As of January 1, 2020, all new houses built in California must incorporate photovoltaic panels in the construction. This government mandate is expected to add between $9,000 and $20,000 to the cost of each new home. Median home prices in California are well above
$300K $500K, but every added cost reduces the likelihood of a sale or new construction.
Building Permits in California are Already Down
The high cost of housing in California is driving long-time residents out of the state at the same time that prospective newcomers are discouraged from moving into the state. And the “opportunity costs” due to the high expense of housing is suppressing much economic activity in the state which would otherwise take place.
California’s new solar roof mandate will make housing more expensive, increase electricity prices, and transfer wealth upwards.
… The deployment of solar has been the main driver of high and rising electricity prices in California, which currently produces more solar energy than it can use.
“We already have some of the highest electricity rates in the country, and this will only be exacerbated by this mandate,” UC-Berkeley economist Lucas Davis said. “As more and more rooftop solar gets installed, that pushes the cost onto all the non-solar customers.” __ Schellenberger
Sacramento Actually Believes it is Helping!
Besides raising the cost of housing in California, the new solar panel mandate will also cause the price of electric power to rise. In addition, the stability of the electric power grid will be undermined by increased penetration of solar energy.
The larger the investment in solar energy (or wind energy) for any given jurisdiction, the higher the costs of electricity will climb. This has been demonstrated in multiple nations of Europe, in Australia, and in California and Texas. For California to double down on high power costs is no surprise, however.
Everybody Pays a Cost
The benefits of “rooftop solar” have been hyped to the point of quasi-criminality over the past two decades. Companies associated with entrepreneur Elon Musk are at least partially to blame for the misleading of the public on the true costs of such an investment.
Subsidies for solar directly affect the production of electricity, directly affecting cost and pricing. Between 2010 and 2016, subsidies for solar energy ranged from 10¢ to 88¢ per kWh, while subsidies for coal, natural gas, and nuclear were from 0.05¢ to 0.2¢.
These subsidies incentivize solar panels, but end up increasing the cost of the electricity they generate. This cost is transferred directly to the ratepayers via utility bills. Moreover, customers involved in net metering are often paid inflated prices for excess power produced. Ratepayers end up funding the production of already heavily subsidized solar installations, a phenomenon which actually makes the adoption of renewable energy costlier. __ https://www.powerelectronics.com/technologies/alternative-energy/article/21864098/the-true-cost-of-solar-energy
Electric Car Owners Share the Delusions of Rooftop Solar Owners
The feel-good message behind these schemes is that “you will be saving the world.” But what you will be doing is profiting from higher costs being passed to someone else nearby. And the persons who truly benefit in a big way — big money developers and builders who are politically well-connected — stay out of the limelight so that you can go on believing the jingo-lingo of their lackeys in media and government.
As IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol has said, “If you think you can save the climate with electric cars, you’re completely wrong.” In 2018, electric cars saved 40 million tons of CO2 worldwide, equivalent to reducing global temperatures by just 0.000018°C — or a little more than a hundred-thousandth of a degree Celsius — by the end of the century.
Individual actions to tackle climate change, even when added together, achieve so little because cheap and reliable energy underpins human prosperity. Fossil fuels currently meet 81% of our global energy needs. And even if every promised climate policy in the 2015 Paris climate agreement is achieved by 2040, they will still deliver 74% of the total.
We already spend $129 billion per year subsidizing solar and wind energy to try to entice more people to use today’s inefficient technology, yet these sources meet just 1.1% of our global energy needs. The IEA estimates that by 2040 — after we have spent a whopping $3.5 trillion on additional subsidies — solar and wind will still meet less than 5% of our needs. __ Marketwatch
Whether or not you believe the popular apocalyptic consensus about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, it pays to be hard-headed about what you can actually achieve — besides driving your neighbors into energy poverty and heading your nation’s economy toward recession. Practical results count much more than that feeling of self-righteousness (which is almost always based on a false belief).
What Can You Make Without Fossil Fuels?Not a wind turbine or a solar array either. And solar panels are very toxic for a long, long time.
How bad is the poisoning of the Earth by solar panels?
Solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. They also contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic (even carcinogenic) chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. Worse, rainwater can wash many of these toxics out of the fragments of solar modules over time.
Here are three short articles pointing out some of the problems with relying on unreliable forms of energy:
These articles are written by intelligent people who are sympathetic to the appeal of big wind and big solar, but who have taken the trouble to understand some of the limitations of these intermittent, unreliable forms of energy.
Must-read Energy Primer. After reading this you will understand the energy problem better than 95% of energy journalists and virtually all government energy policy-makers.
Al Fin was once a champion of wind and solar, thinking that what is good on a small scale (off-grid cabins etc.) would also be good on a large scale. After considerable training and education, it turned out that that is not always the case.
Studies find that the cost of electricity increases as the penetration of wind and solar into the system increase. And there is often little benefit in terms of reduced CO2 emissions. The latest data on the German grid indicate that total power produced by German power plants exceeds what is consumed domestically by what is approximately produced by solar and wind.
That difference often has to be exported at low prices, thereby further increasing the cost to the entire system. One can only conclude that electricity costs will rise as the electric system operator seeks to rely more on renewable energy from wind and solar. __ G. Cornelis van Kooten