Comments
-Ch4s3- t1_iw3nnd6 wrote
$129k in 2010 dollars is $165k today. That’s effectively a drop of $50k in median household income of new solar installs. That’s really significant.
ILikeNeurons t1_iw2op34 wrote
To be fair, the article is talking about the policies that would be needed to make rooftop solar accessible to everyone.
Personally, I wish they would've spent more time talking about how we need to correct the market failure.
UncommercializedKat t1_iw5q8k6 wrote
I would guess that the lower you go in income the lower the rate of home ownership so it's not in the lowest income brackets control anyway regardless of cost.
OriginalCompetitive t1_iw4rg5u wrote
The median household income for new home buyers is $86,000, so not as far off as you might think.
Surur t1_iw2mx9l wrote
This is going to become a big issue, as the more well-off will be reducing their payments to the electrical grid system, meaning the poorer people will have to bear a greater and greater share of the fixed cost of the system.
As grid price rises to compensate more and more well-off people will be incentivised to get their own solar and batteries.
People who live in low-density suburban housing in particular will benefit a lot more from solar energy than people who live in high density urban areas.
Then with the rise in EVs (again favouring the well-off who buy new cars) those with solar will basically drive for free also.
Interestingly in Australia (where 1/3 of homes have solar), most solar is installed in below average income areas.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/rooftop-solar-uptake-still-highest-in-low-income-australia-63263/
Probably because the initial investment is much lower and the return more obvious. Apparently the payback time for solar is only 4 years in Austalia, while its often decade in USA.
ContextSensitiveGeek t1_iw32qey wrote
The Vimes theory of wealth accumulation is accurate once again.
ItilityMSP t1_iw360t5 wrote
Nice boots you have there Context. I prefer the ones with cardboard soles as you can feel the street.
-Ch4s3- t1_iw3ooke wrote
This isn’t a sound or rational analysis. Rooftop solar isn’t a zero sun situation. Houses with solar will put power back onto the grid during peak hours and at times prices will go negative for a whole area, everyone can benefit from that. Batteries reduce demand in the evening and during peak consumption hours which isn’t bad for poor people either. Effectively rooftop solar is going to lead to the development of a lot of micro-grids that can improve reliability as the larger grid ages.
Moreover, as wind and solar displace coal poor people who are more likely to live downwind of power plant will disproportionately benefit from not breathing in power plant emissions.
Surur t1_iw3qqhw wrote
You have not addressed any of my points, and in particular the fixed cost of maintaining the grid, and how energy companies will maintain profitability when their most profitable customers are defecting without raising prices for others.
Gdadddy t1_iw3rsau wrote
Energy compagny buy the excedent of private owned solar panels at very low price, and sell it back at the regular price, taking the same margins as on other sources and having no problem to fonction.
In this situation you might look for problems whithout looking for the solutions that exist already and implement naturally
SNRatio t1_iw5f13a wrote
>Energy compagny buy the excedent of private owned solar panels at very
low price, and sell it back at the regular price, taking the same
margins as on other sources and having no problem to fonction.
This increases the cost of the last mile infrastructure, as it turns out a lot of older infrastructure doesn't have the capacity to handle whole neighborhoods putting electricity back onto the grid.
It also forces utilities to use more expensive peaker plants to generate electricity at the times when solar isn't providing as much.
​
> taking the same margins as on other sources
If they take the same margins as from other sources, then there are no additional funds available to make up for the shortfall. They need to have a much higher margins (compared to other sources) to do that.
cruisereg t1_iw5ki77 wrote
No funds for the shortfall? What about the massive profits? My utility’s parent company (Duke Energy) made over $18 Billion in profit in 2021. So yeah I’m not buying the whole shortfall thing.
-Ch4s3- t1_iw3s92k wrote
> in particular the fixed cost of maintaining the grid
Maintenance isn't necessarily a fixed cost it can be variable depending on the generation source, transmission distance, and a bunch of other factors.
A lot of utility companies are charging fees to people with rooftop solar for exactly this purpose. Also, if you have a localized micro-grid the cost structures will be pretty different. Additionally things like residential batteries can smooth demand and decrease the need to spin up costly nat gas and coal plants during peak demand.
> when their most profitable customers
Residential power is only 22% of US electricity consumption, it isn't the most profitable part.
Surur t1_iw3x855 wrote
> Residential power is only 22% of US electricity consumption, it isn't the most profitable part.
Source?
-Ch4s3- t1_iw3xuru wrote
Here let me google this basic fact for you https://rpsc.energy.gov/energy-data-facts.
Surur t1_iw3ykfq wrote
You said:
> Residential power is only 22% of US electricity consumption, it isn't the most profitable part.
If you are being snarky, it helps to be right:
> The residential sector accounts for about 21% of total U.S. energy consumption.
Energy is not the same as electricity.
Also the EPA disagrees with you lol.
Lastly, your "source" says nothing about profitability.
0/3 lol
-Ch4s3- t1_iw40aog wrote
Even at 37% of electricity consumption there's no reason to believe that it's "the most profitable". Price per kwh is going to vary a lot regionally and manufacturing and commercial energy might be paying spot prices at odd times.
