California to make "Solar "mandatory for new Homes!!!!!!
Real Estate Agent · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
California to make "Solar "mandatory for new Homes!!!!!!
Most Popular Reply
Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes
7yHi @Account Closed I'm happy to run numbers with you in AZ, because what you have posted is certainly no reflection of the reality I work with there. My latest customer, for example in Prescott Valley had a utility bill averaging $183. We eliminated that bill with a solar system that costs him $149/month for 20 years with no increase. If you factor in inflation on the utility at 4% annually then he will save tens of thousands over 20 years. He did not come out of pocket one cent to do that with the zero down loan.
For sure batteries are the next massive step that is and will happen in solar and renewable, but for now the utility is the "battery" through net metering. The over-production from solar is purchased by the utility. At night power is purchased back from the utility. The goal to offset that overall bill to zero - depending on the roof space etc.
There are some small utilities in AZ that have punitive conditions for solar, but for the overwhelming majority, the numbers for solar in AZ are excellent. Batteries are already economically viable in CA because of the cost of utility power. It will be around 24 months before that's the case in AZ
222 Replies
Originally posted by @David K.:
Government is too entrenched in California business.
What if Joe home buyer does not want a solar panel - due to the extra maintainance costs or for other reasons?
I purchased high effeciency gas units only to find they are FAR more expensive to maintain than regular ones. I paid MORE for the high efficiency ones than regular gas units which were not that much less efficient.
Let the market decide - it never works well when government gets into business.
I agree government should get out of the energy business but we might differ on which forms of energy they should stop supporting first. I'd like to see the subsidies for coal, nuclear, and gas go away first. Solar and wind are the two forms of energy that have potential to exist without government subsidies.
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Seth good point about remodels, I had forgotten about that thanks for bringing that back to my attention. I definitely see your point. Any addition over 500ft2 in my area triggers the dreaded "site plan review" process aka a ton more hoops to jump through. I want to add a bedroom on my primary and the list of things they want me to do would add about $10k to the project (and I already have solar, now they want me to add sprinklers but I have vaulted ceilings so that's not practical, they don't care) so I feel your pain on regulations in general.
Of course it causes a knee jerk reaction whenever home prices are increased in a region that has a major housing crisis but I think the thought process being applied here is more long term (and I frame it this way because as I have said I have mixed feelings about the mandate, so I can only present what I think the policy makers intentions are). The way proponents of the mandate frame it is as it relates to home pricing is that initial costs will increase but total cost of home ownership actually decreases due to reduced monthly operating expenses. So it's basically forcing people to become investors in a power plant on their roof as opposed to being locked into buying electricity from the utility with no return on their end, ever. Homes with solar save their occupants money whereas homes without solar keep a debt to the utility on the books each month indefinitely. Reduced operating expenses also theoretically reduces the rate of mortgage default and makes home ownership MORE affordable in the grand scheme because the electric bill is eliminated, which in CA as you know can be a significant monthly expense. At least that's what I assume the policy makers would say based on what I've read. I'm still learning about how this experiment is expected to work.
Let's face it, a large part of homelessness is due to people making poor personal decisions (in addition to a very long list of other factors beyond people's control of course to be fair, but still, many homeless people made bad life decisions). A solar mandate forces people to save money and removes the option for them to divert money they should use for their bills to buy luxury items. Many of us have tenants with a fancy flat screen TV and a blinged-out BMW who are behind several months on their electric bills. They wouldn't be behind on their bills if they didn't have those bills, because the electricity they use was provided by the solar panels on the roof. That's the idea anyway, and it wasn't my idea but I'm trying to present what I believe is the intention behind the mandate, take it or leave it.
I think this mandate is looked at as a drastic measure even among the most ardent supporters of solar such as yours truly. Perhaps drastic measures are needed as we enter the new energy economy. It's not going to be easy to adjust as we move forward, big changes are coming to the way we produce and consume energy. I plan to profit from the changes, crucify me for it if you like.
Personally I believe a carbon tax would have been far more appropriate than mandated solar. It would finally level playing fields in terms of fossil fuel and related energy production paying true cost of energy. That would be a much faster step towards eliminating subsidies too and preserve freedom for consumers to choose. Even with the decks stacked in favour of fossil fuels, solar is the energy of choice for exponentially increasing numbers of homeowners, States and utilities. Imagine what it could look like with a carbon tax to level the playing field some.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Seth good point about remodels, I had forgotten about that thanks for bringing that back to my attention. I definitely see your point. Any addition over 500ft2 in my area triggers the dreaded "site plan review" process aka a ton more hoops to jump through. I want to add a bedroom on my primary and the list of things they want me to do would add about $10k to the project (and I already have solar, now they want me to add sprinklers but I have vaulted ceilings so that's not practical, they don't care) so I feel your pain on regulations in general.
