• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Why doesn't every house have solar installed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeing the whole issue with gas scarcity in Europe makes me realize how lucky Brazil is in regards to power generation. Our hydro backbone is absolutely massive, and our wind and sun availability for power is great as well.
This is the live load report from our national coordinator some 10 minutes ago:
1718649882288.png
 
Roof integrity and snow are dificult to solve on a budget, but solar matters most in Winter when the energy usage is highest and the sun is lower in the sky. I'm wondering why we don't see more wall-mounted solar on the south-facing walls of buildings. Walls should be strong, and walls are vertical so snow won't build up on the panels.

Sure, you're not getting the optimum sun angle during the peak of summer, but that's also the season with the lowest electrical demands. In winter when you need to heat your home and your water, the vertical panels are a better fit for the low angle of the sun in the sky, provided your property isn't surrounded by tall trees or too close to other tall buildings.

I just don't understand the obsession to put solar panel's on a private person's property.

This whole business of roof angles, wall angles and whatnot is an arbitrary mistake. Land is extremely cheap in the USA. Build a solar farm and point the panels in the optimal direction without having to worry about the humans "inside". Bonus points: we have cheap power-lines that can transmit energy from these solar farms all across the city (or state, or whatever municipality you're in).

Through the magic of modern corporations, you can buy shares in these collections of solar panels, and use net-metering credits to tie them into your house over the already-existing power grid. Do you really care if your 30kW of panels is on your roof or if its 3 miles away where land is cheaper and you benefit from the efficiencies of scale and consolidation?

Ex: Maybe 30kW is too few panels for you especially in the winter. So you buy more shares 2 or 3 months from now to increase your solar panel ownership to 45kW (which might only be 28kW in the winter). Done. The company behind the community solar can hold onto spare shares thanks to a bit of overbuilding of capacity (or serve as a market for people who move into or out of a region), so people can sell their shares back or something if they have to move. Etc. etc. etc.
 
I just don't understand the obsession to put solar panel's on a private person's property.
To reduce the utility bill right at the consumer unit. At least here in Brazil it works like this most of the time. Power free market is just in its infancy here.

But yes, there's also solar and wind farms far from the urban areas to generate into the grid.
 
To reduce the utility bill right at the consumer unit. At least here in Brazil it works like this most of the time. Power free market is just in its infancy here.

But yes, there's also solar and wind farms far from the urban areas to generate into the grid.

The solar panels I'm renting in my community solar plan reduces my utility bill just fine.

I believe the solar panels are about 15 miles away (~25km away) from where I live? Close enough to be on the same grid, far enough away to be far cheaper land.

We have the technology for this. Its unpopular, but its not like power-lines are crazy future tech.

EDIT: Community Solar Basics | Department of Energy . At least where I live, rental plans are more popular. But some community solar farms were trying out the "shares" methodology / ownership. The local tax benefits go to the owner. Because I'm a renter, I don't get any tax-benefits (though they give me cheaper prices for electricity). If I were a shareholder, I'd get tax benefits.
 
Seeing the whole issue with gas scarcity in Europe makes me realize how lucky Brazil is in regards to power generation. Our hydro backbone is absolutely massive, and our wind and sun availability for power is great as well.
This is the live load report from our national coordinator some 10 minutes ago:
View attachment 351737
Looks like you guys properly invested in your energy infrastructure.
 
I live in upstate NY so my concern is weight and roof damage. We already have to shovel the roof some winters to keep weight down, adding a few thousand pounds in solar doesn't seem particularly smart without spending a small fortune reinforcing the roof.
My God! A few thousand pounds? How heavy do you think solar panels are? Or how big is your roof?
Typical residential solar adds less than 3 pounds per square foot. It's negligible in the grand scheme of things. Wind loading in bad weather is probably more substantial.
I guess it really depends on how massive your roof is and how many kilobucks you are planning on spending on solar. It's way more than I would ever do. You're then in the territory of stricter regulations, battery storage, and making it really not cost effective as a homeowner. I think most homeowners should focus on efficiency and cost-effectivity.
 
Last edited:
Looks like you guys properly invested in your energy infrastructure.

Hydro is amazing. Hydro is basically built in batteries, because at any point in time you're allowed to just "not let the water fall down". So you pick-and-choose when to generate energy.

