California Becomes First State To Mandate Solar on New Homes (bloomberg.com) 360
California regulators said on Wednesday they have unanimously approved a historic plan that will require most new homes in the state have rooftop solar panels that turn sunlight into electricity starting in 2020. From a report: Most new homes built after Jan. 1, 2020, will be required to include solar systems as part of energy-efficiency standards adopted Wednesday by the California Energy Commission. While that's a boost for the solar industry, critics warned that it will also drive up the cost of buying a house by almost $10,000. The move underscores how rooftop solar, once a luxury reserved for wealthy, green-leaning homeowners, is becoming a mainstream energy source, with California -- the nation's largest solar market -- paving the way.
The Golden State has long been at the vanguard of progressive energy policies, from setting energy-efficiency standards for appliances to instituting an economy-wide program to curb greenhouse gases. The housing mandate is part of Governor Jerry Brown's effort to slash carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030, and offers up a playbook for other states to follow.
The Golden State has long been at the vanguard of progressive energy policies, from setting energy-efficiency standards for appliances to instituting an economy-wide program to curb greenhouse gases. The housing mandate is part of Governor Jerry Brown's effort to slash carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030, and offers up a playbook for other states to follow.
Great. (Score:4, Insightful)
California already has a housing cost issue. Lets make new housing MORE expensive!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It adds about $10,000 to the cost of a new home, which is about 1-2% of the cost of new home construction in the bay area. It's tiny.
And cost will come down. As will the cost of installation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It adds about $10,000 to the cost of a new home, which is about 1-2% of the cost of new home construction in the bay area. It's tiny. And cost will come down. As will the cost of installation.
Yeah, screw the rest of California.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It adds about $10,000 to the cost of a new home, which is about 1-2% of the cost of new home construction in the bay area. It's tiny. And cost will come down. As will the cost of installation.
Yeah, screw the rest of California.
Yeah but even there the added cost still isn't the end of the world and as he pointed out, prices of home solar installations and battery walls will be falling quite sharply for some time to come. Also, Ikea is currently selling a basic solar/battery package for something like USD 5000 and those are UK prices which are guaranteed to be between 15-30% higher than in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
You're telling us there's no homes being built outside the bay area?
Re: (Score:2)
Economical grade, no basement, cost kept down when selecting any siding, 1 story... 1000 - 2000 sq feet?
The $10,000 cost added on to $200000 to $500000?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From a couple of noted economists, such as the radically right-wing (not!) UC Berkeley energy economist Severein Borenstein [marginalrevolution.com] (More links at the destination):
Re:Great. (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you for supporting the repeal of laws that make housing more expensive including but not limited to: mandatory solar installations, building height limits, minimum parking requirements, minimum setbacks, maximum floor area ratios, minimum dwelling unit sizes, prohibitions against accessory dwelling units, and single-use "Euclidean" zoning.
Re:Great. (Score:4, Funny)
All these regulations are hurting me as well, crippling the straw house industry. Please help!
Sig. BB Wolfe
Re:Great. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah! We shouldn't force people to install toilets in new homes either, outhouses work just fine!
Re: Great. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
California already has a housing cost issue. Lets make new housing MORE expensive!
High housing prices in California have nothing to do with construction costs.
Re: (Score:2)
These homes will have little to no utility costs for the next 30-40 years. If you are low on money, retired, or simply hate wasting your money, then this will pay off in 10 years or less.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I live in Los Angeles, but nice try.
$10K, really? I've heard ~$30k - which is a lot more in-line with reality. Expect a good 2 decades to pay back the initial cost.
Unless they require home owners to MAINTAIN the solar system (snicker -- solar system), they'll likely fall in to disrepair around the time they pay for themselves and the cost will flat line with no further benefit. Remember, most people don't live in the same home for 20 or so years.
So, what we've done is increased the cost of new homes, and
Re:Great. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your "heard" anecdotes are not data. It's possible that a large solar installation could cost $30k, but a typical house isn't going to need anything like that.