I guess I just don't get why people like you come in pissing and moaning about the cost of rooftop solar declining. Its obviously a good thing for less energy to be coming from fossil fuels and yet some ass-hat like you always needs to whine about it not being perfect. Seriously half of this sub is just fucking doomers sliding in to piss on everything.
BrokeVic t1_iw4rgvo wrote
Well I hope you don't feel that way about my posts. Because that is not my intentions at all. I agree it will help a lot of people. My only question is how sustainable will it be in the future considering the facts that state the emissions are worse off than just sticking with regular electricity. Unless the solar panels or wind turbines are running off of hydrogen. And refining hydrogen is becoming cheaper also. So that I believe will be the way to go in the long-term future.
-Ch4s3- t1_iw4uh35 wrote
I think I was just being a grouchy asshole
Surur t1_iw420dw wrote
> Even at 37% of electricity consumption there's no reason to believe that it's "the most profitable"
Given that business rates for electricity is usually lower than residential rates, there is no reason it would not be, but whatever. There was no reason for you to make an unsubstantiated claim however.
Anyway, I am all in favour of solar energy. I only expect there will be some disruption due to the transition.
It's not a concept I made up - check out The Utility Death Spiral for more.
-Ch4s3- t1_iw43qum wrote
I apologize I was being a jerk.
I'm familiar with the Utility Death Spiral, I'm skeptical that its possible at this point in the technology adoption curve of wind/solar to firmly say much about what the grid will or won't look like in the future.
YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw66uuh wrote
If almost everybody produces their own energy and due to that there’s no private business incentive there anymore, I don’t see why the industry wouldn’t just be nationalised?
Just like water services are.
snakeskinsandles t1_iw4kts4 wrote
>zero sun
Is that a typo or a pun?
Or a ty-pun?
-Ch4s3- t1_iw4m7k5 wrote
Typo from my phone
BrokeVic t1_iw3gm3d wrote
I cannot provide a link to the documentary. But if any of you watch the documentary called "planet of the humans" a film by Jeff Gibbs which is a investigator and or finder of truth. Then you will see proof to my word and truth to my word. I don't just make stuff up. I look for facts only just like you do. And if you watch the film you will be surprised by the facts. I wish I can send you some type of link for the film but I can sorry. I hope you watch it. I would love to get feedback from anyone who watches it or has seen it.
[deleted] t1_iw5vpia wrote
[removed]
oiseauvert989 t1_iwggkma wrote
It is well known.
It is a mish mash of illogical fallacies. It simply point out things everyone knows (renewable energy isn't perfect) and implies they undermine the case for making our energy renewable (which of course makes no sense).
I wouldn't really call it a good place to look for facts. It is one of those movies where if you think about it, the whole thing falls apart. As someone working for a humanitarian organisation which has to respond to climate emergencies and wars over oil, I would say that it is about time Michael Moore retired. He really doesn't have an accurate view of the present, never mind the future.
PM_RiceBowlRecipes t1_iw2mo21 wrote
Not fast enough as in pushing households to combat climate change when the main reason is systemic on a national/global scale not to mention countries who aren't on board at all and create way more damage?
With batteries down 80-90% cost/ increased efficiency and many states in the US adopting incentives (In my state you can get them installed for little to no cost) we are making great progress.
The angle on this shouldn't be targeted at whatever income your family makes and a single household impact but at the main sources or governments that'll effect those changes.
ILikeNeurons t1_iw2od7q wrote
I used MIT's climate policy simulator to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results here.
hawkwings t1_iw2zlcn wrote
Many lower income people don't own single family homes.
network_dude t1_iw34r80 wrote
Solar + Battery should be less than $1k per Kilowatt
The profit margin for the companies using govt subsidies are crazy high
crowsaboveme t1_iw2wnu2 wrote
I'd be willing to rent my rooftop space to the government/power company provided they maintain the panels and remove them for free when I need a new roof. The cost of renting space would then be applied to my power bill. As it is now, I wouldn't be able to pay them off before retirement, so it's a non-starter for me.
HaedonV t1_iw3xm6p wrote
There’s company’s that will do exactly that, pm me.
Mylifereboot t1_iw3xpqv wrote
The reality here is that the benefit of solar to the end consumer is small and will very likely become smaller and smaller over time.
Once solar power reaches a significant foot print in the power market the power company will simply offer less and less when selling it back. In fact, there may come a day when you get no benefit at all for selling back to the power company, citing last mile maintenance needs or something of that nature.
onepostandbye t1_iw58u0u wrote
If I get nothing for selling electricity back to the utility I still get electricity from the sun, so I feel like there is still a benefit.
Mylifereboot t1_iw598za wrote
I totally agree. However I think there are a few important issues around cost, maintenance, and energy use. I think some of this needs to discussed and settled or the consumer is going to be at a significant disadvantage.
[deleted] t1_iw3m6bn wrote
Fraud runs rampant in the solar and roofing industries making it even more difficult for people.
darth_nadoma OP t1_iw3mn78 wrote
You mean Fraud.
[deleted] t1_iw3pmkj wrote
[removed]
Broken-Sprocket t1_iw3oheh wrote
My electricity is municipal so I’m of the opinion the city should be offering to put solar panels on people’s houses for free to build up their own power infrastructure. Do a few dozen a year and put more than needed for the building they’re being installed on and you start snowballing.
