Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
‘If 1.5m Germans have them there must be something in it’
Yep, an impressive marketing campaign.
Honestly, I'm not saying they are bad. Depends on location and angle.
But the tittle is total rubbish.
30% locally generated solar power is good.
Agreed.
As I say, it's just the idea of 1.5m can't be wrong that is wrong. More so coming from a newspaper that depends on the success of marketing for its revenue.
Approx 2% of a population can definitely be sold a crock of shit if the marketing is good. Just look at the numbers who voted Trump in the US or Reform in the UK.
Honestly, if solar Balconies produced 30% of the nations' electricity, then it would be very impressive.
But while Germany producing 54% clean energy is bloody impressive. Honestly, 30% is likely to be solar as a whole, not just balcony solar.
The number of locations where the low sun would be inline to balconies is limited. Due to urban conditions. Mainly only higher flats over the average city line and rural areas.
And while in those higher or rural flats. The low sun may shine the correct way 30% of the day (if the panels can tilt). For that to generate 30% of the flats use over a whole year. Would take a pretty big balcony. The best panels available commercially nowadays are <300w per m2. So most balconies would have 600 to 1200w max. The whole side of the flat would likely be 4x to 6x times that.
I'd guess it's still worth doing. (def the whole side of the building thing) Mainly because the panels are so freaking cheap atm. It's the cost of bats and volt/current/charge management that would be the greatest cost part. But for most users. 30% from balcony alone is not realistic.
Belgium, which outlawed plug-in solar devices over fears of having unregistered systems feeding into the grid, will lift its ban.
Why the fuck is that a fear?!?
Because back feeding the grid means the power company can’t shut the power down to work on a line. It requires coordinating everyone that might have something like this to unplug it. Rooftop installations add controllers to only supply when grid power is on, or to disconnect the house from the grid. Same thing when you add a generator inlet you’re supposed to also add a grid disconnect.
it’s for the safety of people working on the grid. solar panels in general have either to be isolated from the grid or disconnect if the grid is down. they are not allowed to spