5 ms·

>If the state would focus on higher density living... >...where they'll run their air conditioners 10 months out of the year in their huge, inefficient houses

>If the state would focus on higher density living... >...where they'll run their air conditioners 10 months out of the year in their huge, inefficient houses The type of people that live in huge inefficient homes are generally also the same type of people that don't want to live in high density areas. California could turn open fields in to solar farms like you mentioned, but that requires that someone foot the bill and also build the infrastructure for it. "Forcing" people to put solar panels on their own home solves both of those problems. It also makes you more immune to losing power in a natural disaster, of which California has plenty. I'm not saying I'm even for this issue, I don't live in California. But your view is extremely negative and ignores the negatives of your way while also ignoring the positives of the way mentioned in the article.

weberc2 8y ago
> California could turn open fields in to solar farms like you mentioned, but that requires that someone foot the bill and also build the infrastructure for it. "Forcing" people to put solar panels on their own home solves both of those problems. You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install the equivalent panels in some field, where they're cheaper and easier to service, where they can be positioned for optimal sunlight, etc.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install the equivalent panels in some field, where they're cheaper and easier to service, where they can be positioned for optimal sunlight, etc. No thanks. Then some other org controls the power I can get from those panels, can corrupt officials to raise my rates unnecessarily, charge me higher rates for generation facilities that may not be needed except to juice shareholder returns (Duke Energy collected over a billion dollars for a nuclear power plant they'll never build in Florida, and they are under no obligation to return those funds to ratepayers). This is not uncommon. NV Energy in Nevada, Duke and FPL in Florida, utility coalitions in Kentucky and Arizona have all fought against distributed generation, the list goes on. Rooftop/distributed solar is a hedge against utility shenanigans, and with how quickly rooftop solar pays itself back (under 10 years in over half the US states while rolling the cost into a long term fixed rate loan product, ie your mortgage), it's insane we don't mandate its installation in more places on new/retrofit construction [1]. Disclosure: I own a 10kw solar install on my roof. I’m biased and opinionated. [1] https://i.imgur.com/ug2R3Jl.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ug2R3Jl.jpg (NREL US Solar Potential Map) [+] https://i.imgur.com/c86gWxh.jpg https://i.imgur.com/c86gWxh.jpg (Rate of return on cash invested by state)
  - bahmboo 8y ago
    Only if you are off grid are you insulated from the power companies. If you are grid tie you are subject to whatever rate they will pay you for your power and charge you for power.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Storage will only get cheaper, it's only a matter of how quickly [1] [2]. Based on historical renewable generation and storage rapid cost declines, you will be able to be self sufficient faster than utilities will be able to put you over the barrel by moving peak pricing away from the solar "duck curve" [3]. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-storage-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-storage... (Lazard Levelized Cost of Storage 2017) [2] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/03/lithium-ion-batteries-below-200kwh-by-2019-will-drive-rapid-storage-uptake-finds-ihs-markit/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/03/lithium-ion-batteries... (Lithium-ion batteries below $200/kWh by 2019 will drive rapid storage uptake, finds IHS Markit) [3] https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-how-address-over-generation-solar-energy https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-...
      - zaarn 8y ago
        Storage doesn't matter if the solar panels on your roof cannot cover your average power consumption, if they don't you need someone to supply power externally.
        zaroth 8y ago
        Just because you may need to supplement your supply doesn’t mean “storage doesn’t matter.” With storage you need less supply and you can supplement your supply when rates are lowest.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      >Only if you are off grid are you insulated from the power companies. You can be "off grid" by throwing a switch.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  Electricity is not a public utility in California, so wouldn't that solution require the four(?) private utilities in California to raise prices or sell bonds to purchase land/build a solar power plant?
- jayd16 8y ago
  Not so obvious. Prop 13 puts a cap on property taxes.
- pkaye 8y ago
  > You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install... Why why just new homes. Instead tax all electricity consumers on their bills to pay for the solar farms.
  - lsc 8y ago
    This is how California works; privilege old residents over the new. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is very clearly what California voters want. The idea is that we have these massive boom/bust cycles (that seem to trend upwards) and we want to ensure that those who are already here benefit from the boom times, even at the cost of making things rather harder for the newcomers. The interesting thing is that... a lot of the older service people I've talked to, barbers, uber drivers, etc... own homes around here that they bought when it was cheap. because of these rules, sure, they can't eat out everyday, but they can continue to live around here, should they so choose, on very small wages. I think that our rent control and our prop 13 and other favoring of existing residents does in part subsidize our service industry; in some ways, I think it's why services around here just aren't as expensive as you would expect, when you consider how much more expensive rent is here (and programers are here) vs. the rest of the country. I personally think that the economy would be better overall if we just built a lot and then raised the costs of the output of locally produced services in line with rent, e.g. raised service wages in line with programmer wages. But, I do think it's important to understand the majority California view.