My solar system, which produces enough electricity to power occasional use of A/C and daily use of an electric vehicle, cost about $18k, which included the cost of installing an EV charger. The cost of solar panels has dropped since then, although Trump's solar tariff may have balanced that out. Bear in mind that a lot of the cost for a residential installation is in planning and permitting. If included as part of the original construction, a lot of costs will be much lower.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Great. (Score:5, Informative)
What do you think the electricity rates will be in 10, 20, and 30 years?
How much do you think the $10,000 you spent on those panels would be worth in 10, 20, and 30 years, if you had instead invested it at an annual return of 6%?
If you're going to project forward in time you have to do so for all of the relevant factors, not just the ones which make your argument look good.
Re: (Score:3)
What if you take your monthly power bill savings and invest in said return?
You first, Sparky.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Net zero kWh is the standard. I don't think natural gas is included in that measure.
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.... [ca.gov]
Re:Pricing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait a second, no, they will increase their pricing locally, because you have to use their service.
More solar installers will start up business. People will even come from other states to start installation businesses here. And since California doesn't make grid tie a PITA, the total cost of the installations will probably not be that high. If you don't need batteries, the total cost is quite reasonable these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your trolling game is weak.
Please show where solar installers are required to have a special solar installer license (beyond general contractor license), or GTFO.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait a second, no, they will increase their pricing locally, because you have to use their service.
LA is one of the most competitive places for solar installation in the country. It is also the cheapest due to that. Solar panel installation is not a monopoly, or a duopoly, or even an oligopoly. It's quite the definition of a competitive market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of ill-informed comments from ACs in this thread. It's almost as though someone (or some people) was being paid to push fossil fuels.
My cost, after tax credits was about $12k. Since my electricity bill would be over $1,700/year (with A/C and electric cars), how long does it take to pay off? Even without the tax credits, it would pay off in less than 10 years (factor in some inflat
Re: Great. (Score:2)
My cost, after tax credits was about $12k. Since my electricity bill would be over $1,700/year (with A/C and electric cars), how long does it take to pay off? Even without the tax credits, it would pay off in less than 10 years (factor in some inflation of electricity prices, coming to you soon, courtesy of Trump's recent actions). The components all have warranties that are longer than 10 years.
If we assume a 20 year average life, that means that in 10 years you gained $17,000 (energy not paid for) and lost $6,000 (50% depreciation on your panels). So you are up $11,000.
If instead you had invested your original $12k in a fund with a 6% return compounded annually, you would now have $21,490. So you would be up $9,490.
How much are your maintenance/repair costs? If they're more than $150 per year, you're already doing worse than a safe investment scenario.
Keep in mind that 6% is a conservative ret
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
we REALLY don't get much if any long term benefit. YAY US!
Even if somehow the cost to install and maintain equals the savings, there are long tail changes to the grid, generating requirements, and environmental pollution reduction that could save the state - and therefore you - significant dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
$10K, really? I've heard ~$30k - which is a lot more in-line with reality. Expect a good 2 decades to pay back the initial cost.
When did you hear that? 2001? A solar power setup can be had for a tad over $10k BEFORE rebates, after which you're closer to $6k and it'll pay back in a couple of years even with the USA based fantasy electrical pricing.
My solar panels in Australia paid back in under 2 years, and they've come down a lot in price since I bought them.
Re: Great. (Score:2)
That's ridiculous. You're just pulling numbers out of your ass.
https://news.energysage.com/ho... [energysage.com]
"In 2018, most homeowners are paying between $2.71 and $3.57 per watt to install solar, and the average gross cost of solar panels before tax credits is $18,840. Using the U.S, average for system size at 6 kW (6,000 watts), solar panel cost will range from $11,380 to $14,990 (after tax credits)."
Even that is incredibly cheap; I'm in Canada and here you're looking at $25-30k minimum. Sure that can be reduced wit
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
At 5%, across a 30-year mortgage, it'll end up costing over $19k. But keep telling yourself how it's "practically free!"