Hole-In-Six t1_iw401kn wrote
You want the government to maintain the most precarious aspect of people's homes, the roof? People think these things can just get slapped up everywhere like a satellite dish ....
jphamlore t1_iw42hv6 wrote
Who could have possibly guessed that low income people might not be able to afford the land, building, solar roof, home battery backup system, and Tesla to become essentially independent from the electrical grid?
bad_syntax t1_iw4jbry wrote
Sorry, I live in Texas, and have looked at solar multiple times. It isn't economically worth it.
First, I was paying like $0.12/KwH, and I do know in other states power can be 2-3x that, making these numbers wrong.
Second, I would need to *COAT* my house with solar to be "off grid" even during the sunniest parts of the day. Like 60 panels to power all my servers and stuff.
Third, my new house has a REALLY steep roof, and though I know we can still put solar on them, it also means it isn't hidden AT ALL, and is pretty ugly (a few houses around have some).
Fourth, in Texas, many power companies do not pay you for surplus power. They will give you a credit you can use later, and if you generate more than you use, oh well, they keep it.
Fifth. This REALLY surprised me. If you have solar, and its 100 degrees and sunny, and your power goes out, so does your solar. The only way you can have power is if you also buy a battery, which is tens of thousands of dollars, and only last a few years.
Sixth. Much like a pool, when you sell your house with solar you won't get back what you paid for it, and nobody in their right mind is going to take on your solar lease.
Seventh. The breakeven point was no less than 15 years, without a battery, and though solar still works up to 30 years in some cases, maybe longer, that is still one hell of a commitment to stay where you are. Yes, I'm taking into account the pathetic "tax credit".
Eighth. Hail. We get it a lot, and get a new roof ever few years typically. If the roof gets damaged, the is no guarantee that your insurance will pay to remove the panels, fix the roof, then replace the panels.
Ninth. The solar companies know all this, and show you charts were power goes up every year (mine went up ONCE, this year, in the past 12). They show you max power generation without taking into account cloudy days and non-optimum solar placement. They show how much you are lowering your bill, without showing you how the payment actually increases your energy costs for 10+ years until you break even.
Basically, it just isn't worth it. Even if the costs were halved, it would still take many years to break even.
I have yet to see a $1/month investment in solar see a $1/month lowering of an electric bill.
If I had money to burn, sure, solar is awesome, but I'm not throwing away money on a worse solution. Sure, better on the environment (though I have my doubts overall due to production/mining of the components), but I don't make enough to make monetary sacrifices in the tens of thousands of dollars to make the world better in a way so small as to not even be noticed.
NorfX t1_iw5cn9y wrote
What kind of roof and/or hail do you have there? No house i ever lived in had to get a new roof in my lifetime, that sounds so weird to me.
bad_syntax t1_iw5dy5v wrote
I dunno, shingles. We all get new roofs around here all the time. My area, which I've been in like 2 years, I don't recall seeing any hail, yet I've seen half a dozen new roofs go on these homes. None of these homes are over 10 years old.
My old neighborhood I lived there 7 years, got 3 new roofs. We had a localized hailstorm once, hail the size of baseballs, lasted like 5 minutes, after the sun came out and all the ice immediately fogged our neighborhood. Only like 20-30 houses affected.
Each time I got a new roof at my old place, I upgraded it, so it *should* have been more durable than the builder grade crap they give you. The next new roof I should have had enough to only pay a couple thousand to get solar shingles.
We even have mountains of shingles here because we replace so many roofs:
We had a tornado pass by about 100' from the house last time, roof did pretty well and I only needed a few replacements (roof was only a few weeks old when it hit). I was in the middle of Dallas then, now I'm in the boonies, in a much newer/nicer house, with a MUCH steeper roof. Not sure if that'll make a difference or not.
NorfX t1_iw5gjvd wrote
So i guess that's asphalt roofing which is cheaper and less durable. I guess that makes sense when you also get tornadoes, not that i know much about it but i wouldn't assume any roof to be tornado proof..
Zephir62 t1_iw60nbh wrote
Agree, this is a really weird comment. They need 30 kWh worth of panels just to power their home? Uhmmm
Noob_DM t1_iwdvtcd wrote
Welcome to America.
Land of extremes, including weather.
A little while back when solar was first booming the neighbors a few doors down got solar panels on their roof. Was real proud of it and talked it up how in 8-10 years it’ll have paid for itself.
2 years later they were all destroyed by hurricane Sandy.
They no longer have solar panels.
BrokeVic t1_iw62keg wrote
Well said. And posted the downfalls of it helping the environment. But in reality it is worse than for the investment by at least 15%.
big65 t1_iw50yw4 wrote
I don't see how that's possible when the price for an average install is $45K now, I don't know about you but I don't have that kind of money laying around.
Throwaway152738sghsh t1_iw60ld3 wrote
I have a suspicion that it’s because many solar companies are financing these for 20+ years just to lower the monthly payment so it looks like you’re dollar neutral per month. Lower income households are more likely to fall for these predatory sales tactics.
oiseauvert989 t1_iwgh5c5 wrote
That really depends on the details of the loan and also where people live.