    - analognoise 8y ago
      "e.g. raised service wages in line with programmer wages." ...wait, what?
      - lsc 8y ago
        by the same percentage as, perhaps? Both are intensely local, and while local tech industry wages have been increasing pretty dramatically over the last decade, I think that service industry wages have stagnated, as have prices. I think the economy would be better off if we had the same degree of inflation in the service sector as we have in the tech sector. Just my opinion, of course, and I understand it's an unpopular one.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  Avoid that altogether and tax energy production equal to the economic cost of its damage. Redistribute the funds gathered to all citizens since they're the ones impacted by the damage. Buy solar panels, pay the steep tax, take whatever steps work for you, where you live, etc.
  - zdragnar 8y ago
    So rich people hardly notice the difference, and pensioners die of heat stroke because they can't afford air conditioning?
    - eternauta3k 8y ago
      Tax energy according to its externalities. Then fix the resulting poverty by redistributing money according to the standard of living you want to ensure. Do not mix both policies.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      Pensioners receive a check from the tax funds just like everyone else. Assuming pensioners use less electricity than average, they will receive a net benefit. Corporations using a lot of electricity get the same sized tax dividend check the pensioner gets, so it's a net loss for them. The wealthy subsidize the poor under this system. It functions alot like ubi actually.
      - walshemj 8y ago
        Pensioners tend to use more power than younger residents which is why inflation in power costs hurts them proportionally more.
        Consultant32452 8y ago
        They don't use more than factories, big box retailers, large corporate offices, data centers, families with children, etc. As long as they're less than the average, they get a net benefit.
secabeen 8y ago
> It also makes you more immune to losing power in a natural disaster, of which California has plenty. Unfortunately, this is generally not the case. Most grid-tie solar inverters do not support disconnected operation. They all have anti-islanding features that disconnect the solar panels when the grid goes down (to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages). There are a few inverters that include an emergency-outlet on the inverter that works when the power is out, but you have to run an extension cord from the inverter to the devices you want to power. It is possible to buy a hybird off-grid inverter, but they are much more expensive than either plain grid-tie or off-grid, and the power company is going to scrutinize their installation a lot more closely.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages Surely they can't entirely rely on this for safety?
  - aerostable_slug 8y ago
    Backfeed prevention devices are not the only arrow in the safety quiver, but they are required for lineman safety purposes (as well as other net wins, like reduced problems with downed lines meeting up with everyday people). Backfed generators (and now solar, wind, etc.) injure and kill.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >(to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages) Back-flows from generators, solar and other home power sources are not really an issue. It takes a specific set of circumstances where there's both equipment failure and the utility worker fails to check if lines are live. Basically, the resistance of the entire neighborhood is indistinguishable to a short from the perspective of the breakers on your power generation equipment. Still, you shouldn't back feed because we live in a society where everyone must play by the rules of idiots regardless of whether or not they can prove themselves to be otherwise. Therefore you cannot be trusted to flip switches properly yourself and I must advise you to use a proper transfer switch.
Karishma1234 8y ago
Why does California need Solar farms in first place ? Why not ask nevada to build it and buy electricity from them ? If solar is profitable why is some private company not doing it already ?
- downandout 8y ago
  Who told you it was profitable? It isn’t in most areas.
  - IB885588 8y ago
    It is in many places, and increasingly so will be almost everywhere: https://www.eia.gov/renewable/monthly/solar_photo/pdf/pv_table3.pdf https://www.eia.gov/renewable/monthly/solar_photo/pdf/pv_tab... https://twitter.com/LSValue/status/992429019680378880 https://twitter.com/LSValue/status/992429019680378880
    - downandout 8y ago
      Sans incentives, it is NOT cheaper than other forms of energy in MOST areas. Yes, there are exceptions to everything, but by and large, it is NOT profitable without subsidies. You can argue whether or not it's worth the extra cost to taxpayers and consumers etc., but you cannot argue that it's profitable and/or cheaper in most markets without subsidies.
      - CharlesW 8y ago
        > Sans incentives, it is NOT cheaper than other forms of energy in MOST areas. You may be referencing old sources. For example, even though the UK's solar potential is reasonably low, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) shows that levelized cost of solar-generated power IS cheaper than MOST other forms of energy.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
    - Karishma1234 8y ago
bobthepanda 8y ago
> The type of people that live in huge inefficient homes are generally also the same type of people that don't want to live in high density areas. Is this true? IIRC the shortage of urban-style denser housing is so severe that pretty much everyone who prefers that type of housing has to buy a sprawly McMansion anyways, since that's what on the market at prices people can afford. "Huge" and "inefficient" is in the eye of the beholder, and in most countries your standard-sized American house would fall under both of those categories.