Hydro's downside is that it only works in hilly areas with lots of water. If you live in flat land (like Texas or the central plains), there's basically not enough elevation changes to make an effective dam. If you live in hilly areas but without much water (like California), you have the potential of dams but everyone gets pissy about water rights.

----------

USA has plenty of geography advantages ourselves. But seeing those Hydro numbers from Brazil is WOW to me. Definitely good luck there to have so many suitable hydro locations.
 
Looks like you guys properly invested in your energy infrastructure.
Favorable geological conditions. That, and most of the bigger dams were built when there was little to no worry about anyone/anything's rights when flooding reservoirs.

We still have some issues with the transmission lines in some states. It's one thing to power the state of São Paulo, a whole another is to get them lines through the Amazon rainforest to the northern border with Venezuela. Truthfully, as far as I'm aware, the state of Roraima is still disconnected from the National Interconnected System (and therefore not accounted for by the National System Operator) precisely due to the lack of transmission lines. It gets most of its power from a line from Guri.

The market is heavily skewed towards solar and wind farms nowadays. Particularly at the northeast region.
And about the solar microgrids, unless one lives far south here any new house being built pretty much has or will have solar panels for own consumption.
 
Last edited:
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.
nice bit of reasoning There lad 10/10 well thought out statement
/s
most people have OTHER things that take priority that require finacing
such as that car and house you mentioned

you don't need solar panels on your roof to feed your family or get you to where you are going

if they want everybody to give up there ice cars and switch to renewable energy then it needs to be cheaper and more available then the other provided options

because frankly untill we all drown or choke to death nobody is going to give a crap.

for me to consider solar panels the upfront cost would need to be 0 and the payments would need to be no more then half of my current power bill

math just doesn't work out like that

and psa: I have a 12v solar system that runs lights and limited inverter power
 
Last edited:
I personally don't have this thing because, err, it's sunny 3 days a month. At most. And they only charge 8 cents a kW where I live.
 
I never said not to try to make lives better. But waving the "carbon emission" flag in front of people who have just enough money to eat couldn't be further away from that goal.

If we want to make lives better, then let's fix the economy and educate people (financially and professionally) up to the level where they can actually afford to think outside of their basic necessities.

Virtue signalling doesn't solve shit.
Yeah like during winter I can still see bunch of houses blasting all kind of smoke into the air cause ppl will burn whatever they can even if its supposedly 'illegal' nowadays but nobody really cares.
Cause to them its that or freezing to death cause they can hardly even afford proper wood to burn or gas so good luck trying to talk about carbon emission to ppl like that in countries like mine. :laugh:
Do I like this? Sure not but that won't change the reality of such ppl either.. 'matter of fact my family used to be the same up until the recent years so ye I'm more than familiar with this issue..'

We do have a pretty big house and keeping it warm during the cold/winter months with proper and clean heating is very expensive like it would cost an entire person's full time job wage on average say if we tried to do that with gas or clean-ish wood only so ye this is not that simple.
Heatpump system could be an option but yet again its a very expensive investment that not everyone can afford. 'my father did check out all of those ~clean options in the past years'
 
Last edited:
With modern heatpump heating/cooling for homes, LED lighting, and the rising popularity of low-power mobile devices as the primary means of entertainment and information, you actually don't need much solar panel per person in the warmer seasons where heating water can be done directly with solar water heaters.

In the winter, you kind of need to rely on the grid - shorter daylight with the sun lower in the sky, coupled with lower temperatures that require people to use far more power heating their home and water.

This is the only correct answer to the question. Plus, you can get something like geothermal and basically pay nothing for heating and cooling year round. At least in the USA which is the best most advanced country the planet has ever seen. Honestly, stuff like solar is so last decade.
 
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.
And that's how everyone in the western world ended up being neck-deep in debt while actually owning nothing. Congratulations!
 
And that's how everyone in the western world ended up being neck-deep in debt while actually owning nothing. Congratulations!

Even when my house is paid off I will have 6000 a year in propery taxes you never own shite in California lol

At the same time basically thowing money in the garbage renting somthing is imho still worse. Maybe the Smart ones are the ones making 80-100k a year and living with their parents still, I know a few people who do that.

That probably depends on where you live though apartments out here run about 2k min with a nice one around 2.5k. Paying 24k-30k a year on somthing you never own is pretty deflating though.
 
