Solar power required for all new California homes on Jan. 1

submitted by Rose421 from mercurynews.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Because people will want to save $9,500 at the outset, even if utility bills should be cheaper in the long run.

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I think they meant good idea for the need of the home buyer/builder, not the want if the state.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm arguing that the "need to require it" because people will often forego the extra $9500 when building a new house, even it it's a good idea to have the panel. This is because bank financing will tack on a higher rate for the mortgage, which one could try to avoid.

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Who decides what a good idea is? If it is, why should it be required for the individual to fund the development of this technology instead of the businesses making money from it?

And this is not a zero-sum outcome. The electric utility company will find a way to charge you for power grid infrastructure if they aren't selling you all of the electricity you are consuming. They only way to avoid this is to be totally off-grid, but many, if not most jurisdictions require you to be tied to the grid.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yee - should be optional.

Mandating solar panels helps move residents away from dependence on the grid (a percentage of it).

This would help solar panel businesses. I don't think it helps utility companies, which is one reason for intensive lobbying from these companies - and from Big Oil - to heavily tax green energy initiatives.

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I totally agree with you that green energy is better than fossil fuel and that we are moving inevitably towards it and that it will be cheaper one day. I am just at odds with you on forcing the individual to pay to get us there faster. Not because it is a good outcome, but because those who decide what is a good outcome often rationalize what is a good outcome to justify these mandates. Where does it stop?