I used to live in Jordan where most people are on a fraction of the wages described in this post but solar panels were very common because the value of energy they produced was greater than the interest and depreciation on the panels. I expect in Australia, Morocco, The US/Mexico border and other places with a lot of sunshine hours are reaching a similar situation. At some point it becomes worthwhile to finance properly and fairly.
Throwaway152738sghsh t1_iwh86jl wrote
For sure. I would love to go solar but all quotes I’ve gotten show the payoff is 25ish years and I just can’t justify that currently.
oiseauvert989 t1_iwhhmvs wrote
Oh yeh. I would never advocate investing in something with that long of a pay off but I also think it depends a lot on individual circumstances. Costs are often higher to add to an existing property that to include in a new build.
Of course the cheapest of all are panels installed in vast arrays on the ground. Realistically for electricity generation the real solution is not home based. Most places are moving towards a situation where wind+solar+hydro will make up the majority of the electricity anyway.
The real home based cost savers / pollution reducers will be in the areas of transport and heating. Where I live currently the transport bit is easy (town centre with rail station) but the heating bit is hard (currently completely reliant on gas boiler).
[deleted] t1_iw5206f wrote
[removed]
ILikeNeurons t1_iw2mqs6 wrote
Tax carbon and return the money to households as an equitable dividend.
There's already a group working on this and it's grown to over 200,000 in the last few years. Having more volunteers does help.
The Gini coefficient for carbon is higher than the Gini coefficient for income, so the cost of a carbon tax would be borne mostly by the rich, and the poor would mostly come out ahead with an equitable dividend.
That would surely help close the gap in rooftop solar faster than the status quo.
WAKEZER0 t1_iw2rdo8 wrote
And is it actually helping people?
In my experience, the math never adds up and solar ends up costing more in both the short and long term.
miniibeast t1_iw2s909 wrote
Mine does. In 5-7 years ill essentially make my money back, but that doesnt factor in the increase in electricity prices that happen all the time. So realistically it'll be less time.
My monthly payment is literally the same as i normally would be paying on my electricity if not less in some months.
So less or equal in the short term and severely less in the long term.
WAKEZER0 t1_iw2sczn wrote
What state are you in? Maybe I've never lived in a place with good incentives.
ActonofMAM t1_iw3ov8j wrote
There have been years and years of incremental improvements in solar cells, batteries, etc. which have gotten very little press.
WAKEZER0 t1_iw3sapc wrote
The technology can keep getting better, but it doesn't matter for home owners unless the price also drops significantly.
miniibeast t1_iw58w33 wrote
SC. 23% state incentive on top of 30% federal. Plus, the energy company here doesn't just eat the extra energy you produce. They'll give you back what you made extra in the whole year in one rebate check.
SNRatio t1_iw5fvmc wrote
It pencils out if you had a large bill to start with. If your bill is small, it is hard to make back the principal by selling electricity back to the utility.
[deleted] t1_iw2vxpm wrote
Moved from AZ to CA. The ROI in AZ was getting longer and longer as the utility monopolies continued to tighten the screws. Here in CA I am with a community owned utility that is much more supportive of solar. We also got rebates for changing gas appliances to electric from out utility.
Utilities shouldn’t be investor owned and corporate commissions maybe shouldn’t be elected. There is a lot of press in AZ about their corrupt commission and state reps being controlled by the utility monopoly. To be fair, if I was with PG&E in CA I would not be in the same position I am in now, an all electric house with rooftop and a $35 utility bill.
gobsnotonboard t1_iw2ypkp wrote
Can you expand on your PGE comment?
I recently moved to Sonoma county, have rooftop being installed in early Jan, and get my power bill from PGE, but distribution is PGE and generation is Sonoma Clean Power co-op.
PGE and Sonoma Clean Power each do the math differently, so I’m having trouble determining which one I’ll get more $ back for my generated power from (I can opt out of Sonoma). I’m also banking on still being grandfathered into NEM 2
[deleted] t1_iw3390o wrote
PG&E was our gas provider, I had issues with our disconnect and they made it very difficult to have the meter removed. I still have the meter but at least they fixed the leaks, there were two.
As to specifics with rooftop, I got my PTO from SMUD less than a week after the install was complete. In fact from first call to my installer to operation was less than three weeks.
SMUD doesn’t have a solar rate plan, we pay the regular time of use rates everyone else does. I believe PG&E has a solar rate plan, this was our issue in AZ and made it almost necessary to have a battery or a load limiter device (can’t remember the name of it). Basically you’d sweat through dinner because the 5 to 8 pm rate was ridiculously high. Ultimately it added cost to the system that pushed the ROI out a decade.
I currently don’t have a battery, November is looking like a net loss for us though. We’ve been operational since last January and have overproduced every month till now. We also have an EV and I just can’t see the value in home storage vs the cost per kWh of car batteries. Most backup batteries also have to be protected from the weather which adds complications for us. We’d be better off buying an old Leaf just for the battery, but the wife ain’t going for it yet.
For more specifics about PG&E, try r/solar
warjoke t1_iw536jy wrote
The best my family can afford are solar powered rechargeable lamps. Roof panels are still mad expensive for regular citizens in our country. Unless our maggot infested government steps up to accelerate renewable energy anytime soon and not just push them for face value, nothing will improve.
johnb3488 t1_iw5j0le wrote
got quoted 54k usd install for 90% of my usage no battery. Accessible is relative and we easily make what is quoted in the article as "median" for solar ownership. 54k is not viable when my electric bill is 200 per month on average.
cw3k t1_iw8tz6k wrote
Just another handout to the solar company.