Even when my house is paid off I will have 6000 a year in propery taxes you never own shite in California lol

At the same time basically thowing money in the garbage renting somthing is imho still worse. Maybe the Smart ones are the ones making 80-100k a year and living with their parents still, I know a few people who do that.

That probably depends on where you live though apartments out here run about 2k min with a nice one around 2.5k. Paying 24k-30k a year on somthing you never own is pretty deflating though.
The problem is that you have to live somewhere, and if you don't have at least 10-15K saved up for a deposit / down payment on a mortgage, your only choice is to rent. And by paying rent and bills, and ideally, having a life, your chances of saving up for that deposit / down payment are slim. And even if you have it saved up and decide to jump on a mortgage, the interest rates on it change every 2-5 years by a massive amount that you may not be able to afford anymore. With current real estate prices and mortgage interest rates, I'm probably gonna be renting for the rest of my life unless I get a promotion with a massive pay increase in the near future which is highly unlikely.
 
The problem is that you have to live somewhere, and if you don't have at least 10-15K saved up for a deposit / down payment on a mortgage, your only choice is to rent. And by paying rent and bills, and ideally, having a life, your chances of saving up for that deposit / down payment are slim. And even if you have it saved up and decide to jump on a mortgage, the interest rates on it change every 2-5 years by a massive amount that you may not be able to afford anymore. With current real estate prices and mortgage interest rates, I'm probably gonna be renting for the rest of my life unless I get a promotion with a massive pay increase in the near future which is highly unlikely.

I wasn't disagreeing with you I was just saying that people have to make really hard decisions on what's better for them. Out here you really need 20% + closing cost saved up min or gonna be stuck with $3-400 in pmi on top of a mortgage loan or be Active/retired military.

But renting here is extremely expensive unless you're OK living in the hood/ghetto.

That being said I still believe Solar should be a choice/optional the fact that my state forces you to get it and not subsidize it at all is ridiculous on all new construction. We are at the mercy of the federal government to offer tax rebates.
 
Professional scientist here, solar is not efficient and subject to physical damage.
Professional bullshitter here, every powersource known to man is subject to "physical damage."
 
I wasn't disagreeing with you I was just saying that people have to make really hard decisions on what's better for them. Out here you really need 20% + closing cost saved up min or gonna be stuck with $3-400 in pmi on top of a mortgage loan or be Active/retired military.

But renting here is extremely expensive unless you're OK living in the hood/ghetto.

That being said I still believe Solar should be a choice/optional the fact that my state forces you to get it and not subsidize it at all is ridiculous on all new construction. We are at the mercy of the federal government to offer tax rebates.
I don't disagree. But buying a house is impossible for an increasing number of people like me exactly because rent is too expensive, so we don't even get the chance to save up for a mortgage entry. Don't get me wrong, I have some tiny savings, but 1. only because I don't have kids and 2. they go for car maintenance, unexpected expenses like medicals or the dentist, 1-2 vacations per year, and sometimes PC upgrades, because one needs a life, obviously. I have absolutely no idea how people with kids get on, life must be nightmare for them.

How can the state force solar without subsidizing it? They can't force me to spend money that I don't have, surely. :laugh:
 
No, it's true, look up the chemicals and heavy metals that are necessary for solar panel manufacturing, horrifyingly pollutant. Also, there's the price concern. A solar installation might as well cost more than a lifetime of energy bills to many families. This in turn will require solar energy systems to be subsidized by the government and each new generation must be cheaper to manufacture, it's really not as simple as it sounds.

There's also other auxiliary power generations options on the table although they are still further out or at the proof of concept stage, such as miniaturized nuclear that could be used to locally boost the capacity of the power grid, that would be cleaner and with much lower maintenance. Nuclear power's concern is almost always the toxic radioactive waste, there's no way to dispose of it other than special landfills designed for this purpose, as the material will remain lethal for a probably longer time than mankind has left on the plane

No, it's true, look up the chemicals and heavy metals that are necessary for solar panel manufacturing, horrifyingly pollutant. Also, there's the price concern. A solar installation might as well cost more than a lifetime of energy bills to many families. This in turn will require solar energy systems to be subsidized by the government and each new generation must be cheaper to manufacture, it's really not as simple as it sounds.

