Can Solar Rooftops Power the World? \ stacker news ~econ

Can Solar Rooftops Power the World?odysee.com/@undecidedmf:a/can-solar-rooftops-power-the-world:4?r=8T2xqWjtafHWYGxQBSsrbw1wQPm7sWRq

567 sats \ 48 comments \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul econ

From Undecided

Video Description

Growing the world’s renewable energy capacity has always been a delicate balancing act, and one of the many plates we have to spin during that act is land use. Utility-scale solar and wind parks are rapidly expanding in size and prevalence all over the world. But it’s not just NIMBYism that complicates the creation of clean energy — it’s serious environmental and social concerns, too. When are the negative impacts of siting these massive projects worth the benefits? When are they not? Could rooftop solar single-handedly provide us all the energy we need while avoiding legal hassles and ecological consequences? Do we have enough space for solar?

view all related items

85 sats \ 35 replies \ @grayruby 23 Jul

I think all new buildings and homes should be built with solar panels on the roof. I don't know about retrofitting all the existing rooftops. That sounds expensive and infeasible.

140 sats \ 27 replies \ @kepford 23 Jul

Eventually you hit the duck curve. Over production during the day which can actually damage infrastructure and under production when the sun goes down.

Batteries are the solution but they are expensive and toxic. Bitcoin mining can use excess energy but that hasn't taken off yet in places that could use it most.

I have solar. Made sense financially for me but only because my energy rates are insane and government rebates.

A free market for energy would fix many of the issues we have. Solar would be a part of that I think but it's not the silver bullet like people thought it would be.

175 sats \ 3 replies \ @petertodd 23 Jul

“Over production during the day which can actually damage infrastructure”

Only if the infrastructure is terribly designed.

Grid frequency naturally goes up and down slightly as power is over and under supplied. It is not hard to build solar inverters that automatically disconnect from the grid if power is being oversupplied, based purely on grid frequency. If that's not happening, the root cause is bad management and regulations.

edit: an interesting example of frequency shifting being used to intentionally turn off solar inverters: https://www.provisionsolar.com/general/grid-outages-and-the-magic-of-frequency-shifting/

41 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 23 Jul

The infra was not designed for solar in places like California. I was just watched an interview with the grid operator in California describe this very problem a few weeks ago. Its an actual issue. Its not like you can design something that has no edges or limits. Damage to the infra is only one issue though. There is the fact that energy is not being harnessed. Hence the need for batteries. But batteries lose power over time as well.

A similar problem arises in places that are adding nuclear plants. Was listening to a Canadian engineer discuss how they have so much power generation from this new plant they are looking for consumers to avoid overloads.

These are all engineering problems to solve and ones that can be solved but most people are not aware of the reasons why governments are decreasing their solar incentives. Central planning is really at the center of all this.

96 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 23 Jul

Part of designing good infrastructure is figuring out how many watts worth of solar can you permit given existing infrastructure; pretty much every grid connected solar installation has been permitted and approved. There will inevitably be a handful of illegal installs. But they're on a small enough scale that they aren't relevant.

If California has screwed that process up, their infrastructure is terribly designed. Most likely due to political reasons, by politicians wanting to meet solar install goals without wanting to spend the money to accommodate them.

If you are willing to spend that money, there is no technical reason why you couldn't put solar on every single roof in the nation. Oversupply conditions are a very solvable problem.

51 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 23 Jul

Yes, you are correct.

If California has screwed that process up, their infrastructure is terribly designed. Most likely due to political reasons, by politicians wanting to meet solar install goals without wanting to spend the money to accommodate them.

126 sats \ 10 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 23 Jul

A free market for energy would fix many of the issues we have.

That would prevent the overproduction problem, because the return on solar would go negative (at least during those periods) and people would disconnect. Then, at night, there would be a premium, which would cover the costs of the right amount of batteries.

It's so elegant. If only people could see it.

110 sats \ 9 replies \ @kepford 23 Jul

In a free market there would be competition for energy. You wouldn't have power generators being told when they can build power plants or how much they can charge. Almost every market in the US has a utility monopoly enforced by the government. Its not natural. Its created by force.

75 sats \ 8 replies \ @Bell_curve 23 Jul

Water, power and gas monopolies, all local

120 sats \ 7 replies \ @kepford 23 Jul

Well, some are state wide. That's pretty common.

Water is typically hyper local though.

And don't get me started on the regulation preventing hospitals to be built based on market demand. Most states have boards that are gate keepers.

WE HATE COMMUNISM! But we LOVE central planning. WE LOVE CAPITALISM! But free markets are dangerous.

When I started seeing how hypocritical the conservative movement actually is I started looking at libertarian ideas. I started seeing how minor the differences are between democrats and republicans. They are both pro central planning. Both pro taxes and big spending. They just fight for control and use different levers to gain it. Usually around moral topics. Its so clear once you divorce yourself from the red/blue grift.

The ideas many of hold are logical and can be explained very simply with reason. However they are labeled as extreme and dangerous. Its all so absurd.

21 sats \ 5 replies \ @Satosora 24 Jul

The thing that really bothers me is that you have to pay for water twice. Once to pump it in your house, and then as a sewage fee.

40 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 24 Jul

I thought most places only charged from one end or the other.

I think I’ve usually only paid the sewage charge.

view replies

96 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 23 Jul

https://m.stacker.news/41301

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 24 Jul

Unless solar energy and harvesting becomes more efficient, I also dont believe it is the silver bullet that is needed for our society.