Of course it causes a knee jerk reaction whenever home prices are increased in a region that has a major housing crisis but I think the thought process being applied here is more long term (and I frame it this way because as I have said I have mixed feelings about the mandate, so I can only present what I think the policy makers intentions are). The way proponents of the mandate frame it is as it relates to home pricing is that initial costs will increase but total cost of home ownership actually decreases due to reduced monthly operating expenses. So it's basically forcing people to become investors in a power plant on their roof as opposed to being locked into buying electricity from the utility with no return on their end, ever. Homes with solar save their occupants money whereas homes without solar keep a debt to the utility on the books each month indefinitely. Reduced operating expenses also theoretically reduces the rate of mortgage default and makes home ownership MORE affordable in the grand scheme because the electric bill is eliminated, which in CA as you know can be a significant monthly expense. At least that's what I assume the policy makers would say based on what I've read. I'm still learning about how this experiment is expected to work.
Let's face it, a large part of homelessness is due to people making poor personal decisions (in addition to a very long list of other factors beyond people's control of course to be fair, but still, many homeless people made bad life decisions). A solar mandate forces people to save money and removes the option for them to divert money they should use for their bills to buy luxury items. Many of us have tenants with a fancy flat screen TV and a blinged-out BMW who are behind several months on their electric bills. They wouldn't be behind on their bills if they didn't have those bills, because the electricity they use was provided by the solar panels on the roof. That's the idea anyway, and it wasn't my idea but I'm trying to present what I believe is the intention behind the mandate, take it or leave it.
I think this mandate is looked at as a drastic measure even among the most ardent supporters of solar such as yours truly. Perhaps drastic measures are needed as we enter the new energy economy. It's not going to be easy to adjust as we move forward, big changes are coming to the way we produce and consume energy. I plan to profit from the changes, crucify me for it if you like.
Personally I believe a carbon tax would have been far more appropriate than mandated solar. It would finally level playing fields in terms of fossil fuel and related energy production paying true cost of energy. That would be a much faster step towards eliminating subsidies too and preserve freedom for consumers to choose. Even with the decks stacked in favour of fossil fuels, solar is the energy of choice for exponentially increasing numbers of homeowners, States and utilities. Imagine what it could look like with a carbon tax to level the playing field some.
Being a Tesla family I don't want to pay for others gas habit LOL but maybe just a chip in the car and you pay by the miles you drive ????
- Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes7y
@Andrew Smith I did a little digging, thanks to all of you for pushing me to get up to speed. PGE Credit for Surplus
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Seth good point about remodels, I had forgotten about that thanks for bringing that back to my attention. I definitely see your point. Any addition over 500ft2 in my area triggers the dreaded "site plan review" process aka a ton more hoops to jump through. I want to add a bedroom on my primary and the list of things they want me to do would add about $10k to the project (and I already have solar, now they want me to add sprinklers but I have vaulted ceilings so that's not practical, they don't care) so I feel your pain on regulations in general.
Of course it causes a knee jerk reaction whenever home prices are increased in a region that has a major housing crisis but I think the thought process being applied here is more long term (and I frame it this way because as I have said I have mixed feelings about the mandate, so I can only present what I think the policy makers intentions are). The way proponents of the mandate frame it is as it relates to home pricing is that initial costs will increase but total cost of home ownership actually decreases due to reduced monthly operating expenses. So it's basically forcing people to become investors in a power plant on their roof as opposed to being locked into buying electricity from the utility with no return on their end, ever. Homes with solar save their occupants money whereas homes without solar keep a debt to the utility on the books each month indefinitely. Reduced operating expenses also theoretically reduces the rate of mortgage default and makes home ownership MORE affordable in the grand scheme because the electric bill is eliminated, which in CA as you know can be a significant monthly expense. At least that's what I assume the policy makers would say based on what I've read. I'm still learning about how this experiment is expected to work.
Let's face it, a large part of homelessness is due to people making poor personal decisions (in addition to a very long list of other factors beyond people's control of course to be fair, but still, many homeless people made bad life decisions). A solar mandate forces people to save money and removes the option for them to divert money they should use for their bills to buy luxury items. Many of us have tenants with a fancy flat screen TV and a blinged-out BMW who are behind several months on their electric bills. They wouldn't be behind on their bills if they didn't have those bills, because the electricity they use was provided by the solar panels on the roof. That's the idea anyway, and it wasn't my idea but I'm trying to present what I believe is the intention behind the mandate, take it or leave it.
I think this mandate is looked at as a drastic measure even among the most ardent supporters of solar such as yours truly. Perhaps drastic measures are needed as we enter the new energy economy. It's not going to be easy to adjust as we move forward, big changes are coming to the way we produce and consume energy. I plan to profit from the changes, crucify me for it if you like.
