why don't we have solar panels on roofs?

[Anonymous No.14824963]

> initial cost yada yada

doesn't matter. they require little to no maintenance as far as i'm aware of *. They gonna be there for sooooo long that it should be worth it.

Well to answer the question objectively we would need to do the math but then again: different prices, sunshine hours etc. makes it impossible. Nevertheless with some energy produced everyday and long horizon I just have a feeling that it should add up and overcome initial cost.

just feel like we have a holy grail of energy and we'r drinking from it.

[Anonymous No.14824968]

>>14824963
>They gonna be there for sooooo long that it should be worth it.
They're not, usually. To pump out the quantity you need with the quality to make them last long enough to matter, they would need to cost substantially more than they do. Right now with the Chinese product we're getting they'll need constant maintenance unless you want a lot of serious fires or a steep dropoff in useful voltage over the first few operating years.

[Anonymous No.14824973]

>>14824963
My fren spent like $80,000 on solar panels for his home and they still don't cover his full electric bill. His family doesn't even own an electric car. The city and electric company keep trying to delay the installation of a battery though because he told them he plans to refuse to have it hooked up to the grid where excess power can be sold, instead just keeping it. Petty jerks.

[Anonymous No.14824974]

>>14824963
I don't, but I do own 5 square meters installed on a nearby school. The deal was that I can subtract 80 kWh per square meter from my electricity bill for 20 years. I paid 1250, so about 16 cents per kWh up front. Technically it's not the solar cell itself, but I'm glad I don't have the risk of damage or a particularly cloudy year.
Seeing prices climb sup to 70 cents in Germany, I'm glad that I did it. Probably the best investment I ever did.

[Anonymous No.14824983]

>>14824973
Do you live in Tomsø or were you ripped off? Solar panels cost about 300€ per kWp, and 1 kWp is very roughly 1000 kWh per year where I live. Judging from this, if you spend 80k on panels, that's 267 kWp or 267 MWh per year. Are you heating an Olympic swimming pool?

[Anonymous No.14824985]

>>14824983
*your "friend" obviously

[Anonymous No.14824989]

>>14824963
But it does matter, if you're struggling with bills now how do you justify a massive expenditure that might take over 10 years to recoup?
That's like telling someone who can barely afford gas to just spend 40k on an electric car to save money.

>>14824968
That's not really true, even chinese monocrystalline panels are guaranteed to make over 85% of their design power after 25 years.

[Anonymous No.14824998]

>>14824983
it's a 5,500 sqft home in Southern california. I think the 80k includes the battery price, which was a lot. If nothing goes wrong (maintenace), I think he said it'll take 12-20 years for it to break even on cost. I feel like if anything the whole idea is a rip off, but probably not the installation people because he does shop around for the best deal.

[Anonymous No.14825001]

>>14824989
>That's not really true, even chinese monocrystalline panels are guaranteed to make over 85% of their design power after 25 years.
They may claim that in marketing material, but salesmen also claim that wind turbines have service life longer than 10 years and they verifiably do not.

[Anonymous No.14825007]

>>14824998
The batteries are crazy expensive, if you can sell the excess at a good price you can forego a battery installation.
The company I work for has 200kW worth of solar panels on the roof of our manufacturing building and since manufacturing operates during the day most of our electricity costs are covered by solar.

>>14825001
They do test them in harsh conditions to simulate prolonged periods of use.
As far as I know the only thing that's going to degrade is the transparency of the glass layer on top from getting scratched over the years.

[Anonymous No.14825010]

>>14824998
$80k in 12-20 years is still a lot of power. I found 15.34 c/kWh for California online. Let's assume your buddy has a bad deal and pays 20 cents. That would give him 400,000 kWh for those $80k. You're trying to tell me that it takes 12-20 years to use 400,000 kWh? That's 20-30 MWh per year. What the fuck is he doing? Does he run an underground weed plantation?

[Anonymous No.14825011]

>>14825001
You normally get your money back if they drop below 80% within the first 20 years.

[Anonymous No.14825098]

>>14824963
Ikea has had a series of fires at their stores in the US due to the solar panels they have on the roof. Most have been taken out of service permanently because the risk to people and property is too great.

[Anonymous No.14825102]

>>14825011
You think Billy Bob's Solar & Things is still going to be in business twenty years from now? Are you going to travel to China to sue the manufacturer there?

[Anonymous No.14825103]

>>14825102
I'm sure Schott Solar AG will still be in Business. I'm not doing business with some handyman without official training.

[Anonymous No.14825115]

[Anonymous No.14825129]

>>14824963
>why don't we have solar panels on roofs?
We do.

>they require little to no maintenance as far as i'm aware of *.
They do.

[Anonymous No.14825156]

>>14824973
Solar panels are ~$100 per 100 watt for hardware and ~$200-$300 per 100 watts with compete installs

$80000/$300 per 100 watt = 26.66 kw solar panels.

That means with ~4 hrs of daily sun light, you'd be generating ~ 106 kwh of electricity per day. Average home uses ~30 kwh per day. You're producing 3.5X as much power necessary for your home.

[Anonymous No.14825268]

>>14824963
Because it can generate harmonics in power energy.

