Why doesn't every house have solar installed?

[ty_ger]

3) The fact that you generate it, then need storage to meter it out, is not accounted for in costing. Let's say it's only every 3 years to replace batteries, and only uses 4 car batteries. 2024-1992 = 32 years. (32/3)*4 = 44 batteries replaced. At the average cost of about $80 that'd be $3520. That is pure cost...so be prepared for that to go up over time. Remember, lead acid is cheap but is using both sulfuric acid and lead.

Your 'fact' is an assumption. You don't need to do it, and therefore it isn't a fact. If you go small-scale, you don't affect the grid negatively. If you go big scale, the power company may deny your application for the sake of the grid, and cost balloons.
Small-scale makes it less complex, has less downsides, and makes your money back faster. It is way more efficient just to use it directly when you have it. It is easier to do it yourself and save a lot of money. And, under a certain size, you usually don't need a dedicated feed or shutoff or anything, saving you more money.
If I had to use batteries, I would just not do it at all. The cost is somewhat prohibitive, it is less efficient with losses at time of storage and at time of use use, and you have to replace the batteries periodically.
Big battery storage facilities are the power company's duty, in my opinion. If they feel it is necessary, they can afford to implement it and are in the best position to effectively design, manage, and use it. Homeowners should avoid getting themselves involved with storage, I think.

Unless it rotates with the sun like a sunflower you're not getting paid off. Ever. I'd like to see a more sincere evaluation. At least most people in cities and multi storey buildings can't benefit more than a few hours.

Without tax credits, my small solar generator would pay for itself in 7 years. With tax credits, it already paid for itself.

2) The 1kilowatt is the maximum that array can output....but the math there sucks. You're looking at 1000 watts for a part of each sunny day....or on average probably about 1/3 to 1/4 that. 1/2 day lost due to night. The rest lost due to non-optimal angles and coverage. Yay....your average 333 watt platform only lost 21% of its capacity...or 60 watts rounded way down. Holy crap...that sucks. No lightbulb in the bathroom for you anymore.

I live in the northwest. It's not an ideal place for solar, and my solar generator size is laughably small compared to most, yet it still reduces my electrical consumption by 10 to 25% depending on time of year. Maybe you don't think it is worth it, I don't know. But I think it is worth it. If I could do it for one or two pay checks, reduce my consumption by 10 to 25% for the rest of the time I own the house, and it already paid for itself, how stupid is that?

 

[Chrispy_]

Beyond the regulatory labyrinth, I understand that distributed solar panel setups currently can have problem feeding back power into the grid - which I think is what much of the regulation and certification is about, by allowing the grid operator to reliably turn them off if they would otherwise overload the grid - during peak sunny hours, though that should be changing for the better.

No reason not to maybe allow some kind of simpler small-scale setup to at least offset base loads like refrigerator and maybe HVAC as long as you have a roof (i.e. not living in an apartment) though. One kWh from local solar is more than one kWh less from something else, accounting for grid losses.

The grid needs to evolve to include more storage and regulation.

The outdated model of attempting to match demand with supply has been falling apart for decades. Demand is only getting spikier, whilst easily-adjustable supply (fossil fuels) are being phased out.

The grid needs to have more distributed storage included if it wants to keep up with modern society that's banning fossil fuels and switching to a larger seasonal change in demand. That's not optional, it's a simple requirement that must be met, either with pumped hydro, massive thermal batteries, or distributed li-ion banks at each and every substation.

there really are solar panels for Fido's house. Climate control too.

That's so simple it's genius; The sunnier it is, the faster the fans spin!

 

[Dr. Dro]

As with most people who repeat this tired old trope, you don't understand the actual problem, which is the amount of carbon in the atmosphere contributing to warming the planet. All other problems are irrelevant and renewable energy is the only thing that can solve this particular one in a timeframe that won't destroy our species.

It's not a tired old trope, though. Not any more tired than say, the carbon emissions trope you speak of. It has become an industry in itself - corporations actually trade carbon credits rather than actually do anything to reduce their emissions. A relatively simple way to reach environmental goals while turning it into a third-party issue.

