cost of the panels themselves are no longer the primary cost driver. This means tertiary costs like installation and regulation, which do not necessarily scale with system size, are an important and complex piece. edit: it's not 3x but still as high as 2.5x in some places: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_germany_spain/pv_map_us_germany_spain.jpg http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_germany_spain/pv_map_us_ge... and more if you compare to northern Germany. Anyway some parts of the US have significantly higher power costs than others (not surprisingly these are generally good solar sales markets)