Personally I believe a carbon tax would have been far more appropriate than mandated solar. It would finally level playing fields in terms of fossil fuel and related energy production paying true cost of energy. That would be a much faster step towards eliminating subsidies too and preserve freedom for consumers to choose. Even with the decks stacked in favour of fossil fuels, solar is the energy of choice for exponentially increasing numbers of homeowners, States and utilities. Imagine what it could look like with a carbon tax to level the playing field some.
I agree whole heartedly. I actually see the mandate as somewhat of a nothing-burger compared to people's reactions to it. It doesn't really move the needle that much compared to the blowback from people who aren't looking at the whole picture.
What I would prefer to see personally is an incentive for landlords to install solar on rental properties.
But it's easy to point to a piece of legislation and criticize it for not being more in line with whatever ancillary agenda people have. Ultimately complaining is the cancer of the soul.
So let's accept the mandate, (builders will be fine learning how to slap a few panels down during a new build or a remodel, it's really not difficult, we're gonna be fine) and separately we can work towards other legislation to end homelessness, create a carbon tax, reduce reliance on government help for all forms of energy, provide incentives for solar on investment property, and whatever anyone else's pet issue is.
Originally posted by @Karen Margrave:
@Andrew Smith I did a little digging, thanks to all of you for pushing me to get up to speed. PGE Credit for Surplus
Don't worry Karen, even as solar professionals we have to constantly update ourselves literally every day. This industry is moving at a lightning fast pace it's hard to keep up with it. I'd be curious to see what the $50k system you were quoted before would cost with current pricing. If you let us know the size in watts Andrew and I could give you a rough updated cost per watt estimate.
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Seth good point about remodels, I had forgotten about that thanks for bringing that back to my attention. I definitely see your point. Any addition over 500ft2 in my area triggers the dreaded "site plan review" process aka a ton more hoops to jump through. I want to add a bedroom on my primary and the list of things they want me to do would add about $10k to the project (and I already have solar, now they want me to add sprinklers but I have vaulted ceilings so that's not practical, they don't care) so I feel your pain on regulations in general.
Of course it causes a knee jerk reaction whenever home prices are increased in a region that has a major housing crisis but I think the thought process being applied here is more long term (and I frame it this way because as I have said I have mixed feelings about the mandate, so I can only present what I think the policy makers intentions are). The way proponents of the mandate frame it is as it relates to home pricing is that initial costs will increase but total cost of home ownership actually decreases due to reduced monthly operating expenses. So it's basically forcing people to become investors in a power plant on their roof as opposed to being locked into buying electricity from the utility with no return on their end, ever. Homes with solar save their occupants money whereas homes without solar keep a debt to the utility on the books each month indefinitely. Reduced operating expenses also theoretically reduces the rate of mortgage default and makes home ownership MORE affordable in the grand scheme because the electric bill is eliminated, which in CA as you know can be a significant monthly expense. At least that's what I assume the policy makers would say based on what I've read. I'm still learning about how this experiment is expected to work.
Let's face it, a large part of homelessness is due to people making poor personal decisions (in addition to a very long list of other factors beyond people's control of course to be fair, but still, many homeless people made bad life decisions). A solar mandate forces people to save money and removes the option for them to divert money they should use for their bills to buy luxury items. Many of us have tenants with a fancy flat screen TV and a blinged-out BMW who are behind several months on their electric bills. They wouldn't be behind on their bills if they didn't have those bills, because the electricity they use was provided by the solar panels on the roof. That's the idea anyway, and it wasn't my idea but I'm trying to present what I believe is the intention behind the mandate, take it or leave it.
I think this mandate is looked at as a drastic measure even among the most ardent supporters of solar such as yours truly. Perhaps drastic measures are needed as we enter the new energy economy. It's not going to be easy to adjust as we move forward, big changes are coming to the way we produce and consume energy. I plan to profit from the changes, crucify me for it if you like.
Personally I believe a carbon tax would have been far more appropriate than mandated solar. It would finally level playing fields in terms of fossil fuel and related energy production paying true cost of energy. That would be a much faster step towards eliminating subsidies too and preserve freedom for consumers to choose. Even with the decks stacked in favour of fossil fuels, solar is the energy of choice for exponentially increasing numbers of homeowners, States and utilities. Imagine what it could look like with a carbon tax to level the playing field some.
I agree whole heartedly. I actually see the mandate as somewhat of a nothing-burger compared to people's reactions to it. It doesn't really move the needle that much compared to the blowback from people who aren't looking at the whole picture.
What I would prefer to see personally is an incentive for landlords to install solar on rental properties.
But it's easy to point to a piece of legislation and criticize it for not being more in line with whatever ancillary agenda people have. Ultimately complaining is the cancer of the soul.
