• Santa Monica votes in requirement for ALL new constructions to have rooftop solar.
    18 replies, posted
[QUOTE]April 28, 2016 (SANTA MONICA, CA) The Santa Monica City Council voted on Tuesday to approve an ordinance requiring rooftop solar systems for all new construction in the City of Santa Monica—[B]both residential and commercial[/B]. The ordinance goes into effect 30 days after last night’s vote and continues the City’s history of adopting local requirements that advance the transition to high performance, green buildings for all. The timing of the ordinance capitalizes on market trends in the solar industry. With the cost of solar installation continuing to decrease, Santa Monica residents and developers will now generate cost-effective renewable energy, improve the value of their property, and contribute to the City’s robust long-range goals for energy and climate mitigation, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. “In Santa Monica we are moving away from buildings powered by fossil fuels in favor of clean and cost-effective solar energy,” states Dean Kubani, Santa Monica’s Sustainability Manager.” This is not only the smart thing to do, it is also imperative if we are to protect our kids and grandkids from the worst effects of climate change.” The Update to the Santa Monica Municipal Green Building Ordinance states: NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS are required to install a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system, with a minimum total wattage of 1.5 times the square footage of the dwelling (1.5 watts per square foot). That means a 2,000 square foot home would need a 3 kilowatt system, which is a typical size already seen on many homes. NEW MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS and NON-RESIDENTIAL, HOTEL, MOTEL are required to install a solar electric PV system, with a minimum total wattage 2.0 times the square footage of the building footprint (2.0 watts per square foot of building footprint). That means a 4-story building, with a building footprint of 10,000 square feet, would need a 20 kilowatt system. With the noted decreasing cost of solar, the cost-benefit ratio is strong. Case studies have shown that these requirements are estimated to increase upfront construction costs by 2.8% on average for a single family home, while reducing long term electricity costs by 65% on average, resulting in overall savings to home owners and significant reductions in carbon emissions. For multi-family homes, the numbers are 0.5% and 24% on average, respectively. And on commercial, 0.75% and 11% on average, respectively. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://newsroom.smgov.net/2016/04/28/santa-monica-city-council-votes-in-aggressive-renewable-energy-requirement-on-new-construction-implementation-begins-in-30-days"]Source[/URL]
Might take a pretty long time to see if this has any real affect
It sounds like a massive overreach but it probably does save a considerable amount of money and time to do it while it's under construction
Several other parts of California have also recently implemented similar legislation, including San Francisco requiring it from the start of 2017. Estimated to cut the price to two thirds of current market price by doing it during construction.
Seems like a great way to make owning/building a house in a place that's already expensive as hell to live in even worse. The worst part of it by far is that could mean more Californians moving away, which means even more cancerous California transplants moving on over towards me, maybe. What a horrible thought.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;50326567]Seems like a great way to make owning/building a house in a place that's already expensive as hell to live in even worse. The worst part of it by far is that could mean more Californians moving away, which means even more cancerous California transplants moving on over towards me, maybe. What a horrible thought.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Case studies have shown that these requirements are estimated to increase upfront construction costs by 2.8% on average for a single family home, while reducing long term electricity costs by 65% on average[/QUOTE] More than enough to offset the increased mortgage costs.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50326596]More than enough to offset the increased mortgage costs.[/QUOTE] Isn't maintenance and repair to damaged solar panels very expensive? That and the fact that a 3% increase in mortage costs not being as insignificant as the article implies (easier to budget a frugal electrical bill than a bunch of extra cash on your mortgage.)
[quote]Case studies have shown that these requirements are estimated to increase upfront construction costs by 2.8% on average for a single family home, while reducing long term electricity costs by 65% on average, resulting in overall savings to home owners and significant reductions in carbon emissions.[/quote] If this is the case and is plausible then by all means add solar to all new homes being made, so that they can reap the benefits of year round sunshine.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;50326747]Isn't maintenance and repair to damaged solar panels very expensive? That and the fact that a 3% increase in mortage costs not being as insignificant as the article implies (easier to budget a frugal electrical bill than a bunch of extra cash on your mortgage.)[/QUOTE] Solar PV is almost maintenance free, just clean them once a year to keep optimal output. The only costs you will probably have is replacing the inverter after 10 - 15 years and the panels will need replacing eventually but probably not until they are 25+ years old. I don't know how you are going to get your panels broken on your roof by anything environmental. California is a pretty hot place, you can actually use your air conditioning at the same time your panels are producing peak output without it costing you a fortune. If you have an electric car (which is a lot more common in CA than anywhere else in the US) then it also significantly reduces your transportation costs.
But then there will be no sun for the people that live there!