Re: (Score:2)
And across that 30-year time period, how much money will you not be giving to the grid operator for excited electrons? Please look at both sides of the equation.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you pay cash for your home. It's closer to 20k over 30 years and i really doubt they'll be installing these on average for the cost of a pretty used civic.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get on your roof for any other maintenance tasks you should do? Get an extension ladder.
And do you think that the companies that manufacture these things have never heard of hail? Unless you're buying the ultra-cheap garbage they can withstand a storm as long as you aren't getting golf ball sized hail, in which case you have homeowners insurance and you're likely making a claim for other storm damage anyway.
Any more FUD you want to spread around that is quite easily taken care of with about 3 s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
20% of new California homes construalready install (Score:5, Interesting)
15,000 of the 80,000 new home construction sites each year already include solar as part of the build.
So almost 20% of new home construction already includes this. Not a drastic change from the status quo, but it will be interesting to see how fast other states follow California's lead, as they do with vehicle emissions, etc.
This pushes the cost of the electrical needs of the house in to the mortgage, but at the same time reduces air pollution and reduces daytime load on the grid. Should be interesting to see how this impacts the "duck curve" that solar is causing on the California power grid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve [wikipedia.org]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve>
Re: (Score:2)
15,000 of the 80,000 new home construction sites each year already include solar as part of the build. So almost 20% of new home construction already includes this. Not a drastic change from the status quo, but it will be interesting to see how fast other states follow California's lead, as they do with vehicle emissions, etc. This pushes the cost of the electrical needs of the house in to the mortgage, but at the same time reduces air pollution and reduces daytime load on the grid. Should be interesting to see how this impacts the "duck curve" that solar is causing on the California power grid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve [wikipedia.org]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve>
Its is included where buyers want it and can afford it or are at least willing to pay for it. That represents 20% of the market. It would make more sense to me to require wiring be put in place to support solar, but leave the panels as optional. Not every home is a high dollar city or coastal region home.
Re: 20% of new California homes construalready ins (Score:2)
Wiring it 80% the cost of install, you might as well just pay the extra $1500 for the panels and get the full benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Wiring it 80% the cost of install, you might as well just pay the extra $1500 for the panels and get the full benefit.
False. You are thinking about wiring and inverter for an existing home. Adding just wiring during construction is low cost.
Re:20% of new California homes construalready inst (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a drastic change from the status quo, but it will be interesting to see how fast other states follow California's lead, as they do with vehicle emissions, etc.
In New Mexico or Arizona where the sun shines 300 days a year, economically quite probable. In Portland Oregon... Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is quite useful in cold climates. Particularly solar heating. Great for keeping snow off the roof and the path to your door clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is quite useful in cold climates. Particularly solar heating. Great for keeping snow off the roof and the path to your door clear.
Of course passive solar is great for keeping the snow off the roof and the path to your door clear, but for things that require electricity, there are of course issues [solarpowerauthority.com]...
Yes that snow eventually melts, but your electric baseboard heater might need to run off batteries (or the grid), whilst you are waiting for a break in the sky...
cost of the house?!? (Score:2)
Think cost of the GRID. It's going to take a hell of an energy transport, storage and switching infrastructure to keep that stable.
Mainstream? (Score:5, Insightful)
The move underscores how rooftop solar, once a luxury reserved for wealthy, green-leaning homeowners, is becoming a mainstream energy source
So mainstream, we're making it mandatory!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Progressivism
Government so good you can't criticize it, and it needs to watch you 24/7
California Has Costly Surplus Capacity Already (Score:2)
The California Public Utility Commission has for many years been a classic case of regulatory capture by industry [latimes.com] -- rubber-stamping virtually every power plant proposal brought before it. Rate payers are required to pay for these plants, and the builders make a profit even if they never produce a single joule of electricity, so California has some of the highest electricity rates in the country (though not the highest - yet).
The perennial excuse for forcing rate payers to fork over cash to private builders
They have done it almost the right way (Score:2)
If it is, it is a HORRIBLE mistake to do this.
OTOH, if we are not subsidizing the solar, it will encourage home builders to build out using aerogel windows and geothermal HVAC since these are cheaper than adding lots of solar panel. That will lower the costs of insulation, best possible windows and geothermal hvac, and then it will further lower solar.
