all 49 comments

[–]Nemacolin 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (29 children)

Seems like a fine idea.

[–]Intuit 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (27 children)

Why the need to require it if it's a good idea?

[–]Nemacolin 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

The good is a social one, less oil imported, less pollution produced. The cost is a private one. A person might not make his contribution but enjoy the benefit.

[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sounds like a hypothetical good and huge profits for those invested in solar. It is well known in non sheep circles that the environmental costs of manufacturing solar systems far outpace other forms of power generation.

Nuclear would be far more economically friendly.

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

I have noticed a lot of shilling for nuclear in the opinion pages. I see Ohio just passed a huge subsidy for their failing nuclear industry.

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

Gee I wonder why people support the greatest invention in human history. Unlike solar that has been on government aid since inception, and can't survive without it.

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

Best of luck to you!

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

Should "socially good" behavior be required? One could argue that giving money to the neighborhood church/mosque/temple is a social good. Shouldn't that be a lawful mandate, then? Mandatory work at your local hospital or nursing home? A limit on how many children you can have?

I'm not saying that in a perfect world everyone would make good decisions and the outcomes of everyone's actions would lead to beneficial outcomes, but at what point do you take responsibility for your own actions and allow other individuals to take responsibility for theirs?

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

Buy the panels for me and give me a portion of the supposed benefits. If there really are large benefits, you should profit.

[–][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?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Because the average person is an idiot and doesn't know what's for their own good, let alone the good of anyone else.

Here in Australia motorcycle helmets are compulsory, and for good reason. In the US they are not and many end up on Ogrish where the riders face is missing or split in half.

[–]Intuit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Because the average person is an idiot and doesn't know what's for their own good, let alone the good of anyone else.

Ahhh yes, the people who are so sure of their superiority over others that they justify imposing their views on others with the threat of violence.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm glad someone actually said this out loud. It's like all of the politicians and celebrities who encourage or order restrictions and "proper social etiquette" concerning Covid-19, who then don't follow their own advice or orders are just that: people who feel like everyone else is just too stupid. This is the laziest of attitudes.

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

Ahhh yes, the people who are so sure of their superiority over others that they justify imposing their views on others with the threat of violence

yeah, that's it! Like what all the European peoples and their offspring did to the native americans and the mexicans who didn't like the way they wanted to do things. Or the current stock, who occupy bases in a hundred countries, ready to deliver the death blow to any government of group that dares to contradict their view on how the planet should be run. That's how the world works, Elected people telling everyone else how to live their lives. There is another system, called the darkage anarchy system where people can do whatever they like, no rules! Of course that means a group of bandits can come upon you in the middle of the night and rape your women and take all you have. But that's ok, that's the system. No rules.

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

So far you haven't made a good argument for forcing people to add solar panels to homes, nor for such things in general.

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

I don't need to make an argument, I know from experience. I have 10kva on my roof, the system is half paid off in just 2 years with the money the power company pays me and I pay nothing for my consumption. It's 32-C outside at the moment and 22-C inside, a bit chilly actually, but WTF, it's free electricity! I would have though that in a country like the US, where shit loads of people can't even afford to have the power on now, that it would be a no-brainer? Like have a flushing toilet or water connected or a garbage collection service. At least in the years ahead people will be able to have lights and run their fridges.

I know you yanks are screwed 5 ways over but don't bite off your nose to spite your face. Home solar is a good idea and making it mandatory on new homes is too. But if you have an issue, then buy an old home as there are plenty of them around. As far as things go, having solar mandatory is nothing compared with the shitty materials most homes are made of now, that's lack of regulation where needed if ever I saw it. I wouldn't touch a new build, I upgraded to a 1970's brick with hardwood floors, steel I-beams downstairs to support it, Thick concrete slab that won't crack. In other words Intuit I'm not just prattling opinions out my arse, I can speak from experience, on homes, solar, motorcycles, many subjects. You on the other hand offer nothing but knee-jerk rejection based on your opinion, no doubt, that nothing government does can be trusted. Get a bit of experience under your belt and then come back and talk.

