Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sg3niner t1_iv74eid wrote

Why not also require them to have supplemental solar?

I genuinely don't understand why that isn't a thing.

4

helldeskmonkey t1_iv76fm4 wrote

Residential solar is much less efficient than using the same money to build out a solar farm somewhere outside the residential area and run lines into it. I’ve heard it’s something like 1/3rd the efficiency.

16

FeeValuable22 t1_iv79isj wrote

Yes it is, that's why it would be supplemental solar. If we added solar capacity to every home, even though it is less than efficient than a large central collector system, The result would still be a low-cost dramatic reduction in the amount of energy production required.

There is not going to be one solution to getting off of carbon. Nested power generation methodologies will be a significant part of our future.

6

KevinCarbonara t1_iv7whnc wrote

The efficiency is less important - we already have residential houses. Why not cover them with solar panels?

Don't get me wrong, if they don't generate enough electricity to cover the cost of the panels or something like that, then efficiency is important. But there's no point comparing their efficiency to a solar farm.

If we're honest, all solar is far less efficient here than in most US states.

4

BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv8fx3m wrote

Yeah, but with utility scale solar the consumer is still buying the power at market rates from the utility. If you own the panels on your roof your utility pays you for the power you feed into the grid. You can come close to zeroing out your electic bill.

3

BigMoose9000 t1_iv7davx wrote

  1. Residential solar is still very expensive, and adding to cost makes the housing crisis worse. Parts of CA require solar and look how that's working out.

  2. There's still a shortage of raw materials to make solar panels even at the current demand level, requiring them would create a years-long backlog of building projects that can't be completed because they're waiting for solar panels to be manufactured. Again making the housing crisis even worse.

  3. Current solar panels have a useful lifespan of around 20 years, after which they're hazardous waste. We don't have a way to recycle them. Starting to require them today means creating a hazardous waste crisis 20 years from now.

2

BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv8gur0 wrote

>Current solar panels have a useful lifespan of around 20 years, after which they're hazardous waste.

This is untrue. The SilFab panels (made in Bellingham, by the way) I just put on my roof are guaranteed to maintain 97% of their efficiency for 30 years. They don't become waste after that point, their efficiency just slowly drops off. They'll likely still be pumping out plenty of power for decades longer.

As for your claim that there's a shortage of raw materials, I bought mine 6 months ago, with no delay in promised delivery date. And I don't know what you mean by "look at how that's working out" in California. California's power costs are about triple those of Washington's, so the typical payback period of home solar is only about 6 or 7 years. You'd be stupid not to buy a house with solar in California.

4

BigMoose9000 t1_iv8jhge wrote

That warranty's worth about the paper it's printed on. If they hold up - great. If they don't - the company goes bankrupt from warranty claims. They win either way.

>I bought mine 6 months ago, with no delay in promised delivery date.

You bought panels that were in stock, great. Most companies stop selling when they don't have in-stock panels because the lead times are too unpredictable to take pre-orders.

>And I don't know what you mean by "look at how that's working out" in California. California's power costs are about triple those of Washington's, so the typical payback period of home solar is only about 6 or 7 years. You'd be stupid not to buy a house with solar in California.

The problem is where it's required. Bill Maher made national news when he made it public he'd been waiting for over 3 years for his solar installation to be approved. If his house had been a new build that required solar to be occupied, it would've been sitting vacant for over 3 years.

1

BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv8w961 wrote

Whether the manufacturer is still in business or not, the fact is that the panels aren't going to be hazardous waste in 20 years. They're still going to be pumping out power. And I don't know what Bill Maher's problem was, but it only took me a couple of weeks to get the permit for our solar install. Nobody I know who's put up home solar in Washington has any delays from permitting. So you hate solar? Fine, don't buy it, and keep paying your big electric bills. But spare us this Newsmax bullshit.

1