actually with the improved efficiency of solar panels, the payback is less than ten years in california
with decent sun exposure. this misses two big points. first electricity costs from non-renewables
are likely to go up faster than inflation. two, since the new law will impact new building
which is done mainly in projects, the cost to install solar would be less than an individual
home due to economies of scale. there is also the expected belief that solar installation costs will
continue to decline and/or that solar panel efficiency is likely to improve thus making the previous
numbers too conservative.
if you guys had been around 40 years ago when the federal government mandated outrageously
high fuel efficiency standards for new cars and heard the outcry from Detroit + conservatives
as to how this would kill the domestic auto industry, drive the price of new cars to unaffordable
levels, and was not attainable; then you might be more understanding and sympathetic to
California's goals here. our air is bad, but compared to the smog and pollution of 50 years
ago; it is an improvement. if you want an example of what happens when the government
puts the economy first and ignores the environment; then just look at Beijing.
with decent sun exposure. this misses two big points. first electricity costs from non-renewables
are likely to go up faster than inflation. two, since the new law will impact new building
which is done mainly in projects, the cost to install solar would be less than an individual
home due to economies of scale. there is also the expected belief that solar installation costs will
continue to decline and/or that solar panel efficiency is likely to improve thus making the previous
numbers too conservative.
if you guys had been around 40 years ago when the federal government mandated outrageously
high fuel efficiency standards for new cars and heard the outcry from Detroit + conservatives
as to how this would kill the domestic auto industry, drive the price of new cars to unaffordable
levels, and was not attainable; then you might be more understanding and sympathetic to
California's goals here. our air is bad, but compared to the smog and pollution of 50 years
ago; it is an improvement. if you want an example of what happens when the government
puts the economy first and ignores the environment; then just look at Beijing.
This article throws a lot of cold water on this approach.
Note that this is a very expensive way to combat “climate change” (and in fact it will do nothing at all on the matter).
Shockingly, no experts were consulted before the vote on this matter. From UC Berkley economist Borenstein:
“I, along with the vast majority of energy economist, believe that residential rooftop solar is a much more expensive way to move towards renewable energy than larger solar and wind installations. The savings calculated for the households are based on residential electricity rates that are far above the actual cost of providing incremental energy, so embody a large cross
subsidy from other ratepayers.
… I would urge you to delay adopting such a rule until independent analysis from energy experts can be made part of the record.”
Don’t worry, I’m sure the woke commissioners voting on it know more than the dummy professor at Berkley.
Isn't it funny how liberals love "experts" until the experts say something they don't want to hear?
One final point on CA housing:
From 2008 to 2017, an average of 73,000 new housing permits were issued per year – far lower than the average of 135,000 permits issued annually between 1991 and 2007. California has the nation’s second-lowest rate of homeownership and worst rate of rental housing over-crowdedness in the country.
This will exacerbate this problem.
Note that this is a very expensive way to combat “climate change” (and in fact it will do nothing at all on the matter).
Shockingly, no experts were consulted before the vote on this matter. From UC Berkley economist Borenstein:
“I, along with the vast majority of energy economist, believe that residential rooftop solar is a much more expensive way to move towards renewable energy than larger solar and wind installations. The savings calculated for the households are based on residential electricity rates that are far above the actual cost of providing incremental energy, so embody a large cross
subsidy from other ratepayers.
… I would urge you to delay adopting such a rule until independent analysis from energy experts can be made part of the record.”
Don’t worry, I’m sure the woke commissioners voting on it know more than the dummy professor at Berkley.
Isn't it funny how liberals love "experts" until the experts say something they don't want to hear?
One final point on CA housing:
From 2008 to 2017, an average of 73,000 new housing permits were issued per year – far lower than the average of 135,000 permits issued annually between 1991 and 2007. California has the nation’s second-lowest rate of homeownership and worst rate of rental housing over-crowdedness in the country.
This will exacerbate this problem.
certainly large solar and wind farms are more cost effective and more beneficial than doing
individual homes; but that doesn't that this mandate won't be cost effective and have value.
what makes this approach work IS the high cost of residential energy which already IS
regulated and IS unlikely to go down for the foreseeable future.
will this stop climate change? no. will this help a little? very little at best. but like the mainly
symbolic paris accords, someone has to start doing something soon no matter how little before
this situation gets much worse. the co2 levels in the atmosphere are at the highest in the
last 800,000 years. they are increasing. co2 is a known heat trapping gas. I wish this
wasn't the case, but it is. I hope the experts are wrong, but to ignore them is a potential
real tragedy.
much worse.
individual homes; but that doesn't that this mandate won't be cost effective and have value.
what makes this approach work IS the high cost of residential energy which already IS
regulated and IS unlikely to go down for the foreseeable future.
will this stop climate change? no. will this help a little? very little at best. but like the mainly
symbolic paris accords, someone has to start doing something soon no matter how little before
this situation gets much worse. the co2 levels in the atmosphere are at the highest in the
last 800,000 years. they are increasing. co2 is a known heat trapping gas. I wish this
wasn't the case, but it is. I hope the experts are wrong, but to ignore them is a potential
real tragedy.
much worse.