Few weeks ago, a solar company sales came to my blocks and selling solar panel and she said no cost for us to install. Maybe no cost to me directly because the state is paying for it. Where is the state getting that money? Of course from taxpayers like me.
FuturologyBot t1_iw2lcqt wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/darth_nadoma:
The Berkeley lab study finds that one of the factors that has helped to
expand access to rooftop solar is the use of leasing and other
third-party ownership models. By leasing panels or subscribing to a
local community solar project, a customer can use solar without having
to pay high upfront costs. The main drawback is that third-party
ownership usually means less savings for the consumer.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yt6y78/rooftop_solar_is_becoming_more_accessible_to/iw2i21t/
DNA2020 t1_iw3ph6s wrote
How much does it cost to remove them and reinstall if you have to get new shingles?
[deleted] t1_iw40izy wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iw4e3er wrote
[removed]
_phesta t1_iw5asgv wrote
Was recently quoted for solar and batteries and it was 160k. The monthly payback would have been higher than my power bill by $150. I want to reduce my carbon footprint but that’s absurd.
BurlyH t1_iw6dv1c wrote
The panels need to be replaced every 10 decades.
Surur t1_iw6thad wrote
This is a lie. Panels are normally warranted for 25 years. Why are you lying?
_phesta t1_iw7beyo wrote
You’re full of shit, solar panels are warrantied at 10-25 years for a reason. They lose effectiveness every year as well so you have to add panels over time which means more expenses. Then the batteries are warrantied at 5-15 years so there’s added expenses during the 30 year payoff. So in a perfect world that’s 30 years to get my money’s worth but add the $150 a month extra to my power bill and it’s more like 40 years.
BurlyH t1_iw7c4ih wrote
Modern ones are, there's a large issue with early adopters having to replace their panels, with the been dumped on landfills. The newer 10+ warranties will last longer, but those are the expensive US of A models and not cheaper imports.
[deleted] t1_iw5bzr2 wrote
[removed]
ReturnOfSeq t1_iw5el6t wrote
How about to people who are priced out of the homeownership market?
patrykpudlo t1_iw6460r wrote
And yes, the guy on that picture working on the roof top does not wear safety harness..
BrokeVic t1_iwdazt2 wrote
I will read that thank you. I do a lot of reading. And a lot of investigation before it I invest in something. And I have read watched and talked to people that are engaged in these actual topics. Everybody has different opinions and sometimes they will not be swayed. So I refuse to go back looking for all of the information I had already been through to post for everyone else today. I am pretty busy and I just thought some people should know that it's not that good for the earth is they think it is. Again everybody has opinions that may or may not be swayed and I'm not trying to sway any of them. But thank you again and I will read that and get back to you
[deleted] t1_iwhgy3f wrote
[removed]
darth_nadoma OP t1_iw2i21t wrote
The Berkeley lab study finds that one of the factors that has helped to
expand access to rooftop solar is the use of leasing and other
third-party ownership models. By leasing panels or subscribing to a
local community solar project, a customer can use solar without having
to pay high upfront costs. The main drawback is that third-party
ownership usually means less savings for the consumer.
SNRatio t1_iw5hl8f wrote
Which kind of gets to the heart of the problem: putting solar on dwellings is inefficient and really expensive. We provide incentives to make it profitable for some, but the benefits go to the people who need it the least. Why not just let any household invest up to $20k into a solar farm instead while getting the same incentives, etc? We would get ~3x more solar capacity for the money that way, and wouldn't discriminate against renters. Interest rates have gone up, but loans to cover the investment could be available the same as now.
Phssthp0kThePak t1_iw85kjk wrote
This is right on. We are told we are in an existential crisis, and yet the policies everyone wants are so inefficient and backwards.
Kill4Nuggs t1_iw2sdqe wrote
I pointed this out years ago right before covid when California had all the wildfires and rolling brown outs, it was in 2019.
I pointed out that my wife's brother, and his wife (combined annual income of $300k+) were getting solar and a Tesla power wall installed to help mitigate the brown outs. While we bought a gas powered generator...
Lower income houses should qualify for much larger federal and state subsidies for renewable energy projects and system installations like roof top solar and grey water systems. It only helps everyone of us humans long term.
Rage_VIIX t1_iw2x9me wrote
Oh, it’s accessible alright. At a five finger discount.
LittleBirdyLover t1_iw3qgf2 wrote
I believe with the recent ban from the worlds cheapest solar panel manufacturing location, these prices are about to jump. Probably back to 2010 levels.
positive_X t1_iw5c81w wrote
Another opportunity is for local banks to finance
solar for renters .
...
