Why doesn't every house have solar installed?

[Divide Overflow]

My neighbor down the road had their new roof mounted solar panels up for about two months before a hailstorm with 1.5" hailstones rendered them useless.

 

[Vayra86]

My roof started leaking after 17 years after the house was made.

It turns out the roofers who built this house sucked. The new roofers pointed out issues with the original construction and fixed it up for me. But... if I were unlucky with hail, wind or other storm damage, my roof would have lasted less time (as is common in US's Southern states).

IIRC, the Southern states don't even use high-quality roofs anymore, because the winds/hail/storms are so strong that even the strongest Architectural Shingles with "50 years" don't really last much more than 10 years best case, maybe 5 years (or really, whenever you want to play dice with the next major hailstorm).

--------

This idea of 25+ year solar panels is fine... if the solar panels were alone. But if they're on your roof, then its the min(lifespan_of_roof, lifespan_of_solar). 25+ years is grossly optimistic, most roofs in USA are 20 year roofs.

Well yeah sure but those are the perks of owning a house eh. There's always something and it all begins and ends with how the initial construction was. We're pretty lucky here in NL, the building standards are constantly revised and 1976 wasn't a 'bad year' in that sense, so I just know certain things are of a certain quality. Its definitely a factor to consider, I agree. That also makes the perspective on solar panels and other energy transition related improvements to your personal space so varied. It all depends entirely on what your options are, how accessible they are, etc.

Solar industry facing bankruptcies, leaving many with roof panels that don't work

In Compton, Angela Dorsey's 83-year-old mother had panels installed on her home's roof, but they aren't producing any power and payment is due.

www.cbsnews.com

Yep the same thing happened over here, the company that put the solar on my roof has gone poof too just a month ago. But; the installation is still covered by a national NGO and I have a certificate for it.

Let's say your roof develops a leak, and you have solar panels on your roof. What is your plan?

Because we all know what needs to happen. You need to uninstall the panels, then reroof the house and then finally pay for reinstallation of those panels. You are now spending a ton of labor and maintenance for a relatively common situation.

You get a ladder and tools, a buddy, and together you remove the few panels you need to remove to reach the spot you need to fix, you open it up, you fix it, and you put the stuff back where it was and turn your system on again.

Its not rocket science. I can just lift the roof tiles that I need to lift after the panel is off the frame because its fixed under the tiles. When I was 15 I put solar on the roof of our shed with my dad. 4 panels. It was child's play. So maybe now I'll spend a day instead of half a day to fix the low-chance event of a roof leaking. Its a non issue. And that's coming from an IT nerd, not a handyman

 

[dragontamer5788]

You get a ladder and tools, a buddy, and together you remove the few panels you need to remove to reach the spot you need to fix, you open it up, you fix it, and you put the stuff back where it was and turn your system on again.

The difficult part is figuring out which panels to remove and which shingles to replace... that's often a trial-and-error process as you traverse the roof looking for damage (possibly guided by information from the inside attic. But there's no guarantee that the leaks you see in the attic line up to the damaged singles outside). And after 20 years (for a typical American Roof), the lifetime of the roof shingles has been worn out, so its probably a good idea to start replacing the whole roof once issues develop. Since other singles are expected to fail anyway.

In any case, I simply don't expect 25+ years or more of Solar Panels. Roofs are just replaced on a more frequent basis than that around here.

And every time a roof issue pops up, those panels will be in the way, driving up costs and hassle. Sure, if you can magically know exactly which shingles to replace in any of these jobs it'd be fine and easy. But that's just not the reality of roofing projects.

-------

Its an additional complication. A needless one. Community Solar is cheaper anyway since I pay $0 ahead of time and instead just rent out my share of the solar community farm. And I'm supporting the solar power industry my way anyway since most of my electricity usage comes from the solar farm in my area.

 

[Vayra86]

The difficult part is figuring out which panels to remove and which shingles to replace... that's often a trial-and-error process as you traverse the roof looking for damage (possibly guided by information from the inside attic. But there's no guarantee that the leaks you see in the attic line up to the damaged singles outside). And after 20 years (for a typical American Roof), the lifetime of the roof shingles has been worn out, so its probably a good idea to start replacing the whole roof once issues develop. Since other singles are expected to fail anyway.

In any case, I simply don't expect 25+ years or more of Solar Panels. Roofs are just replaced on a more frequent basis than that around here.

And every time a roof issue pops up, those panels will be in the way, driving up costs and hassle. Sure, if you can magically know exactly which shingles to replace in any of these jobs it'd be fine and easy. But that's just not the reality of roofing projects.

-------

Its an additional complication. A needless one. Community Solar is cheaper anyway since I pay $0 ahead of time and instead just rent out my share of the solar community farm. And I'm supporting the solar power industry my way anyway since most of my electricity usage comes from the solar farm in my area.

Right well, in my 38 years I've yet to encounter a roof issue

 

[evernessince]

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.

Hydro and Geothermal produce power all day, those are straight up baseline. All the remaining are baseline with any battery system or ability to import green energy from distance.

The US can upgrade it's transmission lines to allow mass power generation in green markets that is then sold to markets where green energy is less available. This would reduce the cost of electricity nationwide, incentivize investments into prime spots for green energy production, improve grid resilience, and greatly reduce the need for large battery storage systems as areas could tap into different green energy markets depending on their power generation schedules. This is just something that should be done regardless.

Batteries don't need to be chemical batteries either. They could use a combination of recycled batteries with natural batteries like sand, elevating water, ect. That way you aren't adding to any waste and pollution problems.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Hydro and Geothermal produce power all day, those are straight up baseline. All the remaining are baseline with any battery system or ability to import green energy from distance.

The US can upgrade it's transmission lines to allow mass power generation in green markets that is then sold to markets where green energy is less available. This would reduce the cost of electricity nationwide, incentivize investments into prime spots for green energy production, improve grid resilience, and greatly reduce the need for large battery storage systems as areas could tap into different green energy markets depending on their power generation schedules. This is just something that should be done regardless.

Batteries don't need to be chemical batteries either. They could use a combination of recycled batteries with natural batteries like sand, elevating water, ect. That way you aren't adding to any waste and pollution problems.

If it were so simple to simply "upgrade the transmission lines", then why didnt they do it decades ago with nuclear power? Build a REALLY big nuclear complex in the middle of nowhere, then transmit the power to where people are!

Moving power becomes exponentially more complicated, wasteful, and expensive the longer the range gets. It isnt feasible to power a wal mart in new york from solar panels in arizona.

 

[wNotyarD]

If it were so simple to simply "upgrade the transmission lines", then why didnt they do it decades ago with nuclear power? Build a REALLY big nuclear complex in the middle of nowhere, then transmit the power to where people are!

Moving power becomes exponentially more complicated, wasteful, and expensive the longer the range gets. It isnt feasible to power a wal mart in new york from solar panels in arizona.

If Brazil can build HVDC lines over 2500km from the power stations to where their power is actually needed, so can the USA. That's called planning and investing. Costly for sure, but it pays off FAST.

 

[evernessince]

If it were so simple to simply "upgrade the transmission lines", then why didnt they do it decades ago with nuclear power? Build a REALLY big nuclear complex in the middle of nowhere, then transmit the power to where people are!

Probably because that's a terrible idea, full stop. Nuclear plants rely on highly skilled labor and a rotating cadre of skilled contractors in addition to it's regular staff. You would need to make a whole town to support such a grouping of nuclear plants and at the point you defeat the purpose of the moving it to the middle of nowhere in the first place. It be very expensive to boot, not only are you paying for the nuclear plants but you are paying for housing, entertainment, restaurants, public facilities, ect. In addition you typically need large volumes of water for nuclear and almost always people settle near water. It makes zero sense to move it to the middle of nowhere to begin with so long as the facility is properly designed, the staff competent, and safety protocols followed. For nuclear plants, multiple safeguards have to fail for something bad to happen. Even in the event of a catastrophe like Fukushima for example, the amount of radiation that actually fell was minimal. Kyle Hill did a documentary on it and demonstrated that the Japanese government was likely too zealous in evacuating areas that received no significant amount of radiation.

