Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. I'm talking solar - which btw is EXTREMELY common where I live now days. Posh suburb, every second house has them.
I live in the sunniest state in the sunniest country in the world.
Them babies BURN OUT just like everything else in the Australian sun.
The longer life is probably due to lower sun absorption in North America.
Here, the sun comes up with a big ole bat and belts you one right across the head. You can literally fry an egg on pavement.
Most folks with solar not only get free power, they also get a pay back if the excess goes into the main grid, which they wire them for.
They are absolutely brilliant BUT - you're going to pay for them, and pay again when they've burnt out.
Two sources I just checked for Australia show performance warranties to be 25-35 years long with solar production maintained in the 80-90% range. Hanwa specifically states minimum of 83% in year 25. You may be operating under obsolete assumptions.
If you live in the SF Bay area, Fresno, CA or Boston, MA then Google can map out what kind of solar potential your home may have and how much you can save. Bookmark the website since Google is planning on rolling this out to more cities in the future.
I was not aware that any state required the power company to pay the homeowner the full price for electric power.
Power Companies here do not pay the homeowner.
Utility companies in New York have been required to buy back power from residential customers with solar or wind generation capability for years, probably at least since the 1990s.
^^^ and being in KS, not enough sunshine. You have to look at the number of sunny days and we come up short. Anymore when the sun comes out, I think "What is that?"
But, at the same time, the shade of the trees really keep down the cost of our electric in the summer. They shed their leaves in the fall and through the winter, our natural stone foundation, probably a good 24" or more in height, collects the heat from the sun and that usually means, unless there is a fierce wind, that the heat doesn't run most of the night. All that is for free so I think the ones building it in 1927 knew a thing or two.
^^^ and being in KS, not enough sunshine. You have to look at the number of sunny days and we come up short. Anymore when the sun comes out, I think "What is that?"
But, at the same time, the shade of the trees really keep down the cost of our electric in the summer. They shed their leaves in the fall and through the winter, our natural stone foundation, probably a good 24" or more in height, collects the heat from the sun and that usually means, unless there is a fierce wind, that the heat doesn't run most of the night. All that is for free so I think the ones building it in 1927 knew a thing or two.
Actually the solar resource in Kansas is quite good; 5-6 kWh/sq Meter/Day. The wind resource is even better.
Utility companies in New York have been required to buy back power from residential customers with solar or wind generation capability for years, probably at least since the 1990s.
I had only heard of them paying at the industrial rate, not full rate.
It's far too expensive!! I pay $171 a month year round on my budget plan for my electric and gas. I haven't been above 1,000 kw in a month since I moved to this house over 3 years ago.
What relation does any of that have with the OP?
By your post, you consume less energy. So you could use a much smaller system.
So your saying that since you need a smaller less expansive system it would be more expensive for you ???
Makes no sense.
Quote:
... I live on a heavily wooded lot with old growth trees. Tons of shade! My roof doesn't face the sun at the right time of day.....even then it has to peak through the trees. Then there's the weather. I live in the Northeast....it's cloudy most of the winter....and we get a butt ton of snow. Most of it sits on my roof most of the winter. It's self insulating especially when you get a few inches every few days.
I live in New England, up here we get way more sun than we get overcast.
Then again I live in dense forest so that may have some effect.
What your roof looks like is entirely off-topic. My roof is covered with snow all winter long. Again off-topic, as it has no connection to what solar-panels do.
^^^ and being in KS, not enough sunshine. You have to look at the number of sunny days and we come up short.
Kansas gets a lot of sun.
You may want to consider moving from KS, to Kansas instead.
Quote:
... our natural stone foundation, probably a good 24" or more in height, collects the heat from the sun and that usually means, unless there is a fierce wind, that the heat doesn't run most of the night. All that is for free so I think the ones building it in 1927 knew a thing or two.
A solar-thermal system [either passive or active] would collect the heat from the sun and store it, until it is needed.
Solar shingles are optimal for new construction, not retrofit
On-grid solar (with no storage battery) can have a good ROI if you live in an area that gets good sun and has a consumer-friendly net-metering law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider
They are truly an eyesore. This alone is a deal breaker for me. I am not even getting into the financials. So what has changed in 40 years and billions of dollars in subsidies for R&D? Do we still not have roof shingles that look like asphalt shingles but generate electricity?
Solar shingles exist, but historically they've been less efficient, less durable, and more expensive than panels, and are almost never the best option for retrofitting onto an existing roof.
When designing a new house where it can be sited so the roof has the perfect angle for the sun, and where aesthetics are important, solar shingles are popular.
... Solar shingles exist, but historically they've been less efficient, less durable, and more expensive than panels, and are almost never the best option for retrofitting onto an existing roof.
When designing a new house where it can be sited so the roof has the perfect angle for the sun, and where aesthetics are important, solar shingles are popular.
I did not think the solar shingles had been around for very long.
When building new construction, I think it would be a mistake to build anything that was not net-zero.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Solar shingles are optimal for new construction, not retrofit