I think it's safe to say that we have to find efficient ways to reduce pollution as a whole, whether that is gas, carbon, toxic, radioactive waste all around and this can only be achieved by high-efficiency power generation methods, many of which do not yet exist or are economically unviable to deploy. That is the true challenge.

 

[dgianstefani]

Professional scientist here, solar is not efficient and subject to physical damage. Remember the grid in PR was demolished by a hurricane.
Plus here in Texas a insurance company will deny you coverage since the install damages the roof. (They claim).
Plus the power utilities do not like competition and play games when it comes to reducing your bill. Similar to the fight between legal weed and alcohol industries.

It certainly doesn't make sense for solar power farms, at least for solar panels. For reflective panels aimed at a tower to heat water that's a different story.

The losses from transmitting the electricity along lines are the main problem.

For supplemental/offgrid power, it's a decent option with a ~25 year service life.

Bear in mind manufacturing solar panels is quite similar to manufacturing computer silicon, so very involved, water intensive etc.

Nuclear really is the answer, same for cargo ships which are the main source of pollution on the planet IIRC, unless it's passenger air travel. I think both are bigger than cars/homes, but I can't remember which is #1.

Now that I think of it, it really strikes me as rather insane how small is the power generation capacity of these solar devices. If I had your system installed here, it would at best cushion our power consumption from the grid. Everything in my household is electric, except for the LPG gas-powered cooktop. My previous estimate of 44 months to pay off the system at $800/mo would only be valid if the solar panels could fulfill the household's entire power load and then some.

My shower alone is a 240 V/7800 W appliance, and sometimes there are two of those on at the same time in here. Still have a good laugh with ElectroBoom's classic video on these things

I mean, true, it's not going to disappear and the tech will improve over time. But as it stands, it's still far too rudimentary and low-capacity to be a must-have, IMO. We will need far more efficient panels to bring most households off-grid and/or have them contribute to the pool of available energy.

Longi claims 34.6% efficiency for perovskite-silicon tandem solar cell

The European Solar Test Installation (ESTI) has confirmed Longi's achievement of a world record-breaking efficiency rating of 34.6% for a perovskite-silicon tandem solar cell.

www.pv-magazine.com

~35% efficient panels are coming. But perovskite has a shorter lifetime than other compounds used in older style cells.

 

[Dr. Dro]

It certainly doesn't make sense for solar power farms, at least for solar panels. For reflective panels aimed at a tower to heat water that's a different story.

The losses from transmitting the electricity along lines are the main problem.

For supplemental/offgrid power, it's a decent option with a ~25 year service life.

Bear in mind manufacturing solar panels is quite similar to manufacturing computer silicon, so very involved, water intensive etc.

Nuclear really is the answer, same for cargo ships which are the main source of pollution on the planet IIRC, unless it's passenger air travel. I think both are bigger than cars/homes, but I can't remember which is #1.

Longi claims 34.6% efficiency for perovskite-silicon tandem solar cell

The European Solar Test Installation (ESTI) has confirmed Longi's achievement of a world record-breaking efficiency rating of 34.6% for a perovskite-silicon tandem solar cell.

www.pv-magazine.com

~35% efficient panels are coming. But perovskite has a shorter lifetime than other compounds used in older style cells.

That's really amazing, but the lifetime is also a concern, if the panels don't last as long, they have to be replaced, and manufactured/processed/recycled more often. Once we reach ~70% with the current expected lifespan of ~30y, while retaining a level of affordability, it might begin to reduce the burden on the residential grid IMO.

 

[freeagent]

They just go straight into the landfill. Not much can be reused. I feel bad enough when I have to throw a TV away.

 

[bitsandboots]

Many houses should have solar, but why not "every" house depends upon things like homeowners associations, laziness, stubbornness, lack of foresight, and lack of money to invest in that future.

I think it'd be great if new houses came with solar already integrated. It would resolve a lot of these items.

 

[dgianstefani]

Solar hot water for sure.

Solar panels for electricity? Nice in off grid, but nuclear is the answer for urban.

Not rare earth printed silicon panels with a limited lifespan and expensive installation.