Dupe dupe dupey dupe dupe. (Score:2)
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
C'mon Slashdot!
The Rear Admiral Taco would be ashamed!
Nuclear for the Win (Score:4, Interesting)
The better solution would be to keep Diablo Canyon open past its planned 2024/2025 shutdown. The reactors are the best in the world. Reopen the San Onofre power station in San Diego -- even if we only open it at half capacity.
We also need to restart construction of the Sun Desert Nuclear power plant near Blythe. We could purchase 96 NuScale nuclear reactors. NuScale reactors should also be installed at the Rancho Seco Complex near Sacramento.
If we do this California's electricity could be nearly carbon free by 2030. If we go with solar-roofs we will still be polluting and will have wasted a lot of money.
Solar - yes; Legislated - no (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This isn't good (Score:5, Informative)
IMO the key is replacing the roof itself with solar panels
That is what Tesla Solar Roof [tesla.com] is. It is a replacement for a normal roof. This is why it makes sense to put solar on new houses. The cost is lower because the "original" roof is never built, and contractors can negotiate lower prices with the panel suppliers.
It is also cheaper for homeowners because the cost of the solar panels is built into the purchase price of the house, and is financed as part of the regular mortgage. So if you have a 5% mortgage, and get a typical 8-12% ROI on your solar panels, then your monthly mortgage+utility payments will be LOWER than if there were no solar panels.
Re: (Score:2)
so in the most expensive state to live as it is, you now need to factor in the cost of solar, which means instead of that 3 bedroom home you wanted, you are stuck in a 1 bedroom trailor. 20-50 grand (for a proper s
Re:This isn't good (Score:5, Funny)
"What about parts of the roof that receive no direct sunlight?"
Those parts receive indirect sunlight.
Re: This isn't good (Score:2)
They make the same tile "cases" but with none of the internal components. You install those in the areas which don't get much sunlight so your roof looks and performs consistently while keeping the cost down.
Re:This isn't good (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even close. Even the dirtiest types of solar panels, the thin-film kind, only produce about 1/10th of the pollutants as the next closest fossil fuel, which is natural gas. Compared to coal or oil, it's closer to 1/50th.
Re:This isn't good (Score:5, Insightful)
The environmental cost of producing solar cells virtually negates the green benefits for many years.
The numbers I've seen show that over a 30 year lifetime, a solar panel (conservatively) results in about 10% the emission footprint when compared to coal and about 30% the footprint of natural gas. That doesn't seem terrible to me.
2 new laws: (Score:3, Funny)
1) Everything good is required.
2) Everything bad is against the law.
That will simplify what is happening now: Combination Wrench, 5-7/8", 9mm, Chrome Vanadium Steel, Westward, 36A224 [newegg.com]
The California notice:
"WARNING: This product can expose you to chemicals including one or more listed chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information, go to www.P
Just a joke about California not communicating. (Score:3)
The California government is often sloppy about communicating, in my experience.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, when getting it from America, Germany, or Japan, coal accounts for less than 45% of the energy, and for American, less than 30%. And Solar City will shortly have theirs at less than 10% fossil fueled.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, it depends on how they are produced. When you get solar from China, you are getting about 3/4 of the energy into it coming from coal. Pretty dirty.
The exact number does, the outcome does not. You can take a shitty coal fired station from the 50s, plug it into a solar power manufacturing plant and still well and truly get an environmental benefit over the life of the panel.
Re: (Score:2)
That was about Toxic chemicals from 2014, of which the Americans and Europeans are above average, while only a couple of Chinese made that list. The majority of china were below average.
However, the issue here was emissions. building solar cells is energy intensive. As such, what matters is CO2 / kwh. China is one of the worst in the world. Since you picked 2014 for time frame, here is 2013.
china at 711 g/kwh. America at 489, EU at 337 with Germany at 486 [compareyourcountry.org]
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, The western ones are almost all above average for how they handle toxic chemicals which is what that was about.
As to the ORIGINAL conversation that you decided to troll on, it was about ENERGY EMISSIONS. The Carbon intensity of China was 80% more than the wests back then.