So let's accept the mandate, (builders will be fine learning how to slap a few panels down during a new build or a remodel, it's really not difficult, we're gonna be fine) and separately we can work towards other legislation to end homelessness, create a carbon tax, reduce reliance on government help for all forms of energy, provide incentives for solar on investment property, and whatever anyone else's pet issue is.
And Steve lets add in World Peace !!!
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Seth good point about remodels, I had forgotten about that thanks for bringing that back to my attention. I definitely see your point. Any addition over 500ft2 in my area triggers the dreaded "site plan review" process aka a ton more hoops to jump through. I want to add a bedroom on my primary and the list of things they want me to do would add about $10k to the project (and I already have solar, now they want me to add sprinklers but I have vaulted ceilings so that's not practical, they don't care) so I feel your pain on regulations in general.
Of course it causes a knee jerk reaction whenever home prices are increased in a region that has a major housing crisis but I think the thought process being applied here is more long term (and I frame it this way because as I have said I have mixed feelings about the mandate, so I can only present what I think the policy makers intentions are). The way proponents of the mandate frame it is as it relates to home pricing is that initial costs will increase but total cost of home ownership actually decreases due to reduced monthly operating expenses. So it's basically forcing people to become investors in a power plant on their roof as opposed to being locked into buying electricity from the utility with no return on their end, ever. Homes with solar save their occupants money whereas homes without solar keep a debt to the utility on the books each month indefinitely. Reduced operating expenses also theoretically reduces the rate of mortgage default and makes home ownership MORE affordable in the grand scheme because the electric bill is eliminated, which in CA as you know can be a significant monthly expense. At least that's what I assume the policy makers would say based on what I've read. I'm still learning about how this experiment is expected to work.
Let's face it, a large part of homelessness is due to people making poor personal decisions (in addition to a very long list of other factors beyond people's control of course to be fair, but still, many homeless people made bad life decisions). A solar mandate forces people to save money and removes the option for them to divert money they should use for their bills to buy luxury items. Many of us have tenants with a fancy flat screen TV and a blinged-out BMW who are behind several months on their electric bills. They wouldn't be behind on their bills if they didn't have those bills, because the electricity they use was provided by the solar panels on the roof. That's the idea anyway, and it wasn't my idea but I'm trying to present what I believe is the intention behind the mandate, take it or leave it.
I think this mandate is looked at as a drastic measure even among the most ardent supporters of solar such as yours truly. Perhaps drastic measures are needed as we enter the new energy economy. It's not going to be easy to adjust as we move forward, big changes are coming to the way we produce and consume energy. I plan to profit from the changes, crucify me for it if you like.
Personally I believe a carbon tax would have been far more appropriate than mandated solar. It would finally level playing fields in terms of fossil fuel and related energy production paying true cost of energy. That would be a much faster step towards eliminating subsidies too and preserve freedom for consumers to choose. Even with the decks stacked in favour of fossil fuels, solar is the energy of choice for exponentially increasing numbers of homeowners, States and utilities. Imagine what it could look like with a carbon tax to level the playing field some.
Being a Tesla family I don't want to pay for others gas habit LOL but maybe just a chip in the car and you pay by the miles you drive ????
Jay I think that would be achieved by less government help in what we pay at the pump, true cost of gasoline is in the neighborhood of $15/gallon. But if fuel costs weren't subsidized, cost of goods would skyrocket, nobody wants that.
Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Seth Borman:
Seth good point about remodels, I had forgotten about that thanks for bringing that back to my attention. I definitely see your point. Any addition over 500ft2 in my area triggers the dreaded "site plan review" process aka a ton more hoops to jump through. I want to add a bedroom on my primary and the list of things they want me to do would add about $10k to the project (and I already have solar, now they want me to add sprinklers but I have vaulted ceilings so that's not practical, they don't care) so I feel your pain on regulations in general.
Of course it causes a knee jerk reaction whenever home prices are increased in a region that has a major housing crisis but I think the thought process being applied here is more long term (and I frame it this way because as I have said I have mixed feelings about the mandate, so I can only present what I think the policy makers intentions are). The way proponents of the mandate frame it is as it relates to home pricing is that initial costs will increase but total cost of home ownership actually decreases due to reduced monthly operating expenses. So it's basically forcing people to become investors in a power plant on their roof as opposed to being locked into buying electricity from the utility with no return on their end, ever. Homes with solar save their occupants money whereas homes without solar keep a debt to the utility on the books each month indefinitely. Reduced operating expenses also theoretically reduces the rate of mortgage default and makes home ownership MORE affordable in the grand scheme because the electric bill is eliminated, which in CA as you know can be a significant monthly expense. At least that's what I assume the policy makers would say based on what I've read. I'm still learning about how this experiment is expected to work.
