Hacker News Reader

Comment by happyopossum | Hacker News Reader

Not only is residential solar just about the most expensive (and thus innefficient) form of solar power available, but this is coming at a time when new construction of affordable housing is most needed. The only reason this is considered a 'cost effective' measure, is because the entire cost is forced on the shoulders of homebuyers.

Saddling all new residential construction with this burden serves 2 priary purposes - virtue signalling, and lining the pockets of solar manufacturers. Crony capitalism at it's best!

View on HN

The article says it will add $10k to the home. On a 30 year fixed rate mortgage at current rates that's $50/month. Subtract out the savings on the electric bill, and it probably won't be reducing affordability much, or even at all.

Right - Solar really just front-loads the energy costs of the building. You pay for ~5-10 years of energy up front, and then recoup that investment over the next 30+ years, coming out ahead in the end. You could argue that this sort of policy is a win-win in that it both reduces the longer term cost of housing (both for the first and subsequent owners) and also reduces the amount of net energy required (saves on new power plants, carbon).

Serious question -- isn't the lifetime of solar panels (or ancillary equipment) significantly less than 30 years? A quick Google looks like 15 years ish? I have never owned a home (or lived in one with solar), so I'm not sure of the actual typical mileage.

The panels on my house are warrantied for 25 years, and expected to last years beyond that. There are no moving parts, not much to degrade, so the useful life is quite long. Though I expect in 30 years the newer panels will be more efficient and super cheap.

For someone buying a $200k house in the central valley, that $10k is still a lot of money, as is $50/mo. When I bought my first home for around that price, $50/mo meant a significant difference in what kind of loan I could qualify for.

Also, why would you assume current interest rates for something that takes effect in 2020 and will last in perpetuity?

Not to mention: there's now an incentive for builders to reduce the quality of construction (and potentially skimp on other energy-efficiency measures in the building) to offset the cost of the solar installation.

I don't think they can reduce the quality of construction any further.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com