Roofs in Santa Monica, CaliforniaSolar Panels Mandatory For New Homes in California as of 2020
“Zero net energy isn’t enough. If we pursue (zero net energy) as a comprehensive policy ..."
Roofs in Santa Monica, California
Every new home in California will soon have a solar panel installed for tapping this source of renewable energy. Would that mean a cleaner environment and lesser fossil fuel consumption? The California Energy Commission has planned to mandate that every new home in the state in 2020 has a solar panel installed on the roof. The commission voted in this favor and approved it – solar panel installations will become a common sight on all the new constructions.
#CalEnergy adopts standards requiring #Solar systems for new homes, first in the nation: https://t.co/PS2K5BrscM ??⚡
— CA Energy Commission (@CalEnergy) 10 May 2018
The newly proposed rules also push to use electricity over natural gas and increase battery storages. These apply to all the new residential constructions that get a permit after Jan 1, 2020. The only exceptions will be houses with small roofs that cannot accommodate a solar panel or the ones that do not receive any sun because of being shaded by buildings or trees.
According to Andrew McAllister, one of five state energy commissioners who is going to voting for this standard said, “Zero net energy isn’t enough. If we pursue (zero net energy) as a comprehensive policy, we’d be making investments that would be somewhat out of touch with our long-term goals.” He adds: “Under these new standards, buildings will perform better than ever, at the same time they contribute to a reliable grid. The buildings that Californians buy and live in will operate very efficiently while generating their own clean energy. They will cost less to operate, have healthy indoor air and provide a platform for ‘smart’ technologies that will propel the state even further down the road to a low emissions future.”
It was the commission’s goal since 2007 to make new homes net zero in energy consumption such that they generate enough solar power to offset their total energy requirements (be it electricity or natural gas) in a year-long period. At that time, the state energy commission said, “newly constructed buildings can be net zero energy by 2020 for residences and by 2030 for commercial buildings.” But now the new provisions no longer advocate net-zero energy. The officials now believe that the previous goal is now obsolete as it is not cost-effective.
Further Rise of California’s Housing Costs?
According to C.R. Herro, Meritage’s vice president of environmental affairs, the installation of solar panel would increase the construction costs by $25,000 to $30,000. Over a 25-year period, which is the life of a solar panel, an owner can save $50,000 to $60,000 from the energy-saving. If we go for net zero standards, it would mean an even increased cost. At the same time, the solar energy is only consumed during the daytime. At night, people still use lights, televisions and air conditioning, the power for which is supplied by the grid and gas-powered electricity generating plants, which leaves its carbon footprint. So the additional solar energy is not at all worth it.
Tom Peary says
13 May 2018 at 7:02 PMAt the same time, the solar energy is only consumed during the daytime. At night, people still use lights, televisions and air conditioning, the power for which is supplied by the grid and gas-powered electricity generating plants, which leaves its carbon footprint. So the additional solar energy is not at all worth it.
Tesla and Sonnen Batterie make electrical storage units, or you can just buy batteries and make your own. Net metering lets your excess power be used during the day, you get credit for it at night. Additional solar energy is SO worth it!
Paul Münzner says
14 May 2018 at 5:19 PMHi Tom. Thanks for your comment. So long as fossil fuel-based power can be substituted by renewables, no matter whether day or night, it has a positive effect on the climate. The solar energy can also substitute the consumption of fossil fuel-based power during daytime (AC, illumination, computers, fridge, server, …). So if a better balance in terms of CO2 is achievable reasonable (also considering embodied energy), no matter whether day or night, why it shouldn’t be worth it? However, the electricity consumption in residential buildings is normally lower during daytime compared to the morning or evening as the residents are out.
John Bone says
15 May 2018 at 12:08 AMHere in the UK (GB), England has automatic “town planning” (Zoning) deemed consent for any dwelling which installs up to 4Kwh of solar panels (on it s roof or elsewhere).
Every dwelling (new and existing) is being offered a real-time “Smart Meter” to show a dwelling’s occupants their real-time energy use (electric and gas) at zero cost – cost paid by utility company’s, as a mandatory “towards zero” energy measure.
Retro-fit costs for a 3KWh solar panel installation are at the £5,000 (GBP) level, and retro-fit costs for a 3KWh solar panel with a 3KWh battery are at the £9,000 (GBP) level.
I am a Chartered Building Engineer and a “Building Code Official” with 45 years on the job experience.
By replacing all high wattage light fitting and buying “A” or “AA” EU rated white goods, replacing our Oil Central Heating Boiler with a condensing “AAA” unit (wet wall mounted radiators in all rooms) my Home, built in 1850, now only uses 1.2 KWh (electric) during the day-light hours (9am to 6pm). And only 2.5KWh (electric) during the active evening/night time hours (6pm to midnight).
So a solar system as described above will make my family room (for 4 folk) “off-grid” for more than 12 hours a day.
Ours will arrive by the coming Fall.