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

"I'm forcing you to do this because I know it's a good idea" falls flat many people. That's why you need to make an argument. Even then if you argue that it's just cost-effective, then you then have to explain why you feel the need to force people.

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

The average person being an idiot explains why people believe this is to save the environment when it does fuck all to save the environment. It's all about funneling funding into your investments.

[–]AmericanMuskrat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

We had a mandatory helmet law in my state for a hot second. Late 90s, early 2000ish. Motorcycles aren't exactly the safest form of transportation anyways.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No they aren't, I rode for 40 years and then gave it away, had a bad one in my youth, you should have seen the helmet, all scratched up and a dent where it hit the curb. Wearing them is all about 'freedom' they saw but in reality it all boils down to image for most that go without. Image, personal laziness. Leather jackets aren't compulsory and you should see what a body looks like after a slide down a rough bitumen road in a cotton T-shirt lol lol. Squids we call em. I for one am glad helmets were made compulsory here, at 17 years old you don't have a brain in your head and need a bit of oversight.

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

The stats are pretty clear in the US. "Motorcyclists account for 14% of all crash-related fatalities, even though they are only 3% of the vehicles on the road. Motorcyclists are 28 times more likely than passenger-vehicle occupants to die in a car crash. More than 80% of these type of crashes result in an injury or death." Shitty law blog but that's 2015 NHTSA stats.

you should see what a body looks like after a slide down a rough bitumen road in a cotton T-shirt

I've seen that. My friend laid his bike down on the freeway doing 90. Looked like a bloody piece of ground beef.

I for one am glad helmets were made compulsory here, at 17 years old you don't have a brain in your head and need a bit of oversight.

If you're for legislating safety, why stop at helmets though. You'd save lives not letting people drive motorcycles at all in the US.

Britain is a good example of this gone wild. Guns are dangerous so they're restricted, so people use knives, those got heavily regulated, people use cars.... if they keep going, rocks are going to be illegal since they can be dangerous weapons.

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

yeah I get your point about regulations going overboard, I imagine they always do in any long-spanning culture, but you have to admit, we need them. Go back in time when it was ok to employ 7 year olds to clean chimneys, or when putting asbestos into blankets was allowed long after it was obvious that the shit was dangerous. We need regulations in a society, it's what makes society. I guess at all times people have railed about regulations, thinking no doubt that society had evolved enough. But regarding the mandatory use of helmets, well the only people who can really comment on that are motorcycle riders, anyone else is just poking their nose into business they have no stake in. Like anti-gun nuts telling gun owners how they should live, you agree?

Edit: As for what's happened in the UK, well I have a theory about that, a theory relating to the mass immigration of arabs and niggers etc. I wonder what it would be like on the streets of London if a million arabs muslims had access to AK47's? Did you read about the hand grenade amnesty in Sweden?

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

The asbestos ban in the US lasted about as long as the helmet thing. I worked very briefly for a father and son construction company until they both died of mesothelioma. I don't know how true it is, but I've heard it said construction pays so well because those guys don't generally have normal lifespans.

Like anti-gun nuts telling gun owners how they should live, you agree?

I don't agree in that example, not because I'm against guns, but because people against guns don't want other people having guns. I think we've all met some people who probably shouldn't own firearms and the anti-gun nuts are probably quite fearful of guns so that's exacerbated in their case.

But I agree on the motorcycle riders having their own say on how things are though. Just here they didn't want to be mandated to wear helmets. They just have to get insurance high enough to cover whatever they might splat against. It's cheap, scraping a biker off your car isn't too expensive. So that doesn't impact others quite as a gun possibly could.

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

The asbestos ban in the US lasted about as long as the helmet thing. I worked very briefly for a father and son construction company until they both died of mesothelioma.

Well that sucks! It's totally banned here in Oz but the Chinese scum are constantly trying to sneak the shit back in the form of brake pads and building materials. Fuck the chinese and anyone who looks chinese! They have no soul, just a digital calculator/currency converter. When I lived in the city it was in a burb full of them and while they are peaceful and nice, smart and skilled, you don't want to do business with them because you'll get screwed everytime.

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

If you like unstable power.