As to intensity of nat gas vs coal, it is mostly a simple issue.As I have tried to educate you on this, nat gas emits a fraction [www.ipcc.ch]
Re: This isn't good (Score:2)
You mean that a country which is building thousands of brand new coal power plants is achieving higher efficiency than a nation which is operating mostly decades-old designs? No way! Wow. Mind blown.
Re: (Score:2)
This shows g co2 / kwh. Sadly, not enough is shown, but still useful. [electricitymap.org] For example, CA, AZ, WA, and NY is where America makes our solar panels. AZ is not on it, but considering that 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear, I would suspect that they are pretty good.
WA is at 30 g / kwh
NY is at 149
CA is at 226
Over in Europe, I believe that the majority of solar is done in Germany, which is at 346 g/kwh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: You just cant stop pulling #'s from your ass W (Score:2)
That's a retarded comparison. Total energy use in US is higher than in China. Not just higher per person, but higher overall.
Re: You just cant stop pulling #'s from your ass (Score:2)
Re: You just cant stop pulling #'s from your ass (Score:2)
Actually, it is not. Total energy is higher in china than America.
You are correct; I was thinking of numbers which are now a decade old. Much has changed in the intervening years. Thanks for the correction.
Re: You just cant stop pulling #'s from your ass (Score:2)
Yes, Americans use way way more energy than Chinese. That's the point.
Your "point" is a well known fact which nobody disputes? Cool. What's the point of your point?
Even though America has cleaner energy, they still use more coal per person just because of how much energy they use.
The other said of the coin is that even though Chinese use dirty energy compared to America, they don't use nearly as much of it per person.
The difference being that Chinese power consumption is increasing dramatically as they upscale their economy, while american power usage is comparatively holding steady ... AND Chinese are building more coal power plants while the US is mostly decommissioning them.
Nobody is arguing that China produces more emissions per person; you're the only one who seems interested in that strawman. People are pointing out th
Re: You just cant stop pulling #'s from your ass (Score:3)
Last time I looked it up it was 270
Well there's the reason why you're always wrong about everything; you're confusing "looked it up" with "made it up".
http://www.worldometers.info/g... [worldometers.info]
Re: You just cant stop pulling #'s from your ass W (Score:2)
Re: You just cant stop pulling #'s from your ass W (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The environmental cost of producing solar cells virtually negates the green benefits for many years. Solar cell production is an energy intensive process that requires tight climate controls and clean rooms. This is actually a gift to the solar energy companies and a direct result of their aggressive lobbying efforts. If you follow the money, you'll see that Big Solar is going to make a killing. Now is the time to buy stocks in those companies.
Bonk, that only applies for the most part while you are making the panels using fossil fuels. As the fossil fuel power-plants are replaced by solar, wind, nuclear or something that causes much smaller emissions than fossil fuels the manufacturing CO2 footprint of solar panels diminishes correspondingly. Also, once you have manufactured the thing, a solar panel has a carbon footprint of 25-30 grams of CO2 in day to ay operations. Compare this to coal where the carbon footprint is around 1000 grams of CO2 per
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The environmental cost of producing solar cells virtually negates the green benefits for many years. Solar cell production is an energy intensive process that requires tight climate controls and clean rooms.
Bull-fucking-shit. Do you still mentally live in the 1980s or what? Did the decades of technological improvement just whoosh by your head without you ever noticing?
This is actually a gift to the solar energy companies and a direct result of their aggressive lobbying efforts.
I've only noticed Chinese aggressive solar lobbying resulting in Trump's tariffs.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep reading these kinds of comments, but there's more than one type of solar cells on the market these days. Are they really all produced with the same raw components?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This isn't good (Score:5, Informative)
Your talking point is decades out of date. Worst case estimates [nature.com] have break-even for both power and greenhouse gas emission for production of PV cells produced, to date, as this year. Best case was 1997. Briefly (from the abstract) every doubling of PV cell production reduces energy consumed by 12-13% and greenshouse gas by 17% and 24% for poly- and monocrystalline systems.
