I didn't know that they were still building houses in California. They're so expensive already that no one can afford to buy one.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
You also have to deduct the insurance premium increase in any perceived savings associated with the solar panels. Also need to include additional maintenance/electricians cost. How about any wind/water damage to the roof....bet that's easy to fix with giant solar panels in the way. I know a lot of places don't have to worry about snow loads regarding how the houses are built, but the additional weight from solar panels will necessitate changes and/or additional building codes. I'll bet the 25 year estimate is quite a stretch too. Think it's still only gonna cost an additional $30K? Yeah right.

There is a reason this hasn't taken off across the country. Another way to shake down folks trying to live the American dream by mandating some nonsense that really only benefits those highly invested in solar tech.

So wrong. I don’t know where to start here, misinformation, at best.

I have panels. They weigh jack f all. Actually pretty light weight. No need for additional support of any kind. Today’s panels are pretty light weight, and efficient.

They are also stronger than the shingles underneath them. We get hail here. Some years it is real bad. A year ago the roof got whacked hard, and the shingles/roof were only 2 years old. Shingles needed replacement, solar panels didn’t bat an eye and the shingles under the panels were and remain in mint condition. Had to replace every exposed shingle. Panels cover half the roof, so only half the roof had to be replaced. Every neighbor I have, on my street, entire neighborhood, had to have full roofs replaced. I didn’t. So the panels SAVED me money in roof replacement, as well as my homeowners insurance company. They also happen to shield half the roof from the sun so the house doesn’t burn as much A/C during the 8-9 months we have to run A/C down here. More winning.

I leased mine (numbers were better for me vs. buying, and thanks to arcwelder on here for pointing me in the ignition direction) so no increase in homeowners insurance, and it’s been years since they were installed, not a single problem or issue requiring a tech or electrician. If there is, the company I lease them from has to fix them, for $0 out of my pocket.

I started saving money the second they were turned on. For the last 2 years I was on a free nights kWh plan and they paid me slightly less for my kWh that I put on the grid than I pulled from the grid, but again, free nights, so savings were 4 figures per year. That company yanked that plan so I switched kWh companies to one who pays me same price I pay them so in effect, net metering.

I use the sun juice to power the house and my daily driver. It’s worked out well for me, and politics and bullshit had zero to do with it. Decision was made for purely financial reasons.
I like that the sun powers my daily driver, means less gas use for me (I do have gas vehicles as well) and that means less of my money going to the Middle East. I have the option to buy them after year 7, if the numbers check out I’ll do it. It’s worked very well so far.

Get your facts straight if you wanna bitch.

What company for the panels? Previous numbers checked out the last time my dad looked into it (shortly after 2010).

quote:

Originally posted by F12517:
My god, I can't believe I'm about to say this, but being a California resident, and one who has solar, this is the first sane thing I've seen California politicians suggest.

We as state won't build new, cheap electrical generating operations, they allow the power companies to run wild with rate hikes and mandate renewable energy that isn't cost effective.

Done right (lolz...right) solar would put the rate increases and power companies in check.

Well I think it's absolutely nuts. From the state that gave us CA compliant cars that are slower than non CA cars due to emmissions. We also got CA compliant guns.

A lot of light fixtures I work with comes with stickers that say "this product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer." First off who paid to test all the fixtures and affix the stickers? Consumers both in and out of the state, which means me, and I didn't vote for or ask for this. Second off, who is licking light fixtures and getting cancer from it? Who do these stickers help?

Guess you got to have a California state of mind to think this is a good idea. I don't want to pay $30-$50k extra to buy a new home if for some reason life necessitated I move there. People need to stand up and say I won't be taxed and regulated into the poorhouse.

quote:

Originally posted by Prefontaine:

Get your facts straight if you wanna bitch.

I apologize. Sometimes I do get ahead of myself, but I have checked into the cost here in VA as well as CO when I lived there. The prices would just barely work in CO because electricity was so expensive, but where I am now, the rates are very low and it would take the full life span of 25 years to net any savings.

Glad it has worked out for you and I appreciate the information you provided. Maybe one day I can get away from paying for electricity. I would love to be able to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Prefontaine:. . . Get your facts straight if you wanna bitch.

So, how much taxpayer subsidies were involved in the manfacture, purchase, installation, etc of the solar panels? And can you document your answer from the financial records of the firms involved in those things?

quote:

Originally posted by F12517:
My god, I can't believe I'm about to say this, but being a California resident, and one who has solar, this is the first sane thing I've seen California politicians suggest.

We as state won't build new, cheap electrical generating operations, they allow the power companies to run wild with rate hikes and mandate renewable energy that isn't cost effective.

Done right (lolz...right) solar would put the rate increases and power companies in check.

I mentioned the CA Ivanpah solar power plant in the Mojave Desert (I flew over it one evening at dusk a couple of years ago, very impressive). The promise was clean cheap solar electricity that would save the planet. The delivery was very expensive electricity (the consumer/tax payer gets hit one way or another) that is a gross poluter of CO2 and harms the local animal and plant life.

The CA High speed rail promised ~$45 Billion, 20 years, roughly same transit time as airlines but more convenient and comfortable, once in operation would be profitable, and would save the planet. Now it is $90+ Billion, 30+years, will not deliver the transit time promised, and once in operation will require massive tax payer subsidies. (One of the problems is environmental lawsuits because of the damage it is doing to Mother Earth).

