New homes will now require solar panels in South Miami | Hacker News Reader

New homes will now require solar panels in South Miami

miamiherald.com

87 pointsxbmcuser69 comments

For context, South Miami is a small city (~12k population) in the Miami Dade Metro. It is pretty close to 100% built out. There are not large developable tracts for subdivisions. I suspect that most new homes are teardowns (and hence the 75% rule).

In terms of regulation, Florida has had an energy code for new houses since the 1970's. Florida has regulated windows by orientation (i.e. solar gain) and air conditioning efficiency and insulation for decades. This is just one small local addition to an existing regulatory framework.

In terms of politics, South Miami is not a libertarian paradise and Florida is not a do what you want with your land state. That's why its happening there and not in Wyoming.

> If the house is built under existing trees, the shade may exempt it.

Maybe this will stop them from simply clearing a site. We have many beautiful old trees in Florida that just get destroyed when new housing goes up. They then plant of bunch of tiny junk trees after construction. It's truly sad.

I understand the desire behind this sort of regulation, but it ends up pricing working and middle class families out of homes in the long run:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_ar...

I don’t think mandating ground parking is the same as requiring solar panels on the roof. Solar will eventually pay for itself?

> Solar will eventually pay for itself

In 10 to 30 years.

In the meantime you have to pay the capital costs upfront, so the home will be more expensive upfront.

The whole house will take that long to pay for itself. Any new home that pays off earlier points towards a bubble.

So if you assume that it takes 30 years until the house has amortised (via rent or saved rent), why not assume the same for the solar roof?

Can't you get solar panels essentially for free and just pay for the generated electricity? I thought that was the business model of companies like SolarCity

I wonder how hard it would have been to have partnered with FPL so FPL puts up the capital for the panels, the resident pays their electric bill as usual, but a portion goes to pay back FPL for the panels. FPL is allowed to make, say 10% over on the panels.

Perhaps in aggregate. The linked article discusses the logic and math of a home builder. "Eventually pays for itself", even if indisputable, doesn't magically get you more investors. You're still building fewer affordable units.

Well, yes, making people internalize costs of whatever they do makes things more expensive.

You could also just raise the price of unclean energy and do it directly. A better bang for the buck might be better home design (windows, insulation, etc.) but designing homes in city hall won't get you that sort of creative problem solving.

Florida already has energy efficient building codes

https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/florida

Well yes, you can; as the other posted has linked, it happens already. Requiring some technology over another can have other goals too though; for example reducing the load on the electricity grid. Or you can set parameters beyond 'new building are required to have energy efficiency of x' because it's too hard or expensive to quantify certain elements that make buildings more efficient.

How you do it exactly in the end is a political decision, and it's fine to disagree with it. The GP however complained about adding to the cost, which is a different point, and one to which the answer is very clear and simple. So I'm not sure what we're arguing here - or whether we're even arguing at all :) Maybe you're just bringing up an additional point, I can't quite tell, but if so, then yes.

I'm GP and I'm disputing the implicit false choice: that we must pick between low cost home construction or greener lifestyles.

If the problem is that consumers aren't internalizing costs, then solve that problem directly, with a carbon or energy tax.

Working and middle class families can do things (cut energy usage, dry laundry on a clothesline, live in smaller homes, etc.) to adjust to those prices changing. Families don't have control over developers, so they have limited ability to adjust to the economics of affordable housing development.

> then solve that problem directly, with a carbon or energy tax

How is a tax more direct than requiring solar panels?

Because if we're not accounting for hidden costs in product A, a direct approach is to raise the price on product A (through taxes in this case) so the costs aren't hidden anymore. An indirect action would be to regulate product B counting on some chain of events to resolve the issue.

> a direct approach is to raise the price on product A

That's only direct if the problem you are trying to solve is increasing the price of A. If you are trying to reduce the amount of A used, a direct action would be restricting the amount of A you can buy.

If you are trying to get homes to use solar energy, nothing is more direct than requiring the installation of solar panels.

Do city governments have the power to tax unclean energy? Or is that more of a state/federal government power?

> it ends up pricing working and middle class families out of homes in the long run

Considering the locality, I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of their underlying agenda.

It's largely built out already (population has been fairly stable since 1970). And the economic demographics aren't what you are implying, they are about the national average:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Miami,_Florida#Demograph...

(probably even slightly below the national average)

Its better to do social income transfers than to keep energy unsustainable energy.

“So even if we were were going to give up one-sixth of that, it would still be 1 percent of our budget. Where is the substitute?”

Well, if the Mayor himself has an electricity bill of ~$10 per month then the shortfall in city's budget could be made up by increase rates.

The article doesn't address how the city thinks it will handle intermittent nature of solar power. I don't know much about Miami's electricity generation to know whether there are existing peaking plants that can cope?

The Wikipedia article about Florida Power and Light[1] shows 68% natural gas generation in the mix, 23% nuclear, 4% coal, and 5% purchased from other suppliers.

The 68% natural gas number lends me to believe the state ought to be able to handle intermittent solar, if the poewr stations are willing / able to load follow.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Power_%26_Light#Power_...