Let's face it, a large part of homelessness is due to people making poor personal decisions (in addition to a very long list of other factors beyond people's control of course to be fair, but still, many homeless people made bad life decisions). A solar mandate forces people to save money and removes the option for them to divert money they should use for their bills to buy luxury items. Many of us have tenants with a fancy flat screen TV and a blinged-out BMW who are behind several months on their electric bills. They wouldn't be behind on their bills if they didn't have those bills, because the electricity they use was provided by the solar panels on the roof. That's the idea anyway, and it wasn't my idea but I'm trying to present what I believe is the intention behind the mandate, take it or leave it.
I think this mandate is looked at as a drastic measure even among the most ardent supporters of solar such as yours truly. Perhaps drastic measures are needed as we enter the new energy economy. It's not going to be easy to adjust as we move forward, big changes are coming to the way we produce and consume energy. I plan to profit from the changes, crucify me for it if you like.
Personally I believe a carbon tax would have been far more appropriate than mandated solar. It would finally level playing fields in terms of fossil fuel and related energy production paying true cost of energy. That would be a much faster step towards eliminating subsidies too and preserve freedom for consumers to choose. Even with the decks stacked in favour of fossil fuels, solar is the energy of choice for exponentially increasing numbers of homeowners, States and utilities. Imagine what it could look like with a carbon tax to level the playing field some.
I agree whole heartedly. I actually see the mandate as somewhat of a nothing-burger compared to people's reactions to it. It doesn't really move the needle that much compared to the blowback from people who aren't looking at the whole picture.
What I would prefer to see personally is an incentive for landlords to install solar on rental properties.
But it's easy to point to a piece of legislation and criticize it for not being more in line with whatever ancillary agenda people have. Ultimately complaining is the cancer of the soul.
So let's accept the mandate, (builders will be fine learning how to slap a few panels down during a new build or a remodel, it's really not difficult, we're gonna be fine) and separately we can work towards other legislation to end homelessness, create a carbon tax, reduce reliance on government help for all forms of energy, provide incentives for solar on investment property, and whatever anyone else's pet issue is.
And Steve lets add in World Peace !!!
Haha Jay how could I forget. We haven't had any solar wars yet, but I wouldn't rule it out.
- Rental Property Investor · Tacoma, WA · Member since 2018 · 113 posts · 149 votes7y
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Personally I believe a carbon tax would have been far more appropriate than mandated solar. It would finally level playing fields in terms of fossil fuel and related energy production paying true cost of energy. That would be a much faster step towards eliminating subsidies too and preserve freedom for consumers to choose. Even with the decks stacked in favour of fossil fuels, solar is the energy of choice for exponentially increasing numbers of homeowners, States and utilities. Imagine what it could look like with a carbon tax to level the playing field some.
This kind of gets back to the "Tragedy of the commons." Individuals don't pay the price for their impact to a common resource, specifically the atmosphere. Not everyone agrees about the impact of carbon, but realistically that is something we elect governments to decide. So yes, I wouldn't like it, but I agree with you. A carbon tax would be far more appropriate. By mandating a specific technology, we limit everyone to what seems to be best for a majority at this point in time. It doesn't take into account unique situations or future innovation. I fear that 10 years down the road someone will come up with something better but the law will stay on the books because special interests (the solar industry) will lobby to keep it there. It will be like the ill-considered mandate for 10% ethanol in our gasoline which substantially reduces fuel economy but funnels a lot of money to corn farmers.
Originally posted by @Tanya F.:
Thank you @Andrew Smith and @Steve K. for being persistent in addressing the out-of-date and incorrect information ** on this and other similar threads. There are plenty of ways people can save a lot of money with solar (and make a lot over the long term), but thanks to the repetition of the abundant misinformation, they refuse to believe it.
Our house had solar in the 1970's, so I've known its benefits for a long time! In the 70's solar was mainly for tree-hugging hippies, but not at our house. My dad is an engineer and was all about the technology development as long as I can remember.
There was a great cartoon about adopting solar in the last couple of weeks- few folks were interested in saving the planet, but perked up when they saw the dollar signs. I wish I could find it.
** I'm a scientist and do this in my day job for the misinformation about GMOs and vaccines.
Thanks for the recognition Tanya. This has been exasperating with all the outdated or just bad info being disseminated, batteries aren't big enough, "windmills" consume energy, solar is the only form of energy that receives govt. money, etc.... Apparently if you want a post with 200 comments, all you have to do is mention solar, but 50% or more of the posts will be straight out of left field.
I had forgotten how little the general public knows about solar, it's mainstream in my area and has been for a while plus working in the industry I'm dealing with folks who have at least a basic understanding. It seems a lot of people have their "solar talking point" from 10 years ago and still think it's relevant. New energy economy train has already left the station people, time to play catch up now.