And, from audited financials, could you document just how much taxpayer subsidies are involved in the solar power industry. (Seems Solyndra went bankrupt, the owners got most of their money back, the US taxpayer got hit with ~$535 Million tab)

If you believe CA gov't is doing this to properly serve the needs/best interests of the people, and can be trusted to do so better than private industry, you might find Venezuela desirable.

quote:

Originally posted by F12517:
My god, I can't believe I'm about to say this, but being a California resident, and one who has solar, this is the first sane thing I've seen California politicians suggest.

We as state won't build new, cheap electrical generating operations, they allow the power companies to run wild with rate hikes and mandate renewable energy that isn't cost effective.

Done right (lolz...right) solar would put the rate increases and power companies in check.

Yes, no cheap options. And hydroelectric is out of the question after CA drained most of its water sources and sent them back to sea to save all the special critters.

but how is solar power for keeping your house running during power outages?? In the south we have a few. There are storms that can take power out from metro ATL for a few days sometimes a year.

The problem is mandates, not solar power.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
The problem is mandates, not solar power.

Do you really think California politicians would abuse mandate powers?

California's politicians motivation for this is of course self serving.

Sure, Solar power makes much sense in many, but not all instances.

I've read that one problem with solar panels installed on the roof, is that, it you have a fire, the Firefighters are running in a problems having to hack thru the solar panels to get to the roof to hack thru in helping to fight the fire.

The real solution is roof shingles that are also solar panels. Not sure if we're this advanced in out effort of solar power panels?

Part of the reason solar works now, is that many of the electrical use devices need much less power to run than in the past. This also places less stress on the already in place infrastructure of Coal, Gas, Hydro and nuclear power sources. Wind energy also benefits.

Retro fit to solar only makes sense fiscally if you plan on remaining in your current location, or if you think you'll get the costs back in a sale of the place.

Saving the planet is a nice, although the plant will survive us pitiful humans regardless of what we do. Earth will kill us first, long before we can kill it. We humans are not the ebola virus of the planet that we imagine ourselves to be.

Electric cars? Ok, for metropolitan area travel, but long distance - evil oil is still king for now.

quote:

Originally posted by icom706:
California's politicians motivation for this is of course self serving. Sure, Solar power makes much sense in many, but not all instances.....

Saving the planet is a nice, although the plant will survive us pitiful humans regardless of what we do. Earth will kill us first, long before we can kill it. We humans are not the ebola virus of the planet that we imagine ourselves to be....

A couple of thoughts.

I would love the independence of solar power, in those circumstances and conditions when it is economically beneficial without subsidies. The problem I see is that too much taxpayer/consumer money is paid for false promises to save the planet.

Also, I don't think Earth will kill us, Earth was created for us. I do think we will kill ourselves with corrupt politics, corrupt economics, corrupt amoral conduct.

quote:

A couple of thoughts.

I would love the independence of solar power, if and when it is economically beneficial without subsidies. The problem I see is that too much taxpayer/consumer money is paid for false promises to save the planet.

Also, I don't think Earth will kill us, Earth was created for us. I do think we will kill ourselves with corrupt politics, corrupt economics, corrupt amoral conduct.

^^^Completely concur.

Apparently the California Energy Commission has approved the measure and will leave it up to the Building Codes group to finalize standards and adoption.

Looks like solar panels will be standard practice in new home construction starting 2020.

By the way, new home builders in CA already offer solar as an option, an option that new home owners take advantage of already.

This will cause hell with the power grid.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by icom706:
California's politicians motivation for this is of course self serving. Sure, Solar power makes much sense in many, but not all instances.....

Saving the planet is a nice, although the plant will survive us pitiful humans regardless of what we do. Earth will kill us first, long before we can kill it. We humans are not the ebola virus of the planet that we imagine ourselves to be....

A couple of thoughts.

I would love the independence of solar power, in those circumstances and conditions when it is economically beneficial without subsidies. The problem I see is that too much taxpayer/consumer money is paid for false promises to save the planet.

Also, I don't think Earth will kill us, Earth was created for us. I do think we will kill ourselves with corrupt politics, corrupt economics, corrupt amoral conduct.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
The problem is mandates, not solar power.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
This will cause hell with the power grid.

Oi.

Guys.

Fredward is correct, the problem is mandates. Solar power by itself is a positive, because it is DC (get it? eh?). No, it does not "cause hell" with the power grid. The power grid already has a host of modern challenges.

What govmint should not do, is stand in the way of, or promote, one thing or another.

We are a long way still from getting rid of "fossil fuel" for energy production. Really, we will always need coal and oil, because we make so many things from or with them.

"Green energy" is and has been viable since the 70's, and if you know what Voyager is, then you know how long solar power has been in use.

Thankfully, solar energy is less complex and controversial than gun control.

quote:

CA is currently working on a per mile vehicle tax for all cars, in addition to the gas tax, for that very reason, electric cars aren't paying gas tax.

Aaaand because they are misappropriating taxes to buy votes.

Imagine that, paying out welfare to people illegally here who have never paid a dime into the system in return for votes.

quote:

"Green energy" is and has been viable since the 70's, and if you know what Voyager is, then you know how long solar power has been in use.

Voyager probes use radioisotope thermoelectric generators for power, solar at that distance isn't as effective.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

"Green energy" is and has been viable since the 70's, and if you know what Voyager is, then you know how long solar power has been in use.

Voyager probes use radioisotope thermoelectric generators for power, solar at that distance isn't as effective.

The technology is related, and the development began when? This is my point.