[QUOTE=evilweazel;50326747]Isn't maintenance and repair to damaged solar panels very expensive? That and the fact that a 3% increase in mortage costs not being as insignificant as the article implies (easier to budget a frugal electrical bill than a bunch of extra cash on your mortgage.)[/QUOTE] [url=http://solarenergy.net/solar-power-resources/10-things-to-know-before-going-solar/]Not if you're smart about it.[/url]
[QUOTE=Morgen;50326596]More than enough to offset the increased mortgage costs.[/QUOTE] 2.8% increased construction costs = more than 2.8% increase on the house. Plus, that's 2.8% of... how much? I don't know, but it's definitely a lot. Electricity costs almost nothing compared to building a house, I'm curious as to what the actual dollar amounts on those are. If it costs 2.8% more on a million dollars and you only save like 500 dollars on electricity a year, that's not that good of a deal. At all. In fact, if the house did cost a million dollars to build, you'd be paying 28 thousand dollars more while, if you're an average california resident, only paying 764.4 less per year which would take you 36 years to break even on the increased cost not including cleaning, damage, etc. TLDR: It will take you 36 years to break even if these numbers are accurate, and on average, they are. This does not include possible damage or cleaning costs.
[QUOTE=phygon;50327081]2.8% increased construction costs = more than 2.8% increase on the house. Plus, that's 2.8% of... how much? I don't know, but it's definitely a lot. Electricity costs almost nothing compared to building a house, I'm curious as to what the actual dollar amounts on those are. If it costs 2.8% more on a million dollars and you only save like 500 dollars on electricity a year, that's not that good of a deal. At all. In fact, if the house did cost a million dollars to build, you'd be paying 28 thousand dollars more while, if you're an average california resident, only paying 764.4 less per year which would take you 36 years to break even on the increased cost not including cleaning, damage, etc. TLDR: It will take you 36 years to break even if these numbers are accurate, and on average, they are. This does not include possible damage or cleaning costs.[/QUOTE] Do you really think a 3KW system will cost you $28,000? It's reported to be an increase of $3.27 - $3.54 per square foot. So an increase of $6540 - $7080 on a house like this: [thumb]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B64ymu_Baa4/VW2WgrvA-wI/AAAAAAAAvVI/IM6q5bad4b4/s1600/2000-sq-ft-villa.jpg[/thumb]
[QUOTE=Morgen;50327218]Do you really think a 3KW system will cost you $28,000? It's reported to be an increase of $3.27 - $3.54 per square foot. So an increase of $6540 - $7080 on a house like this: [thumb]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-B64ymu_Baa4/VW2WgrvA-wI/AAAAAAAAvVI/IM6q5bad4b4/s1600/2000-sq-ft-villa.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE] I don't know anything about the cost but you were the one that said the 2.8% price increase figure. Still, it would take you just about ten years to break even, not including costs of cleaning and replacing damaged panels. This isn't at all to say that this is a bad idea, but rather I'm just pointing out that it won't exactly pay for itself. I think this is very exciting and cool, actually.
[QUOTE=phygon;50327081]2.8% increased construction costs = more than 2.8% increase on the house. Plus, that's 2.8% of... how much? I don't know, but it's definitely a lot. Electricity costs almost nothing compared to building a house, I'm curious as to what the actual dollar amounts on those are. If it costs 2.8% more on a million dollars and you only save like 500 dollars on electricity a year, that's not that good of a deal. At all. In fact, if the house did cost a million dollars to build, you'd be paying 28 thousand dollars more while, if you're an average california resident, only paying 764.4 less per year which would take you 36 years to break even on the increased cost not including cleaning, damage, etc. TLDR: It will take you 36 years to break even if these numbers are accurate, and on average, they are. This does not include possible damage or cleaning costs.[/QUOTE] 2.8 for construction not 2.8 for the cost, construction is like a fraction of the actual house cost
[QUOTE=phygon;50327253]I don't know anything about the cost but you were the one that said the 2.8% price increase figure. Still, it would take you just about ten years to break even, not including costs of cleaning and replacing damaged panels. This isn't at all to say that this is a bad idea, but rather I'm just pointing out that it won't exactly pay for itself. I think this is very exciting and cool, actually.[/QUOTE] But it WILL pay for itself. These systems are going to last a lot longer than 10 years. It will be extremely rare for your panels to get damaged on your roof in California. If it takes 10 years to pay off then your looking at 15 - 20 years of straight profit before you need to replace the panels. California also has some of the best policies on solar incentives.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50326825]Solar PV is almost maintenance free, just clean them once a year to keep optimal output. The only costs you will probably have is replacing the inverter after 10 - 15 years and the panels will need replacing eventually but probably not until they are 25+ years old. I don't know how you are going to get your panels broken on your roof by anything environmental. California is a pretty hot place, you can actually use your air conditioning at the same time your panels are producing peak output without it costing you a fortune. If you have an electric car (which is a lot more common in CA than anywhere else in the US) then it also significantly reduces your transportation costs.[/QUOTE] Eh I could see a hailstorm fucked you over pretty easily. At least in places where they do happen. Which probably isn't california.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;50332668]Eh I could see a hailstorm fucked you over pretty easily. At least in places where they do happen. Which probably isn't california.[/QUOTE] The roof of my place is covered in solar panels. We had a huge hailstorm a few months back which fucked up all the cars parked on the street and dented their metal work to all hell but the solar panels were fine. You have to remember that the solar panels are made from tempered glass, they're durable within reason.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;50332668]Eh I could see a hailstorm fucked you over pretty easily. At least in places where they do happen. Which probably isn't california.[/QUOTE] I live in southern California and we get hail at least once or twice a year. Personally, I would be more worried about the wind where I live. It rips up giant trees, knocks over electric poles, etc. all the time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.