weberc2 8y ago

> California could turn open fields in to solar farms like you mentioned, but that requires that someone foot the bill and also build the infrastructure for it. "Forcing" people to put solar panels on their own home solves both of those problems. You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install the equivalent panels in some field, where they're cheaper and easier to service, where they can be positioned for optimal sunlight, etc.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
> You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install the equivalent panels in some field, where they're cheaper and easier to service, where they can be positioned for optimal sunlight, etc. No thanks. Then some other org controls the power I can get from those panels, can corrupt officials to raise my rates unnecessarily, charge me higher rates for generation facilities that may not be needed except to juice shareholder returns (Duke Energy collected over a billion dollars for a nuclear power plant they'll never build in Florida, and they are under no obligation to return those funds to ratepayers). This is not uncommon. NV Energy in Nevada, Duke and FPL in Florida, utility coalitions in Kentucky and Arizona have all fought against distributed generation, the list goes on. Rooftop/distributed solar is a hedge against utility shenanigans, and with how quickly rooftop solar pays itself back (under 10 years in over half the US states while rolling the cost into a long term fixed rate loan product, ie your mortgage), it's insane we don't mandate its installation in more places on new/retrofit construction [1]. Disclosure: I own a 10kw solar install on my roof. I’m biased and opinionated. [1] https://i.imgur.com/ug2R3Jl.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ug2R3Jl.jpg (NREL US Solar Potential Map) [+] https://i.imgur.com/c86gWxh.jpg https://i.imgur.com/c86gWxh.jpg (Rate of return on cash invested by state)
- bahmboo 8y ago
  Only if you are off grid are you insulated from the power companies. If you are grid tie you are subject to whatever rate they will pay you for your power and charge you for power.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Storage will only get cheaper, it's only a matter of how quickly [1] [2]. Based on historical renewable generation and storage rapid cost declines, you will be able to be self sufficient faster than utilities will be able to put you over the barrel by moving peak pricing away from the solar "duck curve" [3]. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-storage-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-storage... (Lazard Levelized Cost of Storage 2017) [2] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/03/lithium-ion-batteries-below-200kwh-by-2019-will-drive-rapid-storage-uptake-finds-ihs-markit/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/03/lithium-ion-batteries... (Lithium-ion batteries below $200/kWh by 2019 will drive rapid storage uptake, finds IHS Markit) [3] https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-how-address-over-generation-solar-energy https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-...
    - zaarn 8y ago
      Storage doesn't matter if the solar panels on your roof cannot cover your average power consumption, if they don't you need someone to supply power externally.
      - zaroth 8y ago
        Just because you may need to supplement your supply doesn’t mean “storage doesn’t matter.” With storage you need less supply and you can supplement your supply when rates are lowest.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Only if you are off grid are you insulated from the power companies. You can be "off grid" by throwing a switch.
stevenwoo 8y ago
Electricity is not a public utility in California, so wouldn't that solution require the four(?) private utilities in California to raise prices or sell bonds to purchase land/build a solar power plant?
jayd16 8y ago
Not so obvious. Prop 13 puts a cap on property taxes.
pkaye 8y ago
> You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install... Why why just new homes. Instead tax all electricity consumers on their bills to pay for the solar farms.
- lsc 8y ago
  This is how California works; privilege old residents over the new. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is very clearly what California voters want. The idea is that we have these massive boom/bust cycles (that seem to trend upwards) and we want to ensure that those who are already here benefit from the boom times, even at the cost of making things rather harder for the newcomers. The interesting thing is that... a lot of the older service people I've talked to, barbers, uber drivers, etc... own homes around here that they bought when it was cheap. because of these rules, sure, they can't eat out everyday, but they can continue to live around here, should they so choose, on very small wages. I think that our rent control and our prop 13 and other favoring of existing residents does in part subsidize our service industry; in some ways, I think it's why services around here just aren't as expensive as you would expect, when you consider how much more expensive rent is here (and programers are here) vs. the rest of the country. I personally think that the economy would be better overall if we just built a lot and then raised the costs of the output of locally produced services in line with rent, e.g. raised service wages in line with programmer wages. But, I do think it's important to understand the majority California view.
  - analognoise 8y ago
    "e.g. raised service wages in line with programmer wages." ...wait, what?
    - lsc 8y ago
      by the same percentage as, perhaps? Both are intensely local, and while local tech industry wages have been increasing pretty dramatically over the last decade, I think that service industry wages have stagnated, as have prices. I think the economy would be better off if we had the same degree of inflation in the service sector as we have in the tech sector. Just my opinion, of course, and I understand it's an unpopular one.
Consultant32452 8y ago
Avoid that altogether and tax energy production equal to the economic cost of its damage. Redistribute the funds gathered to all citizens since they're the ones impacted by the damage. Buy solar panels, pay the steep tax, take whatever steps work for you, where you live, etc.
- zdragnar 8y ago
  So rich people hardly notice the difference, and pensioners die of heat stroke because they can't afford air conditioning?
  - eternauta3k 8y ago
    Tax energy according to its externalities. Then fix the resulting poverty by redistributing money according to the standard of living you want to ensure. Do not mix both policies.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    Pensioners receive a check from the tax funds just like everyone else. Assuming pensioners use less electricity than average, they will receive a net benefit. Corporations using a lot of electricity get the same sized tax dividend check the pensioner gets, so it's a net loss for them. The wealthy subsidize the poor under this system. It functions alot like ubi actually.
    - walshemj 8y ago
      Pensioners tend to use more power than younger residents which is why inflation in power costs hurts them proportionally more.
      - Consultant32452 8y ago
        They don't use more than factories, big box retailers, large corporate offices, data centers, families with children, etc. As long as they're less than the average, they get a net benefit.

