Will requiring solar panels on new buildings reduce their overall cost?

[ButchDeal]

I am not arguing that how the government is doing this is wise. It is not.

I am arguing that emissions requirements effectively mandated catalytic converters. Car companies said that would bankrupt them. However, once most cars needed one, prices dropped dramatically. The same will happen with solar. That's it.

No prices did not drop, they are cheaper in other countries without the cat requirement.

[jflorey2]

One of those consequences will be community solar or some other mechanism purchased by a builder and assigned to buildings that can't put much solar on their roof. It could be a good thing or it could end up like solar roof leasing. Too soon to tell.

Perhaps. Or perhaps there will be a lot of north-facing arrays installed, because that meets the letter of the law. Or perhaps there will be a lot of 3.1 story homes, because then solar is not required, and thus such homes will be cheaper and more desirable. Or perhaps loads will be moved to "common areas" to get around that part of the law. (Common but personal washer/dryers perhaps?)

It's a bad idea. A better idea would be to require each home to use less than 12kwhr a day net (for example) and let builders achieve that however they like.

[jflorey2]

No prices did not drop, they are cheaper in other countries without the cat requirement.

Prices ON CATALYTIC CONVERTERS dropped.

As proof of this, Lee Iacocca said in 1972 that if the "EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down" because they were so expensive. Did Ford shut down? No. Catalytic converters got cheaper. The same thing will happen to solar.

[J.P.M.]

Prices ON CATALYTIC CONVERTERS dropped.

As proof of this, Lee Iacocca said in 1972 that if the "EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down" because they were so expensive. Did Ford shut down? No. Catalytic converters got cheaper. The same thing will happen to solar.

I'd bet solar gets cheaper somewhat in proportion to the reduction/elimination of the fed. tax credit.

[ButchDeal]

Prices ON CATALYTIC CONVERTERS dropped.

As proof of this, Lee Iacocca said in 1972 that if the "EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down" because they were so expensive. Did Ford shut down? No. Catalytic converters got cheaper. The same thing will happen to solar.

The car companies reduced the cost and quality if the cars to compensate for the added costs if the cats. Cars from the early 70s were some of the all time lowest quality with poorest materials.

So to correlate, builders will skimp on other products to compensate for added costs particularly on the smaller homes.

[jflorey2]

The car companies reduced the cost and quality if the cars to compensate for the added costs if the cats. Cars from the early 70s were some of the all time lowest quality with poorest materials. So to correlate, builders will skimp on other products to compensate for added costs particularly on the smaller homes.

Yet they got steadily safer and less polluting. Gas mileage went up, as did standard features. If we can copy that trend in homes, that would be great - even if the materials are cheaper.

[jflorey2]

I'd bet solar gets cheaper somewhat in proportion to the reduction/elimination of the fed. tax credit.

I agree - although I'd expect total cost (after credits/deductions) to go up.

[ButchDeal]

Yet they got steadily safer and less polluting. Gas mileage went up, as did standard features. If we can copy that trend in homes, that would be great - even if the materials are cheaper.

Did gas millage go up? Hm, no catalytic converters decrease gas millage, not increase. Other things in the car were done to compensate which increased the cost of the cars.
We had cars in the 60s that got 32+ mpg..
standard features went up to increase how much people we pay and hide other costs.

Safer , maybe but that would be because of other safety requirements and totally unrelated to catalytic converters in any way.
Your a analogy doest fit in any way to what you are trying to show and there are few cases where gov requirements help lower costs to customers,

[jflorey2]

Did gas millage go up? Hm, no catalytic converters decrease gas millage, not increase.

They increased it, actually. Not because the catalytic converter did anything to increase it. But catalytic converters require stochiometric combustion (i.e. an ideal fuel to air ratio) to function, and thus the common trick of tweaking the mixture to solve problems with idle/hesitation/power could no longer be used. Catalytic converters basically forced cars to run at a more efficient mixture all the time. (Also effectively required closed loop mixture controls, along with oxygen sensors.)

Other things in the car were done to compensate which increased the cost of the cars.
We had cars in the 60s that got 32+ mpg..

Yep. I had a 1973 Datsun that got 35mpg.

standard features went up to increase how much people we pay and hide other costs.

Yet the price of a cheap car has remained remarkably stable throughout the years (adjusted for inflation, of course.)

Your a analogy doest fit in any way to what you are trying to show and there are few cases where gov requirements help lower costs to customers,

That wasn't my intent, nor did I claim anything silly like "government requirements help lower costs to consumers." Indeed, requiring solar will increase prices overall to consumers who buy homes. My intent was to show that increasing the use of something (whether through mandate or more organic means) tends to decrease the price of that thing. It has been demonstrated many, many times.