PV 'pay' for themselves in terms of energy production many times over. Total PV production, to date, has already 'paid' for the energy used to produce them by the most conservative estimates.
Now, do you have any evidence to base your claims on, or do you prefer to cling to your 'BigSolar' narrative?
Re: (Score:2)
"you'll see that Big Solar is going to make a killing. Now is the time to buy stocks in those companies."
Unfortunately they are almost all located in China.
Re: (Score:2)
The environmental cost of
Let me stop you there, because that has been disproven for every form of commercialised environmental initiatives be they energy saving, energy generating, or clearing existing emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
So buy a house that already exists?
This is for new construction only.
Re: Bracing for impact (Score:5, Funny)
If California mandated that every "this will cause cancer" sign was made from a solar panel, they wouldn't need to force people to put panels on their houses.
Re:Bracing for impact (Score:4, Insightful)
"jealous midwestern rural coal miners angrily ranting on and on about how solar panels are simultaneously a threat to their well being "
There are 5 times more employees in the solar industry than the coal one.
Coal is dead.
Re: California housing costs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is this "we" you speak of? Is it you and the mouse in your pocket?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just friends of yours, or do you have a citation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poster says, "because we don't want to build them".
I don't believe this is the case.
New home construction requires either a retrofit, or new land. Before permits are issued, there has to be infrastructure available, and that infrastructure has to extend to the site(s). This is why subdivisions are often a popular way to do new housing. Streets have to go there. There needs to be support for basic necessities, like food, fuel, and much more.
The housing needs to be placed in an area where people can tolerate
Re: (Score:2)
Californians do want housing,
Californians want housing, but not in their back yard, and not in a way that reduces their current house value. If you have a house in California, you are probably the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone wants to make money on their homes, not just Californians. No one wants their home's value reduced. Looking our for #1 is an ages old proposition.
But it's bulging. It's not a pyramid scheme, it's a real issue. Those that invested must now defend their value to people paying $4K/mo for dirtbag dumps and pseudo-condos. That's not quality of life. This needn't be so, perhaps fodder for a different thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone wants to make money on their homes, not just Californians
Well yes, but you asked about California. This graph makes clear that it's a supply problem in California [trbimg.com]. Unless you want people to leave the state.
If you want to talk about other areas of the country, you have this sort of angry citizen [huffingtonpost.com] showing up to city council meetings:
“Have you considered the racket and the lights and the crowds and the traffic, and everything that’s going to happen to those of us who live here?”
It is a familiar sight in America: the public meeting, the angry residents, the housing developer trying to explain himself over the boos.
“Take the money you’ve got and get out of here,” one person shouts. A chant begins: “Oppose! Oppose! Oppose!”
And of course, this sort of thing happens in California, too. For years there's been a billboard along highway 580 opposing new housing in the bay area.
Re:Moonbeam Jerry Brown at it again... (Score:5, Informative)
When the fuel is free, the notion of 'efficiency' is largely irrelevant in this context: it only constrains maximum generation from a given roof space.
Given that in a small London UK home I am net energy zero with what is on my roof with 10 year old technology, it is even less likely to be a critical constraint in CA.
It would be nice to have nearer 100% capture efficiency (eg with a ferroelectric system) since then I could cover all my local electrical consumption through practically all of winter with fairly small storage, and would only need a seasonal heat store, but in effect that's an engineering optimisation.
Rgds
Damon
PS. Of course, I'm assuming that your comment is in good faith. But your comments are rather tired old straw men already extensively discussed. Thank goodness we never put lead in our road fuel and let mercury and thorium out of our coal smoke stacks or allowed people collecting fossil fuels to die in large numbers! All energy systems have pros and cons.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, instead of letting the house builders screw them over, then the electric company screw them over,then the solar installers screw them over, the government is telling them to fucking shut up and do solar installs at build time.
Boo fucking hoo. You just want to bleat about a leftie government.
So you think people that can afford to buy a new house in CA somehow can't perform the calculation for the return on a solar panel ?
You are a very good argument for Ayn Rand's philosophies.