There's also other auxiliary power generations options on the table although they are still further out or at the proof of concept stage, such as miniaturized nuclear that could be used to locally boost the capacity of the power grid, that would be cleaner and with much lower maintenance. Nuclear power's concern is almost always the toxic radioactive waste, there's no way to dispose of it other than special landfills designed for this purpose, as the material will remain lethal for a probably longer time than mankind has left on the planet.cC
Certified Solar installer from Canada wants to weigh in here. I bought a house in Atlantic Canada that was 85 years old in 2017. First year, spend upwards of $5K Cdn. on furnace oil (heavy diesel fuel) to heat the home. Another (approximately) $800 for electric hot water. Before I ever installed a solar panel for a living, purchased 52 panels that were able to provide the heat, hot water, and electricity for the entire home annually. Total cost was $33K - price of mid-tier gas SUV at that time. Cost to buy the electricity the system provides = $2850/annually so the payback is slightly over 11.5 years. In a very harsh environment with solar generation only viable only 2/3 of the year. Lifetime of energy bills? To whom? Energy has gone up exponentially in past 20 years, never mind a lifetime. Did not take one government incentive. This was also when solar was very expensive compared to today. Blanket statements about cost are great generalizations, but I can assure you, in the over 575 installs I have done in the last 6+ years, I have a customer base who have reduced their energy cost and carbon footprint and are satisfied with their decision to move away from fossil fuels to solar. It may not be perfect, but if you think nuclear is, try doing a cost analysis of the waste disposal and service required over the life of the generator, and then tell me how "inefficient" and "polluting" solar is relative to the alternatives. Education = understanding. Proud graduate of Holland College in PEI Canada.

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.
Professional Solar Installer here: Any solar farm can be damaged by a hurricane. As ice can damage transmission lines, wind turbines by storms, (list is endless). Solar is inefficient. Please advise as to the going price per photon on the CME. Install on any roof of solar panels is covered by insurance if the installer is certified and the materials used are (check published NEC codes). FIT and net-metering are legally binding contracts in most states/provinces. Won't go on any further, I think I made my point - one professional to another.
 
Certified Solar installer from Canada wants to weigh in here. I bought a house in Atlantic Canada that was 85 years old in 2017. First year, spend upwards of $5K Cdn. on furnace oil (heavy diesel fuel) to heat the home. Another (approximately) $800 for electric hot water. Before I ever installed a solar panel for a living, purchased 52 panels that were able to provide the heat, hot water, and electricity for the entire home annually. Total cost was $33K - price of mid-tier gas SUV at that time. Cost to buy the electricity the system provides = $2850/annually so the payback is slightly over 11.5 years. In a very harsh environment with solar generation only viable only 2/3 of the year. Lifetime of energy bills? To whom? Energy has gone up exponentially in past 20 years, never mind a lifetime. Did not take one government incentive. This was also when solar was very expensive compared to today. Blanket statements about cost are great generalizations, but I can assure you, in the over 575 installs I have done in the last 6+ years, I have a customer base who have reduced their energy cost and carbon footprint and are satisfied with their decision to move away from fossil fuels to solar. It may not be perfect, but if you think nuclear is, try doing a cost analysis of the waste disposal and service required over the life of the generator, and then tell me how "inefficient" and "polluting" solar is relative to the alternatives. Education = understanding. Proud graduate of Holland College in PEI Canada.

Congratulations on your certification mate, but even though I might come off that way, I am not against solar nor do I believe that it's more pollutant. Part of the reason I seem a bit extreme in my earlier posts in this thread is that either OP or a mod changed the name of the title of the post. It was called "Not having solar panels on almost every house is the worst mistake we made as a species."

Anyway, let's see. Canada has one thing that a lot of the world doesn't have, it's... cold! That implies there are already other costs related to heating that solar could help solve much cleaner and more cheaply overall. I agree with you. But for the proliferation of solar energy, we will need to account for:
  1. Varying energy prices worldwide (availability, generation method, etc,), I see the fossil argument thrown a lot but, for example, we use hydro energy here. Only nuclear and perhaps wind power are more efficient, this complicates further subsidy from government to be able to do modernize homes with this new technology
  2. Housing and property realities worldwide (like I mentioned earlier, landlords aren't gonna do it, and do people live in the same place for as long as it takes to pay the system off?)
  3. Government energy policies (put two and two together, any further is a violation of no politics rule)
  4. Economic realities (can people afford to invest on this system and why should they care)
  5. Environmental impact of producing the solar cells (pollution resultant from the fabrication process, hardware life expectancy, etc.)
A solar system that is capable of handling my household's workload costs a little above half a million in our local currency. As I mentioned earlier, my house primarily operates on electric appliances, from cooking to hygiene, everything is electric. Our family home is also our property, which is not the case for most people. As a result, even with some of the sunniest weather on the planet, it's hardly worth it - according to my calculations, considering the cost of my power bills, it'd take roughly 70 years to break even. I'm 30, I'm considering myself fortunate if I have 60 years left on this planet. And I'm certainly not going to live in this place for the rest of my days... when my parents depart this world, I'm selling this property and moving to the countryside. I hate big cities.

Seeing the whole issue with gas scarcity in Europe makes me realize how lucky Brazil is in regards to power generation. Our hydro backbone is absolutely massive, and our wind and sun availability for power is great as well.
This is the live load report from our national coordinator some 10 minutes ago:
View attachment 351737

If you stop to think about it, our country is insanely lucky with everything. We've got energy, we've got minerals, we've got food, we've got water, we've got weather stability, no natural disasters such as quakes, volcanoes or anything... the only thing we have is the occasional flood, and that's because we have water to begin with. Our land is arable and fertile. What stops Brazil from being an unstoppable giant is that our people are lazy and complacent. We've never truly broken from the colonial shackles, and Brazil is essentially still run like it used to be during the "Capitanias Hereditárias" (english wikipedia link for people who do not understand), which as a Brazilian you are well aware is our own brand of feudalism. It's the sad reality we live in.
 
Last edited:
I have a customer base who have reduced their energy cost and carbon footprint and are satisfied with their decision to move away from fossil fuels to solar. It may not be perfect, but if you think nuclear is, try doing a cost analysis of the waste disposal and service required over the life of the generator, and then tell me how "inefficient" and "polluting" solar is relative to the alternatives. Education = understanding. Proud graduate of Holland College in PEI Canada.
To start with, I'm for solar power. I particularly support solar pre water heating, and use of PV panels in rural or non static installations. However, I suffer from no delusions that it's an appropriate technology to replace coal, oil or gas as the bulk source of power for the modern world.

The "cost" of nuclear is almost entirely due to fossil fuel and "green" energy lobbying, as it has the potential to practically end both industries.

The problem of nuclear waste is massively overstated. Modern reactors that aren't literally designed to produce plutonium (due to weapons demand from the cold war) produce waste that, even without fuel recycling, can be reduced to 0.1% of it's radioactivity within four decades.

The fact that humans continue to use coal, gas or other methods of bulk energy generation after harnessing nuclear power for the better part of a century would be one of the most ghetto things possible to an outside alien observer.

Things like solar, hydro, geothermal, wind etc. are all supplementary/local sources of power, there needs to be large scale baseline generation for the grid, as clean as possible.

That or reduce the human population by a factor of 10, but I don't advocate for the various ways that would be possible.

There is no discussion or debate about this in my mind. Realistically we can build nuclear or we can faff around with other "renewables" that have not (for the past several decades) and will not surpass 10-20% of our energy needs for the foreseeable future.

The anti nuclear crowd in my view is responsible for the majority of carbon emissions of the last five decades. Either directly or indirectly influenced by massive lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry to smear nuclear, or portray maintenance and manufacturing intensive, low energy production alternatives such as wind or solar, which are not well suited to large scale power generation when considered against their cost.

In fact, on a per kWh of energy produced basis, both the European Union and the Paul Scherrer Institute, the largest Swiss national research institute, found an interesting trend regarding the fatalities attributable to each energy source. Remarkably, nuclear power is the benchmark to beat, outranking coal, oil, gas, and even wind by a slight margin as the least deadly major energy resource in application (see Figure 3).
deathrate.png
Figure 3: The figure is based on estimates from Europe Union, which account for immediate deaths from accidents and projected deaths from exposure to pollutants. These estimates do not incorporate fatality rates in countries such as China where cheap coal combined with poor regulation are causes of considerably more fatalities.The nuclear industry is constantly developing innovative technologies and protocols towards making the energy production process failsafe. Newer generations of nuclear reactors, particularly what is called a pebble-bed reactor, are designed so that the nuclear chain reaction cannot run away and cause a meltdown – even in the event of complete failure of the reactor’s machinery. Geological stability considerations will also likely play a bigger role in approving new sites of construction. And although long-lived nuclear waste may remain dangerous for considerable periods of time, that timescale is not prohibitive. In fact, even without recycling the fuel, which would further shorten the lifetime of radioactive waste, the radioactivity of the waste is reduced to around 0.1% of the initial value after about 40-50 years.
nuclear .jpg

Visualizing-All-the-Nuclear-Waste-Ever-Created_01242024-NPUC-Version.jpg


As for the fiscal "cost". Perhaps people should look into the level of subsidies the fossil fuel industry currently gets.