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Ryan D.:
Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory ;)
There's a few of those like clean air acts, clean water acts, DUI laws, health and safety laws...... :)
I for one am thankful for catalytic converters being mandatory, as an example. Those old cars were nasty. Seatbelts too, that was a good idea. I think a lot of good ideas become mandatory, don't they?
Also solar doesn't have to be mandatory, it's already the fastest growing form of new energy, and the mandate doesn't start until next year.
Originally posted by @Rhonda Wilson:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Personally I believe a carbon tax would have been far more appropriate than mandated solar. It would finally level playing fields in terms of fossil fuel and related energy production paying true cost of energy. That would be a much faster step towards eliminating subsidies too and preserve freedom for consumers to choose. Even with the decks stacked in favour of fossil fuels, solar is the energy of choice for exponentially increasing numbers of homeowners, States and utilities. Imagine what it could look like with a carbon tax to level the playing field some.
This kind of gets back to the "Tragedy of the commons." Individuals don't pay the price for their impact to a common resource, specifically the atmosphere. Not everyone agrees about the impact of carbon, but realistically that is something we elect governments to decide. So yes, I wouldn't like it, but I agree with you. A carbon tax would be far more appropriate. By mandating a specific technology, we limit everyone to what seems to be best for a majority at this point in time. It doesn't take into account unique situations or future innovation. I fear that 10 years down the road someone will come up with something better but the law will stay on the books because special interests (the solar industry) will lobby to keep it there. It will be like the ill-considered mandate for 10% ethanol in our gasoline which substantially reduces fuel economy but funnels a lot of money to corn farmers.
Yup you nailed it with the tragedy of the commons. I so wish you hadn't compared solar to ethanol though, that was such a disaster and I really hope we're not going down that path, and doubt we are.
- Investor · La Jolla, CA · Member since 2016 · 66 posts · 169 votes7y
YIKES. Tell me something: Why should we have yet any kind of tax leveled at us at all, be it a nonsense "carbon tax" or a $10,000+ mandated solar system?
How about the alternative: we choose what power source to use for ourselves?
How does the government stealing more money through excessive taxation and wasting it (as they always do, see the bullet train to nowhere in California) help anyone?
Further, how does it help the world when China, India, and other heavy polluters aren't doing the same? Indeed, insisting on mandatory solar power in California means massive manufacturing of solar panels in China, a country notoriously lax on environmental regs. You think an increase in manufacturing in China is good for the environment anywhere?
Lastly, you'll happily put your money where your mouth is instead of just insisting others be taxed, right? I.E. if I show you exactly how you can write a check to an anti-pollution research initiative (call it a "carbon tax") NOW you'll voluntarily donate instead of relying on the government to take money from other people?
Lmk, I'll PM you the info. :)
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Ryan D.:
Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory ;)
There's a few of those like clean air acts, clean water acts, DUI laws, health and safety laws...... :)
I for one am thankful for catalytic converters being mandatory, as an example. Those old cars were nasty. Seatbelts too, that was a good idea. I think a lot of good ideas become mandatory, don't they?
Also solar doesn't have to be mandatory, it's already the fastest growing form of new energy, and the mandate doesn't start until next year.
Lead paint, asbestos... technically bans not mandates, but related in that govt. stepped in to protect the public from harmful building practices. Lead paint was a great paint, but it gives people brain damage. Asbestos was a great fire retardant, but causes lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Central power plants powered by fossil fuels or nuclear were the best way we had to power a lot of homes, so we built a lot of them and wired all our houses up to them. As it turns out, emissions from fossil fuel plants causes increased rates of lung cancer and shortens life expectancy. Nuclear is not a viable option because in 60 years of using it we still haven't solved the waste issue, plus govt. has to insure them since no private insurance company would be dumb enough to seeing how disasters are extremely expensive not to mention catastrophically costly in terms of human lives, so nuclear is dead. Fossil fuels get more expensive as they become more rare so the government has to spend more money subsidizing them to keep our economy afloat since we depend on them. Now we're retiring those old power plants, not building many new ones, and for lack of any better solutions to move on to, solar and wind are getting increased adoption.
Wind is already cheaper and solar is on track to be cheaper than legacy fuels in a few short years (even with legacy fuels keeping their subsidies while renewables lose theirs), so makes economic sense even health issues aside but especially considering those external issues among others. Market evolution. It's already happening, CA is just pushing the issue to speed things up further.
Builders will have to pivot just like when we had to stop using lead paint and asbestos, or car manufacturer's had to start putting catalytic converters and seat belts in every car, or any number of other examples of things the govt. forced us into that was for the public good. I'm sure there was pushback on all of those changes too, as they made things more expensive initially and people had to adjust. Yet in hindsight I hope we all agree society is better off thanks to those changes, and would have been better off had we made those adjustments sooner.