The intermittent nature of solar power correlates nicely with the intermittent nature of air conditioning power consumption. Miami is unlikely to run out of airconditioning demand any time soon.

Not in South Florida. Air Conditioning demand is 24-hour there, and day/night temperature swings are pretty small.

That's true, but off peak hours it's easy (and cheap) to buy power from neighboring states.

Neat and all, but I wonder how this affects people who barely use electricity? In San Diego in winter months my normal load was 50-70 Watts with an electric bill around $10 per month; this seems like enormous overcapacity. Negawatts are better than megawatts...

That being said, I'm still very much in favor.

Doesn't the aesthetic factor count at all? The panels are ugly (to say the least) and they tend to blind you when the sun is at certain angles.

I'm all for efficiency and green-er energy, but I think we should find a balance between an effective solution and an aesthetically acceptable one.

I grew up in sight of 4 coal-fired power stations - I know which of those two I find more aesthetically acceptable :)

I'd venture a guess that without either form of power generation the site that's suitable for windmills is going to be much more aesthetically pleasing than the place where there's four power plants.

How'd we get to windmills? Panels don't make noise or belch local pollution, and actually reduce the heat load of the surface.

Perhaps we can alter what people think looks beautiful so they find solar panels pretty.

Happens automatically: a few years of seeing clean new buildings with panels and badly maintained buildings without will rewire many brains. It's the basic mechanism of fashion and design trends.

It's like how after 20 years of jellybean cars all the OEMs slap an angry looking grill on their jellybean to prevent people from associating it with the clapped out 90s Camry the janitor drives.

They will get used to it. Beauty is not an absolute thing.

Aesthetics are not subjective.

I think they are. Look at fashion. Some things are cool, then they aren't and ten years later they are cool again.

I disagree therefore it is subjective. QED

While not consistent with the aesthetic of the average Miami house, here is an example of integrating solar panels in to traditional roof covering: http://www.zepbv.nl/ . Look at the pictures in the carousel; one is a protected monument for which they got permission to put these tiles on.

So solar panels don't necessarily have to be large rectangles floating over the existing roof. Especially in a new build, you'd integrate them into the roof.

Why are solar panels reflecting light at all? Wouldn't that immediately lower the efficiency? Is it just that glass or whatever material is in use is the cheapest method of protection while letting in some light, or does physics say that all transparent materials must reflect something?

Anti-reflective coatings can reduce these reflections. http://www.falstad.com/ripple/ See Example: Anti-Reflective Coating

I actually don't mind panels, and I find wind turbines quite beautiful. The way it's integrated matters a lot though.

Wind turbine aren't to bad on the eye when you see them occasionally.

When you live next to them, you'll find out that they're surprisingly loud, and some people start getting terribly annoyed when there's something constantly moving and catching their attention (in cases where they are visible from your desk, for example).

The sound is another and well known matter. As for the distraction of a movong objects, a normal human should not have a problem with that. If you do, you have a bigger problem than the turbine and should not blame society but try to work on it.

If we are building homes "solar first," as opposed to tacking them on existing homes, there is a lot of options to better integrate the panels into the design of the house. For example, part of my roof is not visible from the ground, that part of the house has cheaper roofing material that isn't aesthetically appealing whereas the part of the roof that is visible has nice shingles. You could easily add some solar panels to the non visible part and nobody would even notice.

There's also the mere-exposure effect that will play out, people tend to develop a liking to things just because they are familiar with them.

wait–these are flat, black rectangles, installed on the roof, right?

Never mind the aesthetic judgement–would you even see them in the course of a normal day? I just had to use google earth to find out the color of my roof.

Maybe for a single-story house, yes, you could probably see them (when you're outside, during the day). So maybe this serves as motivation for more two-story development? That would have the added benefit of reducing urban sprawl–imagine cutting your commute in half!

Other than that, I'd say that yes, this seems to be one of those situations where the tradeoff seems justified, especially in Florida, which will be the first state below sea level if humanity can't get its act together.

...tough.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Global warming affects every human on Earth, and even those not yet born. It is our duty as the substantially more privileged denizens of the first world to take actions to combat it, especially in easy ways such as this legislation.

Good! We need every inch we can muster in the fight against global warming/heating. And I mean, come on, Miami is perfect for this.

It's important to remember that if something is mandated than people can charge anything for that product/service.

This makes no sense. There still can be competition

That is literally nonsense.

Consuming food is effectively mandated by biology and there is incredible competition in the sector.

Because we have supply glut. Not sure if this is true for solar panels. Also food does not require a load of paperwork to be able to eqt it after purchase.

> Consuming food is effectively mandated by biology and there is incredible competition in the sector.

While I understand your point, I don't agree with your analogy. The reason is because yes food production has a lot of competition, however it is easier to produce and less expensive.

You can grow small quantities of food at home with about a $20 investment into pots, soil, and seeds - of which that $20 can be spread over multiple years. However you can't as easily produce solar panels at home. Solar panels with the efficiency they have now has taken decades and billions of USD spent in r&d. The production itself takes multiple large buildings, expensive equipment, and many specialized people.