secabeen 8y ago

> It also makes you more immune to losing power in a natural disaster, of which California has plenty. Unfortunately, this is generally not the case. Most grid-tie solar inverters do not support disconnected operation. They all have anti-islanding features that disconnect the solar panels when the grid goes down (to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages). There are a few inverters that include an emergency-outlet on the inverter that works when the power is out, but you have to run an extension cord from the inverter to the devices you want to power. It is possible to buy a hybird off-grid inverter, but they are much more expensive than either plain grid-tie or off-grid, and the power company is going to scrutinize their installation a lot more closely.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mehrdadn 8y ago
> to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages Surely they can't entirely rely on this for safety?
- aerostable_slug 8y ago
  Backfeed prevention devices are not the only arrow in the safety quiver, but they are required for lineman safety purposes (as well as other net wins, like reduced problems with downed lines meeting up with everyday people). Backfed generators (and now solar, wind, etc.) injure and kill.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>(to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages) Back-flows from generators, solar and other home power sources are not really an issue. It takes a specific set of circumstances where there's both equipment failure and the utility worker fails to check if lines are live. Basically, the resistance of the entire neighborhood is indistinguishable to a short from the perspective of the breakers on your power generation equipment. Still, you shouldn't back feed because we live in a society where everyone must play by the rules of idiots regardless of whether or not they can prove themselves to be otherwise. Therefore you cannot be trusted to flip switches properly yourself and I must advise you to use a proper transfer switch.

Karishma1234 8y ago

Why does California need Solar farms in first place ? Why not ask nevada to build it and buy electricity from them ? If solar is profitable why is some private company not doing it already ?

downandout 8y ago
Who told you it was profitable? It isn’t in most areas.
- IB885588 8y ago
  It is in many places, and increasingly so will be almost everywhere: https://www.eia.gov/renewable/monthly/solar_photo/pdf/pv_table3.pdf https://www.eia.gov/renewable/monthly/solar_photo/pdf/pv_tab... https://twitter.com/LSValue/status/992429019680378880 https://twitter.com/LSValue/status/992429019680378880
  - downandout 8y ago
    Sans incentives, it is NOT cheaper than other forms of energy in MOST areas. Yes, there are exceptions to everything, but by and large, it is NOT profitable without subsidies. You can argue whether or not it's worth the extra cost to taxpayers and consumers etc., but you cannot argue that it's profitable and/or cheaper in most markets without subsidies.
    - CharlesW 8y ago
      > Sans incentives, it is NOT cheaper than other forms of energy in MOST areas. You may be referencing old sources. For example, even though the UK's solar potential is reasonably low, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) shows that levelized cost of solar-generated power IS cheaper than MOST other forms of energy.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
  - Karishma1234 8y ago

bobthepanda 8y ago

> The type of people that live in huge inefficient homes are generally also the same type of people that don't want to live in high density areas. Is this true? IIRC the shortage of urban-style denser housing is so severe that pretty much everyone who prefers that type of housing has to buy a sprawly McMansion anyways, since that's what on the market at prices people can afford. "Huge" and "inefficient" is in the eye of the beholder, and in most countries your standard-sized American house would fall under both of those categories.