20 sats \ 10 replies \ @Bell_curve 23 Jul

damage infrastructure

Are you referring to the house with solar or something bigger?

83 sats \ 9 replies \ @kepford 23 Jul

Referring to solar generating more electricity than the lines and transformers can handle. Houses are a part of the whole grid system. Grid operators have to ask commercial generators to shut off their systems to avoid damaging their infra.

Or they spin down their power plants. Then when people come home from work the power plants have to spin up to meet the higher demand as the solar generators drop to zero.

This is why they are pushing batteries in homes so hard. It helps offset the demand and ease the curve. But personally I would not put one of those things near my home. I would in an out building a safe distance from the house. Fire risk is real.

95 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 23 Jul

Thanks for the explanation, makes sense

41 sats \ 7 replies \ @petertodd 23 Jul

Just stick the batteries on an exterior brick wall, without anything flammable above them. Not easy to do in every house. But easy to do in a lot of houses.

A building near me has a commercial full-scale Tesla power bank (I suspect to run essential loads during power outages; they don't have any solar afaik). They just installed it at one corner of their parking lot. It's surrounded by concrete so if it ever catches fire, no big deal.

41 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 23 Jul

Exactly. But that isn't what people are doing. Not to mention parking their EV in their connected garage.

41 sats \ 4 replies \ @petertodd 23 Jul

Connected garages aren't as dangerous as you'd expect. In most places building codes already require them to have significant fireproofing between the garage and the rest of the building.

Obviously, in many cases the build will pre-date said codes, or builders will cheap out. But this isn't an unsolvable problem.

41 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford 23 Jul

I'm aware of the codes and what you are referring to. Still not good enough for me.

Have you seen an EV fire? Pretty wild thing to watch.

view replies

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 23 Jul

Asbestos prevents fires from burning down your home or any building

71 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 23 Jul

My feeling is that people will do it themselves, once it makes economic sense. I'm waiting for the major box stores to cover their roofs with solar panels, as my signal that it's economical.

118 sats \ 3 replies \ @jeff 23 Jul

I used to think exactly the same thing.

Until I installed some and sold a house with them.

99% of buyers, didn't even want to look at the numbers. And majority of vistors had a common theme to their comment.

"Those are ugly"

So it has to make economic sense AND be pretty.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 23 Jul

That's part of the appeal of Tesla Roof style solar.

I have seen studies that show a pretty big premium for solar in home sales. It might be that it's off-putting to most buyers, but it's even more appealing to a minority.

41 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 23 Jul

solar panels are ugly

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 23 Jul

I don't think so, but most seem to agree with you. Solar roofs look good, though.

63 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 23 Jul

That's my point though. It's not really economical to retrofit existing unless you are doing a roof replacement and add installing panels to the scope of the project. New build it should be a no brainer.

Maybe at some point there will be an easy to install solution. Like a bath fitter for solar on roofs. One day install click in and hook up and good to go.

71 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 23 Jul

It's location dependent, but it certainly makes more sense at that stage. Roof replacement is a similarly good time to do it. I'm hoping Musk or someone else has the next gen solar roof out before we have to replace a roof.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 24 Jul

I'm using a solar rooftop for my hould energy needs but I'm kinda aware that this isn't costing me less financially. Batteries and other required stuff for solar plant are very expensive here and they also pose risk to environment in the same way.

Lithium-ion battery packs are made with materials that are expensive, and in some cases, toxic and flammable. Primary materials include lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper. The mining of these rare materials, their manufacturing processes, and their eventual disposal all pose very real environmental challenges.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @MarsIronPI 24 Jul

Me sitting here waiting for the nanotechnology to create roads that are also solar panels

Seriously people, Eric Drexler proposed this idea in 1991. Why are we not focusing our efforts in those directions?

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 24 Jul

Probably because roads are nationalized and there's no profit motive. I'm pretty sure that's also why we tolerate so many driving related deaths.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @MarsIronPI 24 Jul

AFAICT there’d be a huge profit margin. Imagine how much the electricity generated by all those solar panels would be worth. It’d probably be enough to pay for road maintenance all by itself.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 24 Jul

I didn't say there's no profit margin, I said there's no profit incentive.

Government employees and representatives don't get paid more for doing innovative things, but they might get fired for doing something innovative that turns into a boondoggle. If we see more road privatization and relaxation of regulations, then entrepreneurs might show up and try things like this.

I doubt it would pay for road maintenance, at least not how they currently do it, which is unfathomably expensive. You also have to expect a high-tech solar road would cost even more to maintain.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Carresan 24 Jul

I have been now 18 months using solar power at home. Defined a game changer for me. I have reduced electricity bill 75%. I can only recommend it for personal use.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 24 Jul

Do you sell any of your electricity back to the grid?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Carresan 24 Jul

Yes , from May to October.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Satosora 24 Jul

I see a lot of solar fields around where I live. They arent on the rooftops, but on the land. But I wonder if that area really needs to electricity....

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 24 Jul

The concern with that is that there's not enough land that doesn't have other valuable uses to generate a meaningful amount of solar power.

That's why the "wasted" space of rooftops is so attractive.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 24 Jul

Right, and I am assuming in the bigger cities, there is a need for more electricity.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 24 Jul

I believe they can. But I don't believe that they aren't as harmful as other energy sources are!!!