While yes my family in Nebraska has thousands of acres to produce corn, or my family in California has hundreds of acres of pasture land for milk production, I can guaranty you that they couldn't easily and cheaply switch to solar panels.

Then there's the whole aspect of installation. Not everyone in the country can install solar panels in South Miami but it's a hell of a lot easier for a farm in California to sell tomatoes to a supermarket in Ohio. I'm sure the state of FL requires some kind of license, including bonds and insurance for contractors to operate. Probably also requires at least one licensed electrician. You can't just be a CraigsList handyman today and do solar-panel installation tomorrow; at least legally and correctly.

My analogy works just fine.

My point is that the fact that a good is necessary for life or mandated by a government has nothing to do with how competitive the market is for supplying it.

The original comment is nonsensical, supply and demand have different curves with different elasticities. A government mandate affects the demand curve not the supply curve.

A different article says that the city issues about 10 permits a year for new homes.

This isn't going to have much impact on the solar panel marketplace, those homebuilders will probably be able to scratch up more than 1 bid.

Why is it ok to force someone to buy something?

Why is it ok to force someone to buy a car with seatbelts? They just make the car more expensive.

Also, no one is "forced" to build a house over there.

Without referring to this specific rule, there are times where there are societal benefits to having individuals do something so that the aggregate is better off.

Examples include: requiring that drivers have car insurance, having home builders include proper sanitation and safe wiring, etc

No one is forcing you to build a new house in South Miami.

I imagine if you would like to do so, you would need to comply with the many requirements established by the local authorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code

"The main purpose of building codes is to protect public health, safety and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures. "

Would you be equally bothered if you were "forced" to make your house compliant with fire prevention standards ?

We do this all the time.

If you want a car you're forced to buy a catalytic converter, it's illegal to buy a car without one and it's illegal to operate a car without one. If you want to drive on public streets you are forced to pay to register your car then on top of that you are forced to buy liability insurance. You're also forced to buy a car seat if you're driving with a small child. In many states you are forced to pay for regular safety and emissions inspections and forced to pay for any negative findings.

It's also generally illegal to dump human waste in your front yard so you're forced to buy a toilet and pay to connect it to the sewage system or pay for a septic tank. And then forced to pay to maintain that septic tank.

You're also forced to buy flame retardant building materials that are structurally sound and appropriate for the location you're building.

Businesses generally have to pay to dispose of environmental waste properly too so that cost is bundled into many products.

Why? Because nobody lives in a bubble where their actions don't have an effect on everyone else around them. We try to balance individual liberties with collective good.

What a disaster, end of American freedom. Now politicians telling you what to do or not do about your home.

There are a huge number of laws that apply to building a home, and have for a long long time.

To single out this law, which appears to be an overwhelmingly a good idea, as the "bad" one, seem a bit nonsensical.

If your against all regulation of building, then that might be a stand that you could try argue for. But to pick out this one new law seems weird.

I'm in agreement that solar panels in south Florida are a good idea, and that to single out this law as an end of American freedom is ridiculous. But we have to admit that this isn't the best way to address the problem. The law exempts houses in the case of shade, but there are are bound to be other edge cases where solar panels don't make sense. IMHO, the ideal way to address the problem of carbon dioxide emissions would be to tax it. A hefty carbon tax combined with a flexible electric utility infrastructure would do more to reduce emissions than compelling one particular house design over another.

Given that one of America's political parties has rejected the scientific evidence behind anthropogenic climate change and more or less equates taxation with theft, I don't foresee a carbon tax in the US any time soon. Compelling people to buy solar panels isn't a good law, but it might be the closest we can get in the current environment.

My thoughts are it seems that you either have to pick "mandate solar panels on homes" or "build more affordable housing" as both views don't seem to work together.

That's nothing new though, right?

City councils have had guidelines for building appearance and colour schemes for I don't know how long.

And anyhow, the democratic process itself led to this ordinance.

um... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_code

i remember feeling outrage when i first realised just by being born in a country one is subject to the country's laws. completely non-consensual.

tangentially: book recommendation: "The Wake" by Paul Kingsnorth. fictional account of life in England following the Norman invasion of 1066, written in a unique form of english. Here's the part I am reminded of - the narrator is enraged when the local official comes to his land to collect tax for the conquering foreign king:

> well i wolde not gif them geld no i wolde not gif naht to this ingenga bastard for what he done. i had naht to gif after all the wars and the fyr what had cum from him and these cyngs all feohtan ofer the right to play with small folc lic sum fuccan game and this is what i telt the fuccan weosul when he cum to me for geld

on another hand, now i slowly appreciate the "tragedy of the commons". oh to live in a world where nothing i did impacted anyone else, and nothing they did impacted me. how simple and independent and free we could all be. but the world is not like this, and becomes even less like this as time passes.

A great idea for 20 years ago.

Better late than never, and a law 20 years ago would have to have been appropriate for the technology of the time, but the something of this spirit.

Huge parts of Miami and Fort Lauderdale are completely underwater on a full moon. Climate change is going to be a disaster for the area with billions if not trillions of dollars worth of property underwater.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com