171–180 of 313 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incentiving rich people to buy expansive tech (and still at lost for the riches) help the technologies to ride the cost curve and bring it to the masses.
that can't be true as rich people are by definition a small minority. why not just give the subsidies directly to the companies
I have a friend in America who has a fairly large PV set up on part of his property. Listening to the all the obstacles he's had to overcome and all the surprising limitations he's saddled with, I can't help but suspect that the power company in his area that he's selling the power to would rather that these sorts of installations simply not exist. Coupling that with the fact that off-peak pricing isn't the norm in a…
The profit model for utility companies is to build new power plants, power lines, and substations, and charge their rate payers for that build ("rate base" it). Then they get a cut of their expense as profit. If too many people build solar, the utility can't build new infrastructure and charge everyone for it. And, they now have to manage balancing solar production with electricity usage, which means hiring new analy…
Right. Because solar does not play well with existing infrastructure but solar needs the grid to be even close to viable. It needs it because it is a diffuse intermittent power source, where the peak power generation does not actually match peak power use. Solar overproduction cannot be saved for later either, meaning that you have another infrastructure challenge of dealing with overproduction when you don't need it.
In general, solar only really works if it is paired with a a traditional power generator that can ramp up quickly (when there is no solar output) and ramp down quickly (when solar output is high). The only power generators that can do that are ones that burn fossil fuels. That's why natural gas companies are a BIG lobby group for solar. That's why Germany is signing massive, multi-decade deals to ship Russian gas, as they expand their wind and solar infrastructure.
If you care about getting rid of carbon emissions, solar is a disaster. Not to mention energy use in building panels and the number of rare earth materials each one needs, the problems with recycling them, and their land-use requirements and the environmental impact of that.
>It is good for everyone when rich people buy solar
No. Just no.
> It also lists $33,950 as the price after an $8,550 federal tax incentive. There is something absolutely astonishing about the fact that in America the way we have go about being eco-friendly is to give huge tax breaks to rich people to buy solar panels and electric vehicles. To think with all that money we could build better infrastructure and denser housing. Really boggles the mind.
How will an 8K subsidy per home help increase housing supply? Will that subsidy also automatically take care of global warming? 64% if Americans own a roof, FYI.
What is truly detrimental to society is not the promotion of carbon neutrality, but this kind of crab mentality where some people benefiting more hurts more than the fact that this is a positive step for the planet as a whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The manufacturer states 25-30 years for shingles, but it's rarely the case they actually last that long unless you're paying for premium shingles. I'm in Canada though, so perhaps the harsher weather has something to do with that. Regardless, in Canada at least, 25-30 years for shingles is not common; 15-20 is more realistic from what I can tell in my area.
Why do they degrade so quickly? I also live in UK and replacing an entire roof is not a common thing to do, every 50 years sounds about right, my roof is 35 years old without any leaks.
> It also lists $33,950 as the price after an $8,550 federal tax incentive. There is something absolutely astonishing about the fact that in America the way we have go about being eco-friendly is to give huge tax breaks to rich people to buy solar panels and electric vehicles. To think with all that money we could build better infrastructure and denser housing. Really boggles the mind.
Why people has to paid more just because they're rich?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? Isn't that how all successful technology starts off - highly priced, effectively experimental, but then becoming more and more available to the general public as the price goes down and production increases?
The trouble is that you're necessarily picking winners and losers in order to design the incentive scheme. It makes no sense to pay somebody $7500 to buy a new car to drive to work, but not to switch to cycling or telecommuting. In this case, it's not necessarily clear that this is a product that needs to happen. Grid scale solar is significantly cheaper due to the economies of scale. Were there a carbon tax, there'd…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The masses don't own houses to put these roofs on Is this based off an SV mindset? There are plenty of homeowners that aren't rich around the country. Plus less pollution in the air helps the masses too, with fewer health issues and less extreme weather on a long term basis.
Of course it is, and unfortunately you see it a lot on HN - apparently no one in any country can afford houses anymore. It's like this Futurama joke - "no one drives in Manhattan anymore - there's too much traffic". On this side of the pond it's the London residents saying that no one except for the ultra rich can own houses, forgetting that in other parts of the country you can buy a (new!) house for as little as £1…
But for the working class/lower middle saving up 10k pounds for a deposit is real work.
Back of napkin math is: - 100ft.2 of solar panels (Qty: 5, off the shelf, ~3’ x ~5’ panels) = ~1kW of AC electricity (post-inverter, in low-sun Seattle) - At the roof, this represents 10 wires and ~8 roof penetrations (racking lags through flashing into rafters) AKA: simple setup, proven implementation Questions: - How many wires (points of failure) are in 100ft.2 of solar shingles? - How many roof penetrations? - Ho…
They already do regular solar installs and so do a ton of other competitors. This is a boutique product for people who care about aesthetics and are willing to pay a premium for it.
> It also lists $33,950 as the price after an $8,550 federal tax incentive. There is something absolutely astonishing about the fact that in America the way we have go about being eco-friendly is to give huge tax breaks to rich people to buy solar panels and electric vehicles. To think with all that money we could build better infrastructure and denser housing. Really boggles the mind.
> It also lists $33,950 as the price after an $8,550 federal tax incentive. There is something absolutely astonishing about the fact that in America the way we have go about being eco-friendly is to give huge tax breaks to rich people to buy solar panels and electric vehicles. To think with all that money we could build better infrastructure and denser housing. Really boggles the mind.
Ha! This one made me laugh. In America nobody will let you build either of those things anymore. At least not where they are needed.