
70% of Americans Support Solar Mandate on New Homes - r_singh
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/14/70-of-americans-support-solar-mandate-on-new-homes/
======
sremani
One thing proponents of ideas like these miss is Solar is very geographical -
this is clearly a good idea for California, West Texas and American South West
- but pretty much bad idea for the rest of the USA.

Again, Solar panels do not grow on trees and their manufacturing process is
chemically intensive. So, it is in the best interest of every one, that Solar
PVs are deployed where they return both economic and environmental value.

Again -- here is the link to Global Solar Atlas --

[https://globalsolaratlas.info/](https://globalsolaratlas.info/)

the areas in the Red is where you want to deploy PVs. Other places not so
much.

~~~
danaris
The idea that solar is guaranteed to be an environmental or economic net-
negative in the northern US is misinformed at best, propaganda at worst.

Just as a single data point, my parents, who live in rural upstate NY,
installed solar panels on a portion of their (connected-to-the-house) barn's
roof a few years ago. Aside from times when they're literally covered in snow
(which is rare, due to their temperature), they're producing power, and even
in the depths of winter they produce plenty enough to offset a huge chunk of
their electric bill (and in the summer, there are days and weeks at a time
where they're producing more than they need).

I can't speak for the specifics of environmental impact, because I don't know
the details for their panels, nor how one calculates such uneven things (how
_do_ you subtract electricity generated from the various kinds of
environmental damage done to mine and refine the various rare minerals in
solar panels...?), but at least economically, they're a huge win.

~~~
marcell
A barn might have a lot more surface area compared to a typical home...

~~~
danaris
The area covered by the solar panels is roughly comparable to the size of one
side of a typical roof in their area—and the area is mainly middle- to lower-
class.

------
Dumblydorr
I don't support this mandate because it's a one size fits all rule. Do we
really want Alaskans and Mainers to be forced to have solar? Why not mandate
low carbon energy and then let technologists figure out the cheapest solution
for each new home? This would be far more cost effective and limit emissions
far better.

~~~
beatgammit
Or better yet, just tax carbon sources. If your energy bill doubles over
night, you will be interested in solutions, and maybe solar isn't the ideal
solution in your area.

------
cududa
I support the mandate, however an internet poll ad-targeted at people that
already support clean energy doesn’t seem realistic

------
samatman
This is an overly-specific regulation.

If we want a regulation that all new construction must be powered by zero-
emissions sources, say that. I'd even be in favor of it, cautiously.

But solar panels aren't a magic cure-all. They should be installed in places
that make sense, which isn't guaranteed to be the roof of a new building.

------
JoeAltmaier
Works for single-family dwellings, and maybe duplexes. But a 4-story apartment
building with 2 units on each floor? Same rooftop, 8X the electricity demand.

If a city wants more solar, then they could put up a solar farm in some
rational place with a good economy of scale, and connect it to the grid.

~~~
ben_w
Why not both?

For example, one person in a 50 m² apartment, divided by 4 floors, with 20%
efficient panels, 25% duty cycle for night/latitude, still implies 625
W/person. That won’t power everything all the time, but it would reduce the
required size of the external electricity source — be it PV, nuclear, fossil,
whatever — by a decent amount.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Because, again, it would be more efficient to put all that in the solar farm
at scale.

~~~
ben_w
Swings and roundabouts. There is also benefit in using the PV as the roofing
material, and also in pick one of {reduced transmission losses; minimising the
land use of those solar farms} — land near a city is almost always at a
relative premium.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The city is doing it. If they can mandate every house to have solar, they can
use eminent domain to get the land. Which would also be more efficient.

This whole rooftop solar movement reminds me of 'solar roads', a snakeoil
scheme a couple of years ago. It has no rational basis, and no compelling
engineering support. Its just a 'roofs are flat; solar panels are flat; hey!
lets put solar panels on rooftops!'

E.g. does the rooftop have an appropriate southern exposure? Is it in direct
sunlight? Does it have the carrying capacity for tons of equipment? Is it a
safe place to do construction? Will the roof's normal function be unaffected
by solar installation?

The answer to all these things is, No.

~~~
ben_w
First, I thought eminent domain allowed a government to force a sale, not that
it forced the seller to do so below market price. I’m not a lawyer so I won’t
argue that.

Second, even if all the things you’ve just said “no” about are true for 100%
of existing property, if this is part of the planning regulation for new
buildings, then the designs can be required to be such that the answers are
“yes”. I know this is technically achievable by way of having at least one
example of PV on a roof.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Again, no. Houses shade one another; apartment buildings can shade hundreds of
houses. Mandating every home be solar is nonsense, in any practical
deployment.

And again, one roof for many families doesn't scale. A solar farm has every
advantage over this scheme.

~~~
ben_w
> apartment buildings can shade hundreds of houses

Do you think that isn’t obvious? So keep new apartments away from houses and
vice versa. So what, no big deal.

The idea is called “planning permission” and why sewage plants are not
normally next to residential areas.

Problem solved a very long time ago — which is convenient, because this is the
exact same problem you’d have to deal with when planning the solar farm in the
first place, because the apartments can shade solar farms too if they’re built
too close.

> And again, one roof for many families doesn't scale.

Not claiming it scales with arbitrary height. It’s clearly constant with
arbitrary height. Claim is that it’s still useful for ~4 stories with one
family per story.

> A solar farm has every advantage over this scheme.

Except for land cost, grid capacity including connecting to the farm to the
grid in the first place, and the money rooftop solar saves on the cost of the
roofing material, and the way local power generation at least enables the
possibility of power when the grid is down like happens sometimes in CA fire
season, and the way this puts more money in the hands of normal people whereas
a traditional solar farm or power plant will put it in the hand of
shareholders, and the fact that large land use changes have their own
ecological issues and NIMBYism (remember, if we suppose that the rooftops
don’t cover enough area, then the solar farm you want to build is larger than
the _combined area of every building in the city it’s associated with_ ), and
the way rooftops get built every time a residential building gets built so in
the case of houses it will scale perfectly with population when a PV farm or
an apartment won’t. (Apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Etc.)

Edit:

Just to be clear, if you were to say “American building codes make rooftop PV
needlessly expensive”, I’d agree with you. My in-laws and parents both had PV
installed in the UK, and even a decade ago it cost them less than half of the
prices I see quoted on HN for American rooftop PV today.

However, this an entirely separate argument to the one you appear to be
making.

------
m0zg
When I last priced out a solar panel install on my house a few years ago the
cost came to something like $20K, and the capacity was quite modest - only the
most favorable slope of the roof. There simply was no way for me to recoup the
investment, ever, even ignoring maintenance costs (those panels need to be
cleaned from time to time). It's probably lower now, though I wonder if the
cost differential is significant - much of this cost is labor and margin.

I wonder if this was communicated to those responding to the poll. In SV and
SF $20K might not seem like much, but not all of CA is that well off.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Your investment is recouped in 8-13 years (depending on state; the more
expensive your power, the faster the system cost is recouped), after that the
system produces power "for free" [1] [2] and the components (panels, inverter)
are warrantied for 25 years. Panel cleaning is spraying the panels with a
hose.

The best time to get solar is when a house is built, or a roof is replaced,
especially if you can combine the install with a financing event that's going
to let you finance the system for 20-30 years with low interest rates. Not
only is there a 26% federal tax credit for solar, but many states offer
generous incentives/rebates as well. Capture them!

It's fiscally a no brainer. $20k over 30 years at 4% is $95/month. Mortgage
rates will only continue to go down (and are already below 4%) due to macro
issues, and residential solar install costs also will drop as the scale ramps.
These mandates drive down costs, in the same way EV credits helped Tesla reach
scale to offer the Model 3 at an affordable price.

Disclaimer: I review system quotes and advise on solar installs for friends,
family, and internet strangers, but am not a solar professional (yet; if
you're a utility scale developer in need of any role [system design, project
management, finance], I'd be interested!).

[1] [https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/s...](https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/12/space-infographic-full-new.jpg) (updated 10/23/2018)

[2] [https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/](https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/)

~~~
Dominisi
>Your investment is recouped in 5-7 years.

(Oops, then edited it to double that estimate)

>Your investment is recouped in 8-13 years.

So, right when you recoup your investment, the 10 year warranty runs out.
Great.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Thanks for pointing out that I corrected my information, I prefer
communicating accurate information. Panels and inverter have 25 year
warranties. Storage is optional (the 10 year warranty you mention). If there
are incentives for it, get it, but don't pay out of pocket entire yourself for
the storage. Let state, local, and utility pockets pay for it.

~~~
Dominisi
[https://news.energysage.com/shopping-solar-panels-pay-
attent...](https://news.energysage.com/shopping-solar-panels-pay-attention-to-
solar-panels-warranty/)

You're right. 4 on this list have 25 year warranties... but the rest.. ouch.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I have never seen panels quoted by reputable installers that weren't
Panasonic, LG, or SunPower (quality panels with the 25 year warranty
mentioned).

------
microcolonel
99% of Americans, and almost all people in the world, are wholely unqualified
to make any meaningful decision that basically makes most forms of affordable
housing unlawful.

If this sample is, by some miracle, representative; I guess it shows that
Americans must live amazing middle-class lives to believe that this policy is
viable.

------
aSplash0fDerp
This may be off-topic, but I've had a passing thought over the years of the
evolution of opensource to expand to the blueprints, architecture and
building-codes of residential homes to simplify the upfront costs and options
of new construction for specific needs (starter homes, bachelor pads, tiny
homes,etc).

In the US for instance, could we take all of the local building-codes and
design blueprints that would satisfy all of the legal requirements for
quality, sustainable construction, regardless of the state, city or county
that you choose to build in?

Even going with a smaller scale and offering off the shelf blueprints by state
may stimulate more new construction growth and sustainable designs.

------
xupybd
Wouldn't batteries on new homes make more sense? If we can smooth peak demand
we can lower carbon emissions much more than we can by producing power during
solar hours.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Batteries do make sense in some situations where you have large amounts of
renewables available on the local grid, and parts of Australia and California
are paying homeowners incentives for installing local storage. They make less
sense immediately in places where you have hydro and nuclear as base load
along with renewables; the capacity factor is already accounted for, so you'd
want to prioritize anywhere you could displace fossil generation (such as
natural gas).

Tesla is also pioneering virtual distributed load systems, where they can have
a utility send a signal similar to that used to shed AC units during high
consumption periods, but the signal is instead used to command vehicles to
charge when there is excess energy on the grid. [1] This would make sense
today in places like Texas, that have so much wind energy (and not enough
transmission capacity to other load centers) some utilities provide you
electricity for free at night. Any KwH you can use instead of curtailing is a
KwH of energy you're not wasting.

[1] [https://electrek.co/2015/08/16/the-power-of-controllable-
cha...](https://electrek.co/2015/08/16/the-power-of-controllable-charging-
load-is-tesla-working-on-a-bi-directional-charging-station/)

------
sys_64738
Solar panels are not the way to go for mandates. It has to be solar shingles
when they become price competitive.

------
purplezooey
It would be easier if 70% of Americans also supported actually building new
homes.

