Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fishythepete t1_jdvxf7z wrote

Reply to comment by HistorianOk142 in Rep. Boylan introduces bill requiring solar on new construction by GhostOpera406

No, it’s not. This is going to make homes take longer to build, and it’s going to make the purchase price higher (even if the ownership cost is neutral, the bank doesn’t care that you’re saving money on your electric bill when they’re underwriting the loan). Neither of those are good things when there is a housing crisis, or in general. If solar power is a slam dunk financially, you don’t need to pass a law to get it built. You need to educate consumers.

5

FourAM t1_jdw6w58 wrote

Climate won’t wait for a more equitable housing market. Costs will be made up later by lower or non-existent utility bill. Consumers are fed misinformation (just read some of the takes in this thread by brainwashed morons).

It doesn’t really matter because nobody can afford a house now anyway. You think landlords or NIMBYs gonna let prices come down? Hell no the want us all to rent forever and get rich off our backs. So if they’re the only ones that are going to be able to afford new housing at least let’s make them offset the ecological damage.

1

SweatyCockroach8212 t1_jdxitpd wrote

It takes less than 2 days to install solar panels.

Source: I had solar panels installed on my house in less than two days.

1

fishythepete t1_jdxjumw wrote

Cool story. Site isn’t suitable for solar? You’re going to need a variance. That takes time. There’s also a huge difference between the time it takes to get a single job done, and how that job impacts a construction schedule. Blew your install date because roofers didn’t start on time? It’s not gonna be two days once the roof is done. And that’s before even considering the rest of the bill. Don’t plan on buying an EV? Too bad - garage has to be wired for charging.

Again - the financial case is there. You don’t need a law. Educate consumers, and maybe solar companies could get some sales folks who aren’t total shysters.

1

SweatyCockroach8212 t1_jdxk47q wrote

By that logic, we should not ban lead paint or heroin. Just educate people and they'll always do what's best. Cool.

0

fishythepete t1_jdxkycx wrote

Uh nope. Not the same logic. There is already a pretty strong incentive to go solar - you get paid to do it. Removing lead paint and shooting heroin, not so much.

1

SweatyCockroach8212 t1_jdxmwy5 wrote

Except for the part where you don't get paid to go solar. I don't get paid. You pay for panels, you get electricity.

Your argument is people should be free to decide to do what they want. If they want panels, buy em. If they want lead paint, buy it. If not, don't. Same logic.

1

fishythepete t1_jdxnrb7 wrote

>Except for the part where you don't get paid to go solar. I don't get paid. You pay for panels, you get electricity.

What a silly argument. It’s like saying I don’t get paid for work. My employer puts money in the bank, and I get to use it.

I bought my system outright, but if I had financed it over 6 years, I would have saved a little money every month, and then stopped paying anything for electricity after 6 years. If you are net cash flow positive with no upfront investment, you are getting paid, and that’s what solar is for most people with a decent sunroof.

>Your argument is people should be free to decide to do what they want. If they want panels, buy em. If they want lead paint, buy it. If not, don't. Same logic.

My argument is people have a strong financial incentive to do this already. Less so with heroin and lead paint.

I have seen more solar panels go up in the last 3 years than I have in my life until then, and I am middle aged. The incentives are there, and working. Given our legislators and those who will need to implement this law have limited resources, maybe those resources would be better directed at solving a problem that wasn’t already solving itself before some kind savior from Barrington decided we needed her enlightened wisdom.

1