Sure, it's annoying to have to be forced into using solar. But I believe in 20 years we'll look back and ask ourselves, "Why didn't we make that switch sooner?" That's all CA is trying to do.
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Danny Grey:
YIKES. Tell me something: Why should we have yet any kind of tax leveled at us at all, be it a nonsense "carbon tax" or a $10,000+ mandated solar system?
How about the alternative: we choose what power source to use for ourselves?
How does the government stealing more money through excessive taxation and wasting it (as they always do, see the bullet train to nowhere in California) help anyone?
Further, how does it help the world when China, India, and other heavy polluters aren't doing the same? Indeed, insisting on mandatory solar power in California means massive manufacturing of solar panels in China, a country notoriously lax on environmental regs. You think an increase in manufacturing in China is good for the environment anywhere?
Lastly, you'll happily put your money where your mouth is instead of just insisting others be taxed, right? I.E. if I show you exactly how you can write a check to an anti-pollution research initiative (call it a "carbon tax") NOW you'll voluntarily donate instead of relying on the government to take money from other people?
Lmk, I'll PM you the info. :)
Are you equally angry at the taxes levied to subsidize the fossil fuel industry? I would be thrilled at zero new taxes if just 0.1% of the subsidies given to fossil fuels were re-directed to solar and renewables. If you find a link for that LMK and I'll sign up immediately.
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Originally posted by @Ryan D.:
Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory ;)
There's a few of those like clean air acts, clean water acts, DUI laws, health and safety laws...... :)
I for one am thankful for catalytic converters being mandatory, as an example. Those old cars were nasty. Seatbelts too, that was a good idea. I think a lot of good ideas become mandatory, don't they?
Also solar doesn't have to be mandatory, it's already the fastest growing form of new energy, and the mandate doesn't start until next year.
Lead paint, asbestos... technically bans not mandates, but related in that govt. stepped in to protect the public from harmful building practices. Lead paint was a great paint, but it gives people brain damage. Asbestos was a great fire retardant, but causes lung cancer and mesothelioma.
Central power plants powered by fossil fuels or nuclear were the best way we had to power a lot of homes, so we built a lot of them and wired all our houses up to them. As it turns out, emissions from fossil fuel plants causes increased rates of lung cancer and shortens life expectancy. Nuclear is not a viable option because in 60 years of using it we still haven't solved the waste issue, plus govt. has to insure them since no private insurance company would be dumb enough to seeing how disasters are extremely expensive not to mention catastrophically costly in terms of human lives, so nuclear is dead. Fossil fuels get more expensive as they become more rare so the government has to spend more money subsidizing them to keep our economy afloat since we depend on them. Now we're retiring those old power plants, not building many new ones, and for lack of any better solutions to move on to, solar and wind are getting increased adoption.
Wind is already cheaper and solar is on track to be cheaper than legacy fuels in a few short years (even with legacy fuels keeping their subsidies while renewables lose theirs), so makes economic sense even health issues aside but especially considering those external issues among others. Market evolution. It's already happening, CA is just pushing the issue to speed things up further.
Builders will have to pivot just like when we had to stop using lead paint and asbestos, or car manufacturer's had to start putting catalytic converters and seat belts in every car, or any number of other examples of things the govt. forced us into that was for the public good. I'm sure there was pushback on all of those changes too, as they made things more expensive initially and people had to adjust. Yet in hindsight I hope we all agree society is better off thanks to those changes, and would have been better off had we made those adjustments sooner.
Sure, it's annoying to have to be forced into using solar. But I believe in 20 years we'll look back and ask ourselves, "Why didn't we make that switch sooner?" That's all CA is trying to do.
"The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil."
Sheikh Yamani - Former Oil Minister, Saudi Arabia
- 7yJay HinrichsBusiness MemberReal Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
Originally posted by @Danny Grey:
YIKES. Tell me something: Why should we have yet any kind of tax leveled at us at all, be it a nonsense "carbon tax" or a $10,000+ mandated solar system?
How about the alternative: we choose what power source to use for ourselves?
How does the government stealing more money through excessive taxation and wasting it (as they always do, see the bullet train to nowhere in California) help anyone?
Further, how does it help the world when China, India, and other heavy polluters aren't doing the same? Indeed, insisting on mandatory solar power in California means massive manufacturing of solar panels in China, a country notoriously lax on environmental regs. You think an increase in manufacturing in China is good for the environment anywhere?
Lastly, you'll happily put your money where your mouth is instead of just insisting others be taxed, right? I.E. if I show you exactly how you can write a check to an anti-pollution research initiative (call it a "carbon tax") NOW you'll voluntarily donate instead of relying on the government to take money from other people?
