61–70 of 365 posts
Wait until you tell them you can run cars entirely on electricity from a solar farming. I'm sure they will ignore you until the price of diesel reaches four-digit territory. 1000p today? If only we didn't have to pay these incredible prices, what a miracle that would be..
Can anybody explain how these plug-in solar panels work? I am suprised that it's possible to just plug them in to your wall socket. For instance, isn't it complicated to have their output be in perfect sync with the frequency that comes in via the electricity net? Because to me it seems that if they won't, you will have lower benefits or even a net minus after plugging it in.
Some systems are capable of running in isolation from grid (providing 230V AC on their own), but this is less common and often unnecessary.
Distributed energy production / storage is the key for resiliency in the future. Every solar farm doesn't need to be China Size - it doesn't even need to be a "farm", just put them on roofs. And don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Yes there are times when solar doesn't produce energy, but there are also times where it OVERproduces.
> And don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Yes there are times when solar doesn't produce energy, but there are also times where it OVERproduces. When solar OVERproduces you have to literally pay someone to consume that energy, most probably wind farms, which could be producing energy instead. So you pay actually twice. When the solar underproduces, you need to bring in alternative sources, but those now have to c…
Here's the thing. That's a rule and not a technical problem. Absolutely no reason to do this other than rules and regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like the requirements that new houses have roof top solar. As a CPA child, you should understand that the same money is very different when it comes out of a different account. (everyone watches two critical numbers, income tax and government deficit, so the #1 priority is to hide capital spending somewhere else, in this case by moving it to buyers of new homes)
While true in general, I suspect that this won't change house prices as (I think) those are more driven by supply-demand imbalances rather than the actual costs, and that the increase in costs will go into someone else's profit margin, which may be some mix of the builders (although they're famously opaque from all the sub-contracting) and the land owners.
They might not have much of an impact on property values (certainly no more than the plethora of existing building regulations). But we shouldn't be surprised if as a result people vote for a candidate whose campaign promise consists of picking up a grenade launcher and blowing up windmills.
to answer the first question in the article "Many consumers want to know how long it will take them to make back the upfront costs of solar" my answer is that the payback is imediate, right from the first moment watching as energy is generated out of thin air, and the sudden relief from getting off the energy angst missery-go-round, and the sheer borring inertness of solar pv as it does the thing with zero detectable…
Is it immediate? Sure, there is satisfaction that you are using 'free' electricity. But it does have an upfront cost. I calculated that it would take over 11 years to recoup the investment based on our current usage. Given we already get cheap night-time rates to charge the car and run appliances, it is hard to justify. Like many UK houses, we have gas central heating too. I guess if we had a battery too (more invest…
For an 800W balcony system your background house usage is likely to be enough to self consume most of it.
You'd wouldn't be able to run even a small oil heater except maybe in peak summer.
It's a good match for working from home as it's a small amount of power spread over daylight hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Yes there are times when solar doesn't produce energy, but there are also times where it OVERproduces. When solar OVERproduces you have to literally pay someone to consume that energy, most probably wind farms, which could be producing energy instead. So you pay actually twice. When the solar underproduces, you need to bring in alternative sources, but those now have to c…
>you have to literally pay someone to consume that energy, Here's the thing. That's a rule and not a technical problem. Absolutely no reason to do this other than rules and regulations.
People don't even bother to argue why it's bad, they've just seen so many headlines telling them it's bad they don't question it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Yes there are times when solar doesn't produce energy, but there are also times where it OVERproduces. When solar OVERproduces you have to literally pay someone to consume that energy, most probably wind farms, which could be producing energy instead. So you pay actually twice. When the solar underproduces, you need to bring in alternative sources, but those now have to c…
"If you find dollar bills on the ground you need to pay someone to collect it as litter" Charge batteries, do electrolysis, or a multitude of other uses (I know some companies do that already)
There is no clear path to switching these arrays to Net Metering, as of yet. Prepare for all sorts of unrecycled solar panels and potential loss of renewable capacity that is already installed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once you've bought the panel, unlike oil, that's it. The panel doesn't remember its national origin.
> Once you've bought the panel, unlike oil, that's it. The panel doesn't remember its national origin. Until there's a geopolitical event occurs and your supply chain gets cut off so any expansion, warranty, or replacement units cannot arrive, so you're stuck at the your current level of deployment (which may or may not be sufficient for your needs).
Barring significant damage, you can maintain approximately your current level of power generation for years at a time without more than routine maintenance.
Fossil fuel power requires constant input of, well, fossil fuels.
So while what you're saying is true, it would be a ludicrous stretch to say that it brings solar panels within a few orders of magnitude of fossil fuels in terms of dependency on foreign powers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once you've bought the panel, unlike oil, that's it. The panel doesn't remember its national origin.
And panels last forever, ensuring that Europe won't have to deal with panel manufacturers ever again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can spend every euro or dollar only once. If you consider CO2 emissions a critical problem, then you should spend every single dollar as efficiently as possible. Obviously independence of fossil fuels has a value too, as the current situation in the middle east shows. It would make much more sense to import (renewable) electricity from Spain to Germany than strawberries.
You shouldn't be spending euros or dollars at all. The economic system is the ideology holding us back.
Gold coins? Pesos? Cows? Inferior-quality copper ingots?
It's entirely possible that you have a good point, but if so, it's gonna need a whole hell of a lot more context to elucidate.