But in any case, to get back to the topic -

The California solar mandate will drive solar prices down due to economies of scale. However, even if the prices get lower, the cost per house will still go up, since they are now required to install something that has a non-zero cost. And it's a bad idea anyway.

[ButchDeal]

They increased it, actually. Not because the catalytic converter did anything to increase it. But catalytic converters require stochiometric combustion (i.e. an ideal fuel to air ratio) to function, and thus the common trick of tweaking the mixture to solve problems with idle/hesitation/power could no longer be used. Catalytic converters basically forced cars to run at a more efficient mixture all the time. (Also effectively required closed loop mixture controls, along with oxygen sensors.)

The closed loop was not for cats but other environmental requirements.
Gas milage decreased from catalytic converters though. The better mixture came from fuel injection and controlling the mixture more closely by computer control timing etc. These would have (and do) increase gas milage but the cat decreases the mpg.

Yet the price of a cheap car has remained remarkably stable throughout the years (adjusted for inflation, of course.)

Cheap cars do not have the same features
so lets look at a 1965 corvair 32MPG, seats 5, 4 door, unibody, lots of safety features. Original MSRP $2100 base model. Adjusting for inflation < $5k new
today you can get a Toyota Yaris seats 5 (much smaller people than the corvair), 32MPG at $15k

Cars are not cheaper. Catalytic converters might be cheaper but who would want one if it wasn't required by law.
Take it off your current car and retune, and the MPG would increase considerably.

But in any case, to get back to the topic -

The California solar mandate will drive solar prices down due to economies of scale. However, even if the prices get lower, the cost per house will still go up, since they are now required to install something that has a non-zero cost. And it's a bad idea anyway.

I still disagree though I do agree the price per house will go up.
The price for saved kWh on the homes is considerably more than had they instead of requiring solar, required more savings on the kWh of the homes.
This would have actual given cheaper homes (cheaper than the solar homes) with better energy savings and many much better designed efficient homes.
It would have also stimulated innovation where the requirement for solar is only stimulating greed. It doesn't matter if they install the solar upside down even or inside the attic, it still counts.

[jflorey2]

The closed loop was not for cats but other environmental requirements.

Nope. Catalytic converters need closed loop control.

Cheap cars do not have the same features

Right. Today's have a lot more.

so lets look at a 1965 corvair 32MPG, seats 5, 4 door, unibody, lots of safety features. Original MSRP $2100 base model. Adjusting for inflation < $5k new
today you can get a Toyota Yaris seats 5 (much smaller people than the corvair), 32MPG at $15k

A car that cost $2440 in 1965 (Corvair MSRP) would cost $19K in 2019 dollars. So prices have come down.

I still disagree though I do agree the price per house will go up.
The price for saved kWh on the homes is considerably more than had they instead of requiring solar, required more savings on the kWh of the homes.
This would have actual given cheaper homes (cheaper than the solar homes) with better energy savings and many much better designed efficient homes.
It would have also stimulated innovation where the requirement for solar is only stimulating greed. It doesn't matter if they install the solar upside down even or inside the attic, it still counts.

Right. That's the problem. A kwhr limit (with builder penalties if exceeded) would make a lot more sense.

[ButchDeal]

A car that cost $2440 in 1965 (Corvair MSRP) would cost $19K in 2019 dollars. So prices have come down.

Right. That's the problem. A kwhr limit (with builder penalties if exceeded) would make a lot more sense.

MSRP on a 4 door base model Corvair 500 (the base model) with 6 cylinder engine was $2100, The 2 door was a step up and more sporty so it was priced higher.

You could get the Corsa with 2 doors and high performance engine (one of the fastest production cars in the US at the time ) for $2,465

[Ampster]

............
It doesn't matter if they install the solar upside down even or inside the attic, it still counts.

If you are talking about the California regulation I hope it does require some sort of energy calculation like Title 24.

However even Title 24 was apparently compromised by lobbyists for the Natural Gas Industry. I heard that from a friend who was no fan of solar. He was a former contractor who became a building inspector for a city.

[Mike90250]

If you are talking about the California regulation I hope it does require some sort of energy calculation like Title 24.

However even Title 24 was apparently compromised by lobbyists for the Natural Gas Industry. I heard that from a friend who was no fan of solar. He was a former contractor who became a building inspector for a city.

Don't even get me started on the flaws of Title 24 and what it has cost me in an alpine climate.

[azdave]

...so lets look at a 1965 Corvair...

Funny...I'm looking at one right now. I own 9 of them. All 1965-66.

I still say that (most times) when the government says you must have something (insurance comes to mind) the cost goes up, not down.