Lmk, I'll PM you the info. :)
good points China wins again and laughs all the way to the bank.. unless Musk can pull it off and build the panels in NV ( Reno)
- Investor · La Jolla, CA · Member since 2016 · 66 posts · 169 votes7y
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Are you equally angry at...
So your only response to valid questions about excessive government authoritarianism and increased pollution caused by mandatory manufacturing in China is weak what-about-ism masked in lazy sarcasm. Got it.
To be fair, that impotent non-response does actually speaks volumes about the views of those praising this move. Cheers :)
- Investor · La Jolla, CA · Member since 2016 · 66 posts · 169 votes7y
Exactly right. Considering the problems at Tesla now (hidden inventory found, mass cancellations of Model 3 orders, constant turnover on the board, etc) I doubt Musk will be pulling anything off. In reality, California just ensured China's solar manufacturing companies will now increase production (polluting more in the process).
- Rental Property Investor · Tacoma, WA · Member since 2018 · 113 posts · 149 votes7y
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Sure, it's annoying to have to be forced into using solar. But I believe in 20 years we'll look back and ask ourselves, "Why didn't we make that switch sooner?" That's all CA is trying to do.
Perhaps photovoltaic solar is as good as it gets, but I believe that the best is yet to come. What it will be, I can't say. Someday fusion but that always seems to be a couple of decades away. China actually has 58 nuclear reactors in the works. Those include thorium MSR reactors which are much safer and create safer waste compared to uranium reactors. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are investing heavily in forth-generation nuclear reactors. They do not want to see the United States fall behind China as the leader in nuclear power because they believe that nuclear is an important component of a low carbon energy future.
Honestly, I don't know if MSR, forth-generation or fusion will be major energy sources in 20 years. Twenty years ago I might have guessed that natural gas or bio-diesel cars might have replaced a lot of our gasoline cars by now since peak oil seemed like a sure thing. That didn't happen. Let's admit that none of us knows and not lock ourselves in to a single technology.
- Investor · Valencia, CA · Member since 2017 · 171 posts · 130 votes7y
Originally posted by @Danny Grey:
Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:
Are you equally angry at...
So your only response to valid questions about excessive government authoritarianism and increased pollution caused by mandatory manufacturing in China is weak what-about-ism masked in lazy sarcasm. Got it.
To be fair, that impotent non-response does actually speaks volumes about the views of those praising this move. Cheers :)
Not sure why you are hostile? You brought up the "what aboutism" of China. Should we adopt their conditions or are we better?
Not sure how you want me to respond. California has led and continues to lead the world in environmental policy while maintaining a surplus and at the same time growing to become the World's fifth largest economy.
Were it up to me, yes I would levy a carbon tax so that those producing actually have to account for the consequences of that. In the exact same way that big tobacco had taxes levied and legislation levied to make them actually account for the consequences of their methods, lies and damage.
If people are anti-carbon tax then I can only assume they would welcome a removal of subsidies and the taxes that provide for them for fossil fuels. I would sign up for that tomorrow as the entire country would panel overnight.
China does lead the world in solar installation and production. There are massive production facilities for solar panels in the USA yet we are behind. I'm not happy to be behind China, I'd prefer the USA pulled its head out of its denial and moved forward at greater pace with more investment in the industry here. We have the capability of leading the world and selling the technology to the world yet we continue in large sections to promote meaningless soundbites about "digging coal". It's a real shame. Thank goodness for CA being proactive.
We invest tax dollars in schools because we don't want a nation of thick people. If we invest in renewable energy then we could easily lead the world and benefit economically from that while reducing cost, waste and mitigating the climate and environmental damage. We can argue about that and watch the rest of the world get on with the program or be proactive. It seems that simple to me unless I missed something. Originally posted by @Rhonda Wilson:
Originally posted by @Steve K.:
Sure, it's annoying to have to be forced into using solar. But I believe in 20 years we'll look back and ask ourselves, "Why didn't we make that switch sooner?" That's all CA is trying to do.
Perhaps photovoltaic solar is as good as it gets, but I believe that the best is yet to come. What it will be, I can't say. Someday fusion but that always seems to be a couple of decades away. China actually has 58 nuclear reactors in the works. Those include thorium MSR reactors which are much safer and create safer waste compared to uranium reactors. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are investing heavily in forth-generation nuclear reactors. They do not want to see the United States fall behind China as the leader in nuclear power because they believe that nuclear is an important component of a low carbon energy future.
Honestly, I don't know if MSR, forth-generation or fusion will be major energy sources in 20 years. Twenty years ago I might have guessed that natural gas or bio-diesel cars might have replaced a lot of our gasoline cars by now since peak oil seemed like a sure thing. That didn't happen. Let's admit that none of us knows and not lock ourselves in to a single technology.
Agreed. If somebody perfects the Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor coupled with a flux capacitor I can use to power my DeLorean, I'm all for it.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.