Not going to do San Francisco much good really

San Francisco is requiring solar panels on all new buildings.

The place’s problem being that it doesn’t build new buildings.

15 thoughts on “Not going to do San Francisco much good really”

  1. so what’s the net cost of adding solar panels to a building? I’m guessing not going to make a great deal of difference

  2. Dear Mr Worstall

    Virtue signalling: it is one of those things progressives do when they’ve run out of other things to do.

    Or maybe they are anticipating events.

    DP

  3. They think that if they set an example lots of other places will copy them, thereby promoting the greater good.
    Actually, solar panels in the southern parts of the USA are far less stupid than most “green” ideas. A decade ago I was suggesting (but no-one listened) that all office buildings in the south of the USA should be equipped with solar panels to run their air-conditioning systems.

  4. The place’s problem being that it doesn’t build new buildings

    Or get sunshine. But other than that, great idea!

  5. @dp
    “Virtue signalling: it is one of those things progressives do when they’ve run out of other things to do.”

    Only if the cost to themselves is zero*.

    *and obviously been considered a raving loon by normal people is a feature, not a cost.

  6. “Analysts estimate that the resulting solar installations could help avoid 26,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually”

    Show me a picture of what 26,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide looks like. Ooooooo! Scary!

  7. Man puts about 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

    40,000,000,000

    26,000 is what SF says they can save.

    A little reduction by 1000:

    40,000,000
    26

    Go ahead, have fun SF. Make people spend money in order to save nothing and no one.

  8. Good article, Jerry. It makes obvious that without government financial support, PV solar is a loser.

    I love this quote:

    ‘One of the remarkable things about the US solar industry is how insignificant it is.’

  9. “Analysts estimate that the resulting solar installations could help avoid 26,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually”

    Or to quote it in full, “the Department of Environment applied the proposal to construction projects in the pipeline in the third quarter of 2014 and found the 200 projects with solar installations would ‘avoid over 26,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year.'”

    So 26kt is for one quarter’s construction. Over ten years, that would mount up to an annual emissions saving of 1Mt. If every city achieved that sort of saving, it would make a meaningful difference.

  10. ‘If every city achieved that sort of saving, it would make a meaningful difference.’

    A meaningful difference in what?

  11. The population of San Francisco City and County is a little under 1 million. Something like 4000 times as many people live in cities globally. If they all reduced CO2 emissions proportionately, that would add up to 4Gt. Which is about 10% of global anthropogenic emissions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *