<story><title>California to become first U.S. state mandating solar on new homes</title><url>https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/04/california-to-become-first-u-s-state-mandating-solar-on-new-homes/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>secabeen</author><text>&amp;gt; It also makes you more immune to losing power in a natural disaster, of which California has plenty.&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, this is generally not the case.  Most grid-tie solar inverters do not support disconnected operation.  They all have anti-islanding features that disconnect the solar panels when the grid goes down (to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages).  There are a few inverters that include an emergency-outlet on the inverter that works when the power is out, but you have to run an extension cord from the inverter to the devices you want to power.&lt;p&gt;It is possible to buy a hybird off-grid inverter, but they are much more expensive than either plain grid-tie or off-grid, and the power company is going to scrutinize their installation a lot more closely.</text></item><item><author>programbreeding</author><text>&amp;gt;If the state would focus on higher density living...&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;...where they&amp;#x27;ll run their air conditioners 10 months out of the year in their huge, inefficient houses&lt;p&gt;The type of people that live in huge inefficient homes are generally also the same type of people that don&amp;#x27;t want to live in high density areas. California could turn open fields in to solar farms like you mentioned, but that requires that someone foot the bill and also build the infrastructure for it. &amp;quot;Forcing&amp;quot; people to put solar panels on their own home solves both of those problems. It also makes you more immune to losing power in a natural disaster, of which California has plenty.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not saying I&amp;#x27;m even for this issue, I don&amp;#x27;t live in California. But your view is extremely negative and ignores the negatives of your way while also ignoring the positives of the way mentioned in the article.</text></item><item><author>baron816</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m certainly a big fan of solar power, but rooftop solar is a little silly. Rooftop solar would make sense if we had some shortage of land and couldn&amp;#x27;t just fill up empty fields with panels, but that&amp;#x27;s not the case. It&amp;#x27;s much cheaper for utility companies to buy up big plots of land than it is to try to figure out how to outfit odd shaped surfaces with panels.&lt;p&gt;California is really missing the forrest for the trees here. There&amp;#x27;s so much low hanging fruit (things that could kill two birds with one stone) that they&amp;#x27;re ignoring. If the state would focus on higher density living and public transportation over imposing regulations that will drive more people away and lower the standard of living for those who remain, then we would see a much bigger global impact on reducing climate change. Because of this, more people will decide to live in Texas instead of California, where they&amp;#x27;ll run their air conditioners 10 months out of the year in their huge, inefficient houses which draw power from coal plants.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mehrdadn</author><text>&amp;gt; to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages&lt;p&gt;Surely they can&amp;#x27;t entirely rely on this for safety?</text></comment>
<story><title>California to become first U.S. state mandating solar on new homes</title><url>https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/04/california-to-become-first-u-s-state-mandating-solar-on-new-homes/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>secabeen</author><text>&amp;gt; It also makes you more immune to losing power in a natural disaster, of which California has plenty.&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, this is generally not the case.  Most grid-tie solar inverters do not support disconnected operation.  They all have anti-islanding features that disconnect the solar panels when the grid goes down (to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages).  There are a few inverters that include an emergency-outlet on the inverter that works when the power is out, but you have to run an extension cord from the inverter to the devices you want to power.&lt;p&gt;It is possible to buy a hybird off-grid inverter, but they are much more expensive than either plain grid-tie or off-grid, and the power company is going to scrutinize their installation a lot more closely.</text></item><item><author>programbreeding</author><text>&amp;gt;If the state would focus on higher density living...&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;...where they&amp;#x27;ll run their air conditioners 10 months out of the year in their huge, inefficient houses&lt;p&gt;The type of people that live in huge inefficient homes are generally also the same type of people that don&amp;#x27;t want to live in high density areas. California could turn open fields in to solar farms like you mentioned, but that requires that someone foot the bill and also build the infrastructure for it. &amp;quot;Forcing&amp;quot; people to put solar panels on their own home solves both of those problems. It also makes you more immune to losing power in a natural disaster, of which California has plenty.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not saying I&amp;#x27;m even for this issue, I don&amp;#x27;t live in California. But your view is extremely negative and ignores the negatives of your way while also ignoring the positives of the way mentioned in the article.</text></item><item><author>baron816</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m certainly a big fan of solar power, but rooftop solar is a little silly. Rooftop solar would make sense if we had some shortage of land and couldn&amp;#x27;t just fill up empty fields with panels, but that&amp;#x27;s not the case. It&amp;#x27;s much cheaper for utility companies to buy up big plots of land than it is to try to figure out how to outfit odd shaped surfaces with panels.&lt;p&gt;California is really missing the forrest for the trees here. There&amp;#x27;s so much low hanging fruit (things that could kill two birds with one stone) that they&amp;#x27;re ignoring. If the state would focus on higher density living and public transportation over imposing regulations that will drive more people away and lower the standard of living for those who remain, then we would see a much bigger global impact on reducing climate change. Because of this, more people will decide to live in Texas instead of California, where they&amp;#x27;ll run their air conditioners 10 months out of the year in their huge, inefficient houses which draw power from coal plants.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>anigbrowl</author><text>This seems like a simple problem to solve, by putting the inverter at the periphery of the domestic system.</text></comment>