BrokeVic t1_iw4qfjd wrote
So I wonder how much carbon emissions is put out from the heavy equipment used to mine. For the sand and metals to make the solar panels, batteries, and wind turbine. Including the batteries for the wind turbines? Then I wonder how much carbon emissions is put out from hauling the raw materials to the plant that will refine the materials.Then I wonder how much carbon is used to refine the materials. Then how much carbon emissions is released to get them "Solar panels, Batteries, & wind turbines to the distributors. Then I wonder how much carbon emissions is used getting them from the distributors to the homes, or Fields. Then I wonder how much carbon is released with all employees driving their cars to work to mine, refine, build, and install them. Not to mention the heavy equipment they need to use during the installs. I also wonder about the carbon footprint left behind with all of the mining being done. Plus we all already know that when using solar panels you are intermittently using the grid for electricity. But did you know when there's no wind. Those turbine are also connected to the grid to keep them turning in order to create power. It's just pretty wild when you really dig deep. Although I am interested and and looking into solar panels in my yard. But also when they say you can sell your extra power that is not true. You're extra power that they keep is deducted from your bill. You do not sell any power back to any companies. They just credit you. I'm still doing a lot of homework but sometimes I'm wondering is it just as bad if not worse than where we are now with electric grids. I think the best way to go is hydrogen power. Now that's just something to think about.
Zephir62 t1_iw610bg wrote
Have you bothered to research the emissions and pollution impacts per kwh for solar vs other solutions? It's been heavily studied. You could have found your answers within the time it took you to write your comment.
Just do a Google search.
Solar and other renewable sources are 5x to 20x less impactful throughout the entire manufacturing, production, shipping chain than non-renewable sources.
BrokeVic t1_iw62y1a wrote
I was being sarcastic. I already know the answer. But no one wants to hear it. So I made it a question. Lol and I like typing 🤪
BrokeVic t1_iwdboch wrote
Yes but those carbon emissions do not include everything that goes into the solar panels from beginning to running on a roof. I consider it intermediate energy. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind I'm just saying in my opinion it's worse than what we have now and we definitely need to get away from fossil fuels. I'm leaning towards hydrogen and nuclear. Both are dangerous but very powerful and very renewable with very little carbon emissions to make build and set up.
passwordsarehard_3 t1_iw4wdmx wrote
Make it mandatory on all rental properties. That should speed this up.
SonOfNakamoto t1_iw592rc wrote
Common!! We need it fast n cheap!! For a greener world like lotr movie!
thenamescook t1_iw596ap wrote
Lol those tend to break before you even make your money back on them. I'm assuming they will just raise energy prices until they are a viable option though. It's gonna take a bit more inflation for that though.
Nebraskan_Sad_Boi t1_iw62945 wrote
We need a faster solution at scale, there are two main things we can do to feed the energy requirements of homes.
-
Nuclear power. You will not find a low footprint technology that can scale to the requires power levels other than nuclear. Solar and wind will require massive amounts of batteries or other storage devices to work, and there won't be enough lithium to power every single country once everyone modernizes. Nuclear, probably thorium and hopefully fusion will be the holy grail for industrial power grids.
-
City redesign. Our cities, specifically American and Canadian ones are incredibly inefficient and produce carbon like sin. By creating more walkable and dense cities we could alleviate a portion of carbon emmisions by supporting public transport, removing the need for POVs, and by having more efficient cooling and heating in dense cities. Of course, the big ticket items are going to be corporations and grid energy producers, which is why nuclear is such a good option.
Don't get me wrong, renewable energy sources will most definitely have their place in the future, I just truly think the need for a dense energy source will never change.
Surur t1_iw6u0bh wrote
> Solar and wind will require massive amounts of batteries or other storage devices to work, and there won't be enough lithium to power every single country once everyone modernizes.
We can just use sodium batteries.
> City redesign.
You don't think re-designing fully cities is not going to release a lot of carbon and take forever? This article shows living in denser housing is a mistake, as it reduces your access to solar and EV benefits.
Nebraskan_Sad_Boi t1_iw7ax92 wrote
Sodium batteries have a lower energy density, and degrade faster than lithium for the same voltage. They are also not ready for retail markets nor mass production, as the tech isn't ready yet. In these critical next 20 years, we don't want to be waiting for new battery tech to be ready for commercial use.
City redesign can start right now. Every year we build tens of thousands of detached single family homes in suburban formats. Suburbs are absolutely terrible for the environment, with individuals who live there producing twice the average carbon a year, whereas a person living in a dense city uses about 50% less.
Removing gas engines and replacing them with EVs isn't the solution, the solution is to remove the need for a car at all. We now know tires produce significant pollution themselves, in 2017 the manufacturing alone (US only) produced 3.5 million metric tons of Co2, roughly equivalent to the Congos entire footprint. They are also the second largest polluter of microplastics, a substance whose long term effects we know little about, but there is correlation to a decreasing fertility rate, at least in men.
So how about instead of building sprawling cities that rely on cars, we build them so people can walk, bike, or take a train or bus to significantly reduce their footprint.
>You don't think re-designing fully cities is not going to release a lot of carbon and take forever?
How much carbon will be released every year strip mining the lithium and sodium out of the ground, or how much to remove sodium from sea water? How long will it take to power the entire planet with total renewables, will this be soon enough to make an impact? We have nuclear now, we have fully functional and super carbon efficient transportation now. Why wait another 20 years for a problem we can work against now?
Surur t1_iw7izsa wrote
> How much carbon will be released every year .... to remove sodium from sea water?
If this is the quality of your argument, I just don't know lol.