[Anonymous No.14825274]

>>14825156
>~4 hrs of daily sun light
>California
That guy is full of shit, but to an even greater extent than what you said

[Anonymous No.14825279]

>>14825156
>Average home uses ~30 kwh per day.
What? How? What the fuck does the average home do to use more than 1kW on average? I get that cooking can draw more, and that you have about 200kWh per year from a fridge (at least mine does, according to the manual). But you don't cook for hours on end.

[Anonymous No.14825280]

>>14825279
>In 2020, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,715 kilowatthours (kWh), an average of about 893 kWh per month. Louisiana had the highest annual electricity consumption at 14,407 kWh per residential customer, and Hawaii had the lowest at 6,446 kWh per residential customer.
Air conditioning.

[Anonymous No.14825285]

>>14825280
I see, wasn't considering that. But still, that "friend" could air condition a stadium with his 80k worth of panels.

[Anonymous No.14825288]

>>14825274
~4 hours of peak sunlight hour. Peak sun hour avg. Usually its between 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM. It doesn't count the early day sun or the late evening sun where sun may sometimes come early at 7AM during summer and set at ~9PM.

Most of california actually gets ~5 hrs peak sun and some southern parts gets 5.5/6 hr peak sun hours.

[Anonymous No.14825291]

>>14825285
Yes, there's something odd about the numbers in that post but they are right about batteries really driving up the price. The cost of panels has been going down but a solar system is far more than just the panels, especially if you want to be off-grid.
Here's a video of a couple who built an off-grid system because the cost wasn't much different than getting a grid connection to their location: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccBM0iSvqIc

[Anonymous No.14825294]

>>14824973
>My fren spent like $80,000 on solar panels for his home
>they still don't cover his full electric bill
How big is your friends palace?

[Anonymous No.14825305]

>>14825288
I'd rather check for the yearly kWp to kWh conversion, which is 1,600-1,800 kWh per kWp in California. So 26.66 kW solar panels will yield ~ ~47,000 kWh per year, or 129 kWh per day. Ok, only a ~20% correction, but I think it's easier and takes the weather into account. In Seattle you get significantly less energy per solar panel.

[Anonymous No.14825329]

>>14825305
Seattle gets ~3.5 hr peak sun hour

So with 26.66KW solar panel x 3.5 hrs, its ~93 kwh per day instead of ~106 for 4 hrs

Whatever the case, its still more than average energy usage of a home.

[Anonymous No.14825440]

The factories refuse to update to the second generation solar panels.

[Anonymous No.14825457]

There is fabrics and ion sprays and diamond blades or heat imprinters with carbon tiles for firmness or properly bound alloys... But the research has died because humans became retarded, unironically. And along with the research the business guys just drink beer and play stocks.

[Anonymous No.14825466]

>>14825329
>Whatever the case, its still more than average energy usage of a home.
Yeah, no doubt. I suspect that the story of that anon is fictitious and that his "friend" is actually his lover.

[Anonymous No.14825575]

>>14825115
Nice pic - it has recently been reported that Amazon quietly shut down all of the solar panels on their warehouses last year, due to a string of fires they had at multiple facilities. I guess they bought cheap chink crap.

[Anonymous No.14825618]

>>14825575
Would be funny if they became victims of their own scheme where you "Buy from Amazon" and it ends up being chink shit with worse quality than what you get at Aliexpress.

[Anonymous No.14825635]

>>14825457
>But the research has died because humans became retarded, unironically.
Racemixing and diversity hires. Yes this has already been said in Turner diaries. This is actually how western nation collapsed, that and nuclear fire.

[Anonymous No.14825649]

>>14825635
Ah yes, that famous work of academic rigor, the Turner Diaries.

[Anonymous No.14825839]

>>14824963
The grid is not made for everyone to have solar panels, but maybe you want to be off-grid anyway in which case there's not much stopping you.

[Anonymous No.14826764]

>>14825649
The Turner Diaries accurately predicted the future.
Works of academic rigor, the tiny portion that anyone reads, keep on getting retracted for fraud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[Anonymous No.14826780]

>>14825618
https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/amazon-warehouses-rooftop-solar-fires-signal-threat-renewable-energy
>Amazon warehouses’ rooftop solar fires signal a threat to renewable energy
My take is that it looks like Bezos switched sides, he is a fossil fuels guy now. He is setting his own roofs on fire in order to bankrupt the entire Chinese solar industry.

[Anonymous No.14826871]

>>14826780
Nope. We need more immigrants before everyone in the States has worked for and quit from Amazon.

[Anonymous No.14826920]

>>14826764
Just dropping in here, but that chud RAHOWA spank-bank fantasies are doing better than muh peer revoo...
... this should be a wake-up call to the academy. All the "chuds" out in the hinterland see how the academy is rotten and they are forming their own ideas.
/sci/ fears Trump. /sci/ should fear Pol Pot.

[Anonymous No.14827287]

>>14825294
that friend's name? bernie sanders

[Anonymous No.14828027]

>>14824989
>That's like telling someone who can barely afford gas to just spend 40k on an electric car to save money.
But this is what some rich people are already doing. Poor people can't afford value. Thus widening the gap between rich and poor even further.

[Anonymous No.14828192]

>>14828027
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."

Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play

[Anonymous No.14828971]

>>14824963
low efficiency, high cost, no reliability, lack of good energy storage devices