Moving power becomes exponentially more complicated, wasteful, and expensive the longer the range gets. It isnt feasible to power a wal mart in new york from solar panels in arizona.

Moving power longer distances is a matter of higher voltage and air gapping. It's nothing complicated and multiple plans have been proposed since 2013 to improve long distance trasmission.

You can build higher capacity, higher voltage lines for an additional 20% premium over the cost of replacing cables that are already in need of replacement: https://www.eenews.net/articles/landmark-grid-plans-may-remake-electricity-if-biden-beats-trump/

The cost of the lines themselves isn't high, especially compared to the cost of other infrastructure projects.

The complicated part isn't the transmission lines themselves but getting the various power companies to sign off. A problem the DOE has been addressing the last few years laying the groundwork for improved inter-regional capacity.

 

[Shihab]

Their first load is the physical force of their weight,

Which, as demonstrated, is not much of an issue.
(I'm surprised no one has countered with the negative pressure argument yet, which is a genuine concern. Mitigable, but still a concern)

and the second force is that they are an extremely rigid body that has a dramatically different thermal expansion coefficient to wood.

Thermal expansion/contraction is an issue with long spans/large areas. PV panels are usually limited in that department. They measure much less, I'd wager, than your average metallic roofing sheets.
Even where this could be an issue (mounting rails come to mind), expansion joints are a thing.

As others have stated "licensed contractors" who presumably "know what they are doing" can build a leaky roof over time, but solar is basically puncturing extra holes in your roof to test if they were really good at their job

"Records show 'licensed contractors' who presumably 'know what they are doing' can build single-story houses that fail within a few years, but duplexes are basically stacking two of them over each other to test if they were really good at their job."
If the existence of bad contractor was an argument for anything, we should go back to living in caves.

Not everything can "just be taken down and put back up." Likewise, you wouldn't want to take a solar array off without completely reinstalling the outside layer of your roofing material due to all of the required seal penetrations. I applaud your dedication to working, and not throwing away good things. That said...reinstalling a solar assembly isn't as easy as you make it sound, and taking it off requires any rational person commit to a new roof or rolling a very dangerous set of dice to determine if they believe they aren't going to experience some potentially very expensive damage.

The "disassemble then reinstall" statement was made in the context of carrying out repairs on the said roof.
Panels and their mounts are two separate things. Removing a panel does not require removing whatever penetrates the outer layers of your roof.

 

[Mister300]

Another reason why solar is problematic. Capitalism and fraud.

Shifting America to Solar Power Is a Grueling, Low-Paid Job

Over the past decade, a low-wage workforce that chases solar installation projects from state to state for meager wages has proliferated around the country.

www.vice.com

 

[WhitetailAni]

our old house doesn't get any sunlight due to thick tree cover, so solar would be useless.

 

[v12dock]

our old house doesn't get any sunlight due to thick tree cover, so solar would be useless.

Let me guess, your location is Chicago? LOL. I'm downstate, and I'm glad I don't have ComEd. Ameren still allows net metering, so I will certainly let them be my "battery." However, trees do render it useless.

 

[Steevo]

If Brazil can build HVDC lines over 2500km from the power stations to where their power is actually needed, so can the USA. That's called planning and investing. Costly for sure, but it pays off FAST.

Brazil uses hydroelectric for obvious reasons that aren't available elsewhere, and their reliance on sugarcane and deforestation to support their sugar market and have these remote biomass burning power plants is worse for the environment than nuclear.