 

[P4-630]

My average electricity usage troughout the year with solar panels, orange/yellow means free electricity.

 

[Assimilator]

"Carbon emissions" are not a valid reason for people whose main problems are paying bills and putting food on the table.

By that impeccably selfish "logic" we should never do anything to try to make the lives of future humans better.

The video said that the idea was suggested by some energy companies, but was rejected for the above reasons. I never said I took it as gospel fact, but it was interesting. You have to admit that albedo is a real thing, though.

It's not interesting, it's alarmist claptrap designed to be alarmist claptrap. Stop and think about why that might be, given who's producing it.

Claiming that without backing it up with a counter-argument serves no purpose.

You made the claim that "Therefore, solar panels alone are not a feasible alternative to the grid" based on a video that is obviously bullshit, ergo that assertion is obviously bullshit too, and I'm not going to waste my time disproving obvious bullshit because it doesn't need to be disproven because it's bullshit.

It's not a tired old trope, though. Not any more tired than say, the carbon emissions trope you speak of. It has become an industry in itself - corporations actually trade carbon credits rather than actually do anything to reduce their emissions. A relatively simple way to reach environmental goals while turning it into a third-party issue.

Stop conflating actually cutting carbon emissions with companies being shitty. Doing nothing because companies are being shitty doesn't help to fix those companies, or the pollution problem.

I think it's safe to say that we have to find efficient ways to reduce pollution as a whole, whether that is gas, carbon, toxic, radioactive waste all around

What nonsense. The whole point of solar and wind is that you pay the pollution cost twice, once during construction and once during disposal. Even if fossil fuel generation produced exactly as much pollution as the production cost of solar panels, you are paying that fuel cost every every. damn. year. that fossil fuel generator is running... I'm sure you're capable of understanding that a cost of 2 is preferable to a cost of 30.

And that's completely ignoring the pollution cost of mining those fossil fuels out of the ground every. damn. year. Of transporting and refining them. Of dealing with the consequences when an oil spill happens or a train carriage derails and explodes and destroys an entire town. There is literally no world in which renewables can be worse than fossil fuels in terms of pollution. None.

and this can only be achieved by high-efficiency power generation methods, many of which do not yet exist or are economically unviable to deploy. That is the true challenge.

We don't need "high-efficiency power generation methods" or similar bullshit to solve the climate crisis or end pollution. We just need to replace fossil fuels with renewables now, instead of kicking the can down the road with fallacious arguments about how that replacement has to be perfect before we should even consider it. Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and we don't live in a perfect world, but we do live in one that is running out of time - fast.

 

[Chrispy_]

Also, there's the price concern. A solar installation might as well cost more than a lifetime of energy bills to many families.

That's only true if your energy is dirt cheap. Here in Europe the electricity costs are so high that a solar installation with a 25-year guarantee has paid for itself in 5-6 years. The most expensive part is the batteries to get you through each night .

My average electricity usage troughout the year with solar panels, orange/yellow means free electricity.

View attachment 351689

You either live in the arctic circle or your panels are buried in snow for 4-5 months a year?

 

[OneMoar]

because most people don't have 10-15k to install a system big enough to power there whole home
for solar ( to ac) to be viable you need massive batteries. a grid tie inverter or micro inverter's permits and your climent is a concern as well

renewable energy is (currently) stupid. all the methods we currently have are not capable of delivering the power we need. and the chase for renewable has been electricitiy x3 more expensive as plants are closed and demand sky rockets. and regulators qubbile over every gram of carbon.

completely ignoring the ammount of toxic shit going into the landfills when panels and batteries age out or fail all while corperations are given carbon credits and do fuck all to accually make a impact

and all of this extra cost comes directly out of the endusers wallet. while the companies pay nothing and do nothing

nope No and Nope again

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I'm actually really curious now, how much does it cost in USD (if you don't mind doing the math and currency conversion) to take say a 7 minute long hot shower there?