[–]Sw0rdofDam0cles 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Seems the Mercury news dislikes my use of advertisement blocking. No matter, there's always an archive alternative.

Skimming the article, this doesn't look all bad on the face of things requiring new homes being built to include solar panels, but the numbers they're quoting regarding the benefit for the buyer don't appear to inspire much enthusiasm in my mind. Also, how much are the various taxes likely to rise as people migrate out of California.

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

Ironically, I can access this website with my adblocker enabled, but I can't access your link on my browser no matter what I do. As with all of these archive clones, they block browsers other than Firefox.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The commission estimated the new standards will increase the price of a new house by roughly $9,500.

median-priced home, which was $613,470 in the third quarter of 2019.

If you can afford a newly built home that costs - say - $300, then you can afford $9500 for a solar panel. You'll also save substantially on utility bills.

[–]Intuit 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

If it really saves on utilities, the utility companies should install them for free and split the savings with the homeowner.

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

Username checks out!

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

Well, that goes against their business model, because they'll sell less electricity that way.

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

Install panels, charge homeowner monthly for electricity but at a lower rate. Power company makes more profit, homeowner has no uncertainties of investing in a solar system.

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

Oh, so you mean the customer can basically rent the solar panels?

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

Effectively yes, though the rate would vary based on customer usage so the customer isn't left paying money if they don't use enough electricity that month. The general point was that if it's profitable the power company can foot the risk and get some of the benefit.

[–]C3P0 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

How can so many people afford a home that costs $613,470?

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

It's a median new home, but California has a lot of expensive areas. The Bay Area is insane, with median homes in the $1.5 million range. Los Angeles is also expensive, though not as bad. Real Estate prices have just skyrocketed over the last couple decades in cities, and California has always been expensive.

On a side note, I'm so glad I bought a house in Ohio. I paid $90k in an area where the median for the area was around $100k at the time. Mortgage with taxes & utilities is about $650, which is less than a lot of people's car payments. I wonder how many tech bros are slaving away to own a house in the Bay Area that don't realize they could just save their pennies for a couple of years and buy a decent home in the Midwest, paid in cash.

[–]christnmusicreleases 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Great idea for a maunder minimum.

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

1) Solar activity during a Grand Solar Minimum decreases by a whopping 0.05%-0.1%. One more cloudy day than average in a year would have a bigger impact on your panel's output than a Grand Minimum would.

2) "Maunder Minimum" is the name given to a specific prolonged minimum that occurred throughout most of the 1600s that is believed to have exacerbated the Little Ice Age. It's not the general name for a Grand Solar Minimum. Saying we're expecting another Maunder Minimum would be like if we invaded Iran and you said we were having another "Korean War".

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

Maunder Minimum

The layman's term is Mini Ice Age, but we can use it as a comparative. Also, your numbers are way off.

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

No, the layman's term is not "Mini Ice Age", though I'm not surprised at a young earth creationist getting them confused. The Little Ice Age lasted for a few hundred years and began well over 100 years before the onset of the Maunder Minimum.

And no, my numbers are correct. Right-wingers with a poor grasp of science such as yourself have been trying to avoid accepting the reality of AGW for decades now. And now they've latched onto this new Grand Solar Minimum as if it's actually going to take us into another cold period, but the reality is that even if the drop in irradiance is as severe as it was during the Maunder Minimum (0.1% at the high end), that's only going to decrease global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree at the most. Likely, the actual change in temperature would be closer to 0.1-0.2 degrees.

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

I'll listen to the climatologists, and not you. They concur with my theory.

[–]Drewski 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'd love to see more solar and alternate energy used, but it shouldn't be coerced by gov't.

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

I'm usually more authoritarian and progressive, but I agree with you on this — but perhaps for different reasons. To quote my own comment:

I like the idea, but this will severely increase the cost of new homes, and will hurt small businesses. Instead of forcing people to install them, they should subsidize companies that do, that way the houses will cost about the same.

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

I like the idea, but this will severely increase the cost of new homes, and will hurt small businesses. Instead of forcing people to install them, they should subsidize companies that do, that way the houses will cost about the same.