Firstly,
> Sodium batteries have a lower energy density, and degrade faster than lithium for the same voltage. They are also not ready for retail markets nor mass production, as the tech isn't ready yet.
Sodium batteries are already on sale, and CATL, one of the largest battery manufacturers, are putting them in production for cars next year. In the mean time they are perfectly fine for stationary applications.
>> Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd. plans to start mass production of its sodium-ion batteries next year, according to an exchange filing. https://www.caixinglobal.com/2022-10-25/catl-aims-to-mass-produce-sodium-ion-batteries-in-2023-101955814.html
Secondly:
> Suburbs are absolutely terrible for the environment, with individuals who live there producing twice the average carbon a year, whereas a person living in a dense city uses about 50% less.
Apparently its closer to 25% less which is not a massive amount, and can be easily cancelled out by adding solar to your home.
It's as if you did not read the article for the thread. People who live in suburbs will have easy access to home solar, which means their carbon footprint will be lower than people in dense housing. They will also have easier access to EVs as they will have off-street parking for charging. They will be earlier adopters of EVs and solar for that reason, which will mean their carbon footprint will drop a lot faster than inner city dwellers.
> Removing gas engines and replacing them with EVs isn't the solution, the solution is to remove the need for a car at all. We now know tires produce significant pollution themselves, in 2017 the manufacturing alone (US only) produced 3.5 million metric tons of Co2, roughly equivalent to the Congos entire footprint. They are also the second largest polluter of microplastics, a substance whose long term effects we know little about, but there is correlation to a decreasing fertility rate, at least in men.
I am sure you are a proponent of active travel. Do you have any idea how much rubber is released from the soles of shoes? 300 million shoes are discarded in USA each year, and if people walk much more than number will double or triple, releasing huge amounts of micro-particles into the air and microplastics into the environment as they decompose.
> So how about instead of building sprawling cities that rely on cars, we build them so people can walk, bike, or take a train or bus to significantly reduce their footprint.
How about instead of building dense housing, we aim for energy independence and a low carbon footprint.
> How much carbon will be released every year strip mining the lithium and sodium out of the ground, or how much to remove sodium from sea water? How long will it take to power the entire planet with total renewables, will this be soon enough to make an impact? We have nuclear now, we have fully functional and super carbon efficient transportation now. Why wait another 20 years for a problem we can work against now?
This whole paragraph is nonsense really. These are not hypothetical questions. We know the carbon payback time for large evs is a year or two of driving. We know we are making massive progress with switching to renewables. We know that nuclear has stalled due to expense and other risks.
In short, the world is on the right track - get on the winning side.
BurlyH t1_iw5uaxr wrote
Children mining toxic raw materials in Africa, for Chinese companies who manufacture the vast majority of this Green technology and it parts, using power generated by growing number of coal power plants, to sell the Solar Panels to Western countries, who I crease the price of fossil fuels to subsidise 'renewable' power, which they improperly dispose of after 10-20 years, causing those same toxic materials to leach into landfills, soil and groundwater.
Now they're making them even cheaper? Or just more subsidising/taxing further?
savorywilliams t1_iw2vza3 wrote
rooftop solar can't stop the death spiral of capitalism
BrokeVic t1_iw2u2w3 wrote
They don't really save you money to be honest. And they don't really help the environment. The money you supposedly save will end up going towards regular maintenance on the actual panels. And as far as the environment goes with all of the mining that goes into the making of them is crazy amount. First you have to mine mostly sand for the panels to be made. Plus other metal elements. Then you have to mine to make the batteries. So it is really not renewable energy. Plus when the Sun is gone and you have no power from your solar unit. You'll be drawing from the grid. So again not as great as they make them out to be.
[deleted] t1_iw3hd6d wrote
[deleted]
MarwyntheMasterful t1_iw52pby wrote
How much did you pay?
[deleted] t1_iw63fv5 wrote
[removed]
BrokeVic t1_iw3nafh wrote
Again I'm not disagreeing with everybody. I'm just saying they're not saving as much as they think they are and it's not as renewable as they think it is. And if you own your in system entirely how long has it been since you've had maintenance done? And how much does the maintenance cost? I'm not against it I'm thinking about getting it myself. I just know the things that I'm saying are fact that's all
[deleted] t1_iw3v131 wrote
[deleted]
fungussa t1_iw785h0 wrote
Do you realise that if we don't get off fossil fuels, the the planet will be increasingly inhospitable for humans?
BrokeVic t1_iwdacvp wrote
Oh yeah I realize that. Anyone in the world would be crazy not to. And I don't disagree with that at all. In my opinion hydrogen and which sounds bad nuclear power which is what stars are made of is what we need. We don't need something that is going to make it worse faster than the fossil fuels we use now. And that's what that is doing.
fungussa t1_iwds45k wrote
Nuclear is necessary but wholly insufficient, as nuclear:
-
has very long commissioning time
-
more expensive than renewables and the costs are divergent. Solar is halving in cost every 5 years.
-
proliferation risks
-
spent fuel containment
-
very poor horizontal scalability
-
it's carbon footprint is no better than wind and only fractionally better than solar
Shot-Job-8841 t1_iw3jcla wrote
It depends on your local installer and energy costs. There are people near me who have spent $3k on installation and purchase and saved $5k in electricity over 10 years. Your city is not everyone’s city. My area lets you sell excess power back, meaning you can actually make a hefty profit when you’re on vacation.
