Originally Posted by
antiall
Solar panels are practical everywhere in the U.S. Except for Alaska. From what I hear it remains nighttime there for around 3 months. But for the rest of the time, having them would be better than not having them. As for California, I hear that solar panels there could create around 74% of the states electric needs. But if done right, it could probably exceed by far the states electric requirements. You are one of the few people around here who hasn't bitched at me or basically call me an idiot. But that is probably because none of them know or want to know about the reality of human caused global warming. Or that if they plan on being alive by around the year 2050, make other plans.
I am not getting into all that, where I am here in this thread is "If you are going to do a lot of solar, should you push for a lot of solar on houses?" I dont know the answer but I am very not convinced that solar on houses is a great idea. The reasons that they might not be that I have heard:
1) Roofs tend to be in the wrong direction or are sun obstructed
2) Each homeowner needs to keep an eye on the system and maintain it, and people tend to suck at that sort of thing.
3) makes reroofing much more expensive
4) the grid upgrade costs, which are necessary, are astronomical.
5) The grid would be much easier and cheaper to operate if each solar system includes batteries, but that is also very expensive.
6) I really dont need anymore ugly in my life, fewer larger systems would help with that.
I wonder if we would do better to have far fewer and far larger solar operations, on commercial properties and schools and planted in the land which is I think called solar farming. We could get scale, we could have professionals watch and maintain, we would need far less battery power I think which is important unless we get get battery prices down a lot more.
I choose my own words like the Americans of olden times........before this dystopia arrived.
DARK AGES SUCK!
Bookmarks