The reason I've put that in quotes is that I believe it's a false economy to say nuclear is "expensive". The raw materials are plentiful, needed in small amounts, and the specialist training required to operate can be given in a standard university course. Besides, I'd consider it much more expensive to lose habitability of much of the prime real estate of the planet due to climate change, which is the alternative.

The fact that private corporations are literally at the point of building private nuclear reactors for their own energy needs should tell you all you need to know about the economic viability of alternatives.

https://www.thecgo.org/research/energy-superabundance/ - some good points about the cost of energy and how it affects the economy, and the approach of making things more "efficient" rather than focusing on infrastructure to produce clean energy at a large scale (instead of the somewhat pathetic single digit % we generate today).
 
Just for any removal of doubt: I believe that large-scale deployment of nuclear (good old fission, not fusion) coupled with large-scale deployment of pumped storage is the sanest option for getting to net zero as quickly and cheaply as possible. Unfortunately, we do not live in a sane world: we live in one populated by NIMBYs, alarmists, fossil fuel lobbyists, governments that don't invest in big infrastructure projects, and "environmental"/"green" groups that (via anti-nuclear lobbying) have done far more harm to our planet than fission power ever will. In that world it sadly seems that solar, wind, and batteries are the only option.

I am only willing to entertain hydrogen as an alternative to pumped storage. That is, instead of pumping water uphill with excess energy and using gravity to recover that energy into the grid, generate hydrogen with the excess and burn it off when energy is required. There is no other scenario under which hydrogen makes any sense - no it is not going replace gasoline or diesel, stop wasting money on that stupid bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Just for any removal of doubt: I believe that large-scale deployment of nuclear (good old fission, not fusion) coupled with large-scale deployment of pumped storage is the sanest option for getting to net zero as quickly and cheaply as possible. Unfortunately, we do not live in a sane world: we live in one populated by NIMBYs, alarmists, fossil fuel lobbyists, governments that don't invest in big infrastructure projects, and "environmental"/"green" groups that (via anti-nuclear lobbying) have done far more harm to our planet than fission power ever will. In that world it sadly seems that solar, wind, and batteries are the only option.
This is exactly my opinion with one addition:
Even though the green lobby group somehow succeeded in damaging fission's reputation beyond repair for some strange, ignorant and probably selfish reason, I still don't think inefficiently harvested renewables combined with inefficient, degrading and polluting batteries are a viable option for the whole planet. Sure, solar must be great in sunny areas, or in countries with huge government subsidies. Turbines are great for windy places. But then, we still haven't solved it for the rest of the world, we haven't solved battery production and replacement, and so on. It's fine for certain individuals to put a few panels up onto their roofs, but lacking money (and soon, property, too) it's not something the masses can adopt. This is the parallel I tried to draw with EVs earlier - they're good for some, but not good for many.

In my opinion, we need strong governments who aren't afraid to invest in fission power on contrary to Greta Thunberg's cries. Lacking that, we need fusion, which has been 50 years away from being ready every single year for the last 50 years, and will probably stay that way for the next 50 years as well, unfortunately.

It's a shame you resorted to attacking me instead of asking for elaboration on my thoughts. I believe we would have reached consensus much sooner that way. Never mind now. :)
 
Reminder - Solar panels are actually reception antennae for wirelessly broadcast nuclear fusion power.

Building codes in England now require solar panels and EV charging on all new houses.
Because my house was built over 60 years ago, I instead own a small chunk of a newly-built wind farm a couple of hundred miles away, which began generating power this month & is about to begin cutting my utility bills.
 
It's a shame you resorted to attacking me instead of asking for elaboration on my thoughts. I believe we would have reached consensus much sooner that way. Never mind now. :)
Given our past interactions you should already know that I'm an opinionated dickhead with strong view who should not be taken particularly seriously.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top