BrokeVic t1_iw3mw8s wrote
And you are correct I'll give you that. I'm not disagreeing with everything everyone said. I'm just saying that it's not saving people as much money as they think it is and it's not as renewable as they think it is That's all. I still like it
Surur t1_iw2zbzw wrote
Firstly, you don't need a battery to use solar, and the CO2 payback for solar panels is less than 2-3 years, and constantly falling as the grid in China becomes more renewable. They also last 25 years+, meaning they save 23 years of carbon emissions.
In addition, batteries only add a few years to the equation, and then you do have power when there is no sun.
Are you ill-informed or paid to spread nonsense on the internet?
BrokeVic t1_iw314q5 wrote
Yes you do need a battery. Because when there's no sun where will you get power? The solar panels charge up a battery unit. The battery unit is then connected to your fuse box. And then everything in your house runs off the battery powered by the solar panels.
Surur t1_iw31iwn wrote
I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and just imagine you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Firstly, you can use the power when its available in the day, such as to run your aircon, washing machine, fridge and ev charger.
Secondly the excess you can sell to the grid, and use normal grid electricity in the evening like everyone else.
Most solar installations do not have batteries.
BrokeVic t1_iw32pgh wrote
There's no reason to be rude about a conversation. And I don't need the benefit of the doubt from anybody. And you do not run off the grid at night. The problem is the solar panels do not produce enough power fast enough for the amount a normal size family household needs. So it charges the batteries firstly then it uses both battery power and solar power for larger size families. Depending on the size of the house and the amount of panels you own. You may have enough to run your entire house without a battery. But I guarantee you you still have a battery. You don't have to believe me. All I'm saying is I worked with solar for years and I'm telling you what I know is truth. And the gimmick of once the units paid off you can sell your power back to the electric company is idiotic. Because then you have to take care of your regular maintenance on your equipment. That's where that money will go trust me there is lots of maintenance that people do not see. And that's how they sell the units. Trust it or don't trust it I'm just putting it out there so people can do their homework and find out for themselves how solar panels and wind turbines really do work. Again I'm not going to reduce myself to calling people names or saying they have some kind of disease. But I do appreciate your benefit of the doubt.
Surur t1_iw339qu wrote
> But I guarantee you you still have a battery.
> Not every solar power system has a solar battery attached. In fact, only about 4% of residential solar installations had a battery backup.
Enough said. I will not address anything else, since you did not provide any sources.
BrokeVic t1_iw36527 wrote
Why don't you guys or women watch a certain documentary called"Planet Of The Humans" Directed by Jeff Gibbs. Then give me your opinion on alternative renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines. It's actually a really good documentary too you might even enjoy it.
grundar t1_iw68p2t wrote
> Why don't you guys or women watch a certain documentary called"Planet Of The Humans"
Probably because it's full of bad information:
> "In their new YouTube documentary “Planet of the Humans,” director Jeff Gibbs and producer Michael Moore argue for splitting the two sides. Their misleading, outdated, and scientifically sophomoric dismissal of renewable energy is perhaps the most dangerous form of climate denial, eroding support for renewable energy as a critical climate solution."
The article goes into substantial and specific detail, but suffice it to say that the documentary you keep citing is not a good source of information about this topic, and I would strongly recommend you check what it's told you against other sources. If you're up for reading somewhat detailed articles, Carbon Brief is generally a reliable source which cites its sources well.
If you're not up for reading detailed information about the topic that's fine, but recognize that your knowledge of the topic will necessarily be rather limited, and -- if it's mostly from a widely-criticized movie -- will often be outright wrong.
Surur t1_iw5vg8o wrote
Obviously, I am not going to waste my time (1h39m), so a short written precis may be more appropriate.
BrokeVic t1_iw31a7t wrote
When the sun goes down The power you have left in the battery is what runs your house. Once that drains you have no power. Then you run off the grid. I have installed solar panel farms for years. They all have battery systems.
ShopObjective t1_iw3tpb4 wrote
Surur t1_iw3xi7w wrote
If you were to actually google China, "renewable"
> According to the NEA report, China's installed renewable generation capacity totaled 1,063 GW in 2021, accounting for 44.8% of the nation's total generation capacity. There is typically a difference in installed capacity and actual power generation due to the intermittency of renewables.
BrokeVic t1_iw31ium wrote
I don't disagree on the carbon emissions. But like I said it is not renewable energy. You have to mine stuff from the Earth to build them and the batteries to use them. That is a fact and when your power is out and your battery is dead you do run off the grid that's a fact. But I'm not saying that because I'm against them I'm just saying they need a better way to do it
BrokeVic t1_iw2u7uq wrote
I like to call them intermittent energy source. Both environmentally safe yet not environmentally safe lol.
AKLmfreak t1_iw2lkjp wrote
TL:DR
“Rooftop Solar is Becoming more Accessible to People with Lower Incomes” = the median household income of owners of solar-equipped homes is down from $129,000 in 2010 to $110,000 in 2021.
So by “lower income,” they mean $110k is lower than $129k, not that actual low-income families might have a chance of affording it….