In summer time I actually have no issue taking cold showers, its invigorating after being outside in the heat. In winter I need a hot shower though.

chatgpt says it only costs 15 cents total... so that's not right... thanks for nothing AI..

here is the prompt I gave chatgpt:

Assuming you have a shower head that uses 8000 watts of power, how much would it cost to take a hot shower for 7 minutes in rio de janero brazil, then convert the currency to USD.

and here is the answer:

To calculate the cost of taking a hot shower for 7 minutes in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, we need to follow these steps:

1. **Determine the energy consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh)**:
- Power consumption of the shower head: 8000 watts (8 kW).
- Duration of the shower: 7 minutes.
- Convert minutes to hours: 7 minutes = 7/60 hours.

2. **Calculate the energy consumption**:
\[
\text{Energy Consumption} = \text{Power (kW)} \times \text{Time (hours)}
\]
\[
\text{Energy Consumption} = 8 \text{ kW} \times \frac{7}{60} \text{ hours} = \frac{56}{60} \text{ kWh} \approx 0.9333 \text{ kWh}
\]

3. **Find the cost of electricity in Rio de Janeiro**:
- The cost of electricity in Rio de Janeiro is approximately BRL 0.80 per kWh.

4. **Calculate the cost in BRL**:
\[
\text{Cost in BRL} = \text{Energy Consumption} \times \text{Cost per kWh}
\]
\[
\text{Cost in BRL} = 0.9333 \text{ kWh} \times 0.80 \text{ BRL/kWh} = 0.74664 \text{ BRL}
\]

5. **Convert the cost from BRL to USD**:
- The exchange rate is approximately 1 BRL = 0.20 USD (this rate can fluctuate, so it might be different at the time of calculation).

6. **Calculate the cost in USD**:
\[
\text{Cost in USD} = \text{Cost in BRL} \times \text{Exchange Rate}
\]
\[
\text{Cost in USD} = 0.74664 \text{ BRL} \times 0.20 \text{ USD/BRL} = 0.14933 \text{ USD}
\]

Therefore, taking a 7-minute hot shower in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil would cost approximately USD 0.15.

I like your logic...but you're missing some steps.

Let's look at temperature, and flow rates first. That will determine energy consumption.

In Brazil, you have about 3-4 liters per minute of water flow (CLASP NGO report). If you are looking at maximums, then 4*7 = 28 liters of water expended. This means that your shower has to heat 28 liters of water...and that as this is a flow it has to be continuous. Cool.

Now, 4200 J/kg/C is the energy it takes to raise one kg of water 1 degree C. Let's say a "hot" shower is 10 C....and we know one liter is one kg of water....so 4200*28*10 = 1176000 J. You are billed by kWh = 1000 watts for 3600 seconds = 3600000 J. 1,176,000 J/3,600,000 J = 0.3267 kWh.


In the US: 11-30 cents per kWh = 3.60-9.8 cents (US)
In Brazil: (Climatescope report) 183.34 USD/mWh = 18.334 cents per kWh = 5.99 cents (US)
Sorry, but US currency makes more sense for comparison...because I have no sense of the Brazilian currency's relative value. Also, your mileage may vary. 10C is a lot warmer...along with 4 liters per minute sounding pretty low....I think the US is like 2.5 gpm = 9.46 liters/minute. Again, this is why flow rates and temperatures matter...unless you just want to assume a powered heating element running at a constant output that puts out whatever it can based upon a known input energy.

 

[Vayra86]

Here is a big why, coming from the country with the highest % of solar panel-plated rooftops

Tackling grid congestion: electricity must remain available 24/7 - Energie Nederland

Today Members of Parliament are debating the announced measures to combat grid congestion. The overfull electricity grids have enormous effects on the economic development of the Netherlands in general and the energy transition in particular. It is clear that electricity grids will not be...

www.energie-nederland.nl

https://www.raponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/RAP-Pato-Netherlands-gridlock-2024.pdf

Right now the discussions are ongoing whether and how fast we should end financial advantages for placing solar on your roof. We have a thing called 'Saldering' which basically means we calculate the net total over an entire year worth of energy usage and production from solar. So if you produce in summer, even though that power goes to waste, you still get to deduct that from your total usage over the entire year, even if you're not using it in the summer at all. Do that times millions of houses... We have the biggest of issues on hot sunny days as there simply is way too much production and it can't go anywhere.

So if you want solar everywhere you need:
- A metric shit ton of battery storage capacity
- Ways to offload the grid and use that energy properly (like the production of hydrogen)
- a much heavier grid overall, to accomodate far more transport, bi directional
- smart management with dynamic pricing

 

[dirtyferret]

Even in the United Kingdom when driving around I was surprised by how so many houses had solar panels,

They require it out here in California on all new construction usually you have to buy or lease it but I used my incentive on it.

Where I live, the installation and sales tactics have a horrible reputation. In fact my friend is part of a class action lawsuit against one company. You hear more horror stories about bad installation, poor savings, contractor never showing up, new home buyers stuck with payments for panels that they were not aware of on a home purchase, etc., than you do positive stories.

FYI, my company actually has a line of solar products so it's not like I'm anti solar yet not one person has solar panels on their homes.

 

[Chrispy_]

because most people don't have 10-15k to install a system big enough to power there whole home
for solor to be viable you need massive batteries a grid tie inverter or micro inverter's permits and your climent is a concern as well

Most people don't have $200K to buy a house, or 40K to buy a car either, yet they live in a house and drive to work.

It's called financing, and it's how most of the countries on earth have worked for almost a century.

 

[Shrek]

I still feel fields of rotating cells has better economies of scale than roof installations, and nuclear fusion is finally looking promising.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

Nuclear really is the answer, same for cargo ships which are the main source of pollution on the planet IIRC, unless it's passenger air travel. I think both are bigger than cars/homes, but I can't remember which is #1.

Yes it is. Especially for cargo ships, some of them big ones must produce stupid amounts of pollution too.

If every house had solar panels, even if they only produce 25% of what they could, that is an awful lot of 25%'s. Solar is not useless, just not as viable as nuclear, as solar is dependent on the weather and nuclear is not.

Did i not read something about subsidised solar for UK homes maybe? I could be wrong.

 

[Assimilator]

nuclear fusion is finally looking promising.

We have solar and wind today. If fusion ever actually works then we can replace all our renewables with fusion, but we absolutely do not have the time to sit on our thumbs and not build renewable capacity because fusion is maybe happening in the next 4 decades (even if scientists cracked all outstanding fusion problems today, it will be the 2060s before any commercial fusion stations could begin to be built). As I said previously, perfect is the enemy of good enough.

 

[chrcoluk]

Capital expense.

In the UK has been grants for live in home owners to subsidise the cost, and I think councils have been installing them on their own homes, the obvious gap will be homes brought to let out (for anyone who lives in the UK this wont be a big surprise).

I would like to see solar farms, but the problem in the UK is the national grid is in such a bad state there is over a decade waiting list to connect things like batteries and renewables to the grid. To give an idea of the state some might remember my thread where the voltage is barely within regulations hitting the upper limit.

 

[ty_ger]

because most people don't have 10-15k to install a system big enough to power there whole home
for solar ( to ac) to be viable you need massive batteries. a grid tie inverter or micro inverter's permits and your climent is a concern as well

Big systems with batteries is not the solution for the majority, I don't think. But I think most can get behind small systems without batteries. I would like to see small system regulations put in place to make it a more viable option in the USA like it is in Germany (and elsewhere?).

 

[Assimilator]

I would like to see solar farms, but the problem in the UK is the national grid is in such a bad state there is over a decade waiting list to connect things like batteries and renewables to the grid.

Energy grids are in a catastrophic state all over the world for the same reason most should-be-public infrastructure is: it's all been privatised, and the new owners take the profits while putting only enough in to keep things afloat. Infrastructure isn't something that's supposed to make a profit, it's something you invest money into so that the rest of your economy makes more money. The fact that the infrastructure bought and paid for by taxpayers was ever allowed to be sold off into private hands for a pittance of its value, is one of the greatest 20th-century failures of so-called democratic nations.

 

[dgianstefani]

Yes it is. Especially for cargo ships, some of them big ones must produce stupid amounts of pollution too.

If every house had solar panels, even if they only produce 25% of what they could, that is an awful lot of 25%'s. Solar is not useless, just not as viable as nuclear, as solar is dependent on the weather and nuclear is not.

Did i not read something about subsidised solar for UK homes maybe? I could be wrong.

Solar is not useless, but the manufacturing and resources that go into it would be better spent elsewhere, most of the time.

Like I said, for off grid, mobile applications or for certain residential scenarios (I.e. charging your own EV or having some backup power for natural disasters) it makes sense.

 

[Dr. Dro]

That's only true if your energy is dirt cheap. Here in Europe the electricity costs are so high that a solar installation with a 25-year guarantee has paid for itself in 5-6 years. The most expensive part is the batteries to get you through each night .

European energy prices are abnormally high due to reckless EU policy, I reckon. I'm fairly sure you guys have some of the most expensive energy on the planet.

I like your logic...but you're missing some steps.

Let's look at temperature, and flow rates first. That will determine energy consumption.

In Brazil, you have about 3-4 liters per minute of water flow (CLASP NGO report). If you are looking at maximums, then 4*7 = 28 liters of water expended. This means that your shower has to heat 28 liters of water...and that as this is a flow it has to be continuous. Cool.

Now, 4200 J/kg/C is the energy it takes to raise one kg of water 1 degree C. Let's say a "hot" shower is 10 C....and we know one liter is one kg of water....so 4200*28*10 = 1176000 J. You are billed by kWh = 1000 watts for 3600 seconds = 3600000 J. 1,176,000 J/3,600,000 J = 0.3267 kWh.


In the US: 11-30 cents per kWh = 3.60-9.8 cents (US)
In Brazil: (Climatescope report) 183.34 USD/mWh = 18.334 cents per kWh = 5.99 cents (US)
Sorry, but US currency makes more sense for comparison...because I have no sense of the Brazilian currency's relative value. Also, your mileage may vary. 10C is a lot warmer...along with 4 liters per minute sounding pretty low....I think

1 USD is 5.4 BRL, but it's not as simple as that. Energy prices differ by region, provider, flag (different prices are practiced depending on grid conditions). My region is at 327 BRL (61 USD)/MWh. It's clean hydro power, and prices can raise to a "yellow" and "red" flag. Under a red flag, the MWh price is 392 (73 USD).

I'm practically illiterate when it comes to math, so I'll leave the fun part to you guys.

Stop conflating actually cutting carbon emissions with companies being shitty. Doing nothing because companies are being shitty doesn't help to fix those companies, or the pollution problem.

What nonsense. The whole point of solar and wind is that you pay the pollution cost twice, once during construction and once during disposal. Even if fossil fuel generation produced exactly as much pollution as the production cost of solar panels, you are paying that fuel cost every every. damn. year. that fossil fuel generator is running... I'm sure you're capable of understanding that a cost of 2 is preferable to a cost of 30.

And that's completely ignoring the pollution cost of mining those fossil fuels out of the ground every. damn. year. Of transporting and refining them. Of dealing with the consequences when an oil spill happens or a train carriage derails and explodes and destroys an entire town. There is literally no world in which renewables can be worse than fossil fuels in terms of pollution. None.

We don't need "high-efficiency power generation methods" or similar bullshit to solve the climate crisis or end pollution. We just need to replace fossil fuels with renewables now, instead of kicking the can down the road with fallacious arguments about how that replacement has to be perfect before we should even consider it. Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and we don't live in a perfect world, but we do live in one that is running out of time - fast.

I note your passion about it (and share some of it), but the fact remains that everything else is... somewhat moot in front of the economic impact. If it's not affordable, people won't switch to it unless they have a subsidy and an incentive to do so. Neither are there and neither will be there, so an improved product at an affordable price is the best bargain anyone can extend. Planet be damned.

 

[bitsandboots]

Most people don't have $200K to buy a house, or 40K to buy a car either, yet they live in a house and drive to work.

It's called financing, and it's how most of the countries on earth have worked for almost a century.

Old people who can actually afford modern houses may also be thinking they're too old to bother with something that will take a while to see return on investment.
Perhaps solar will come when those house goes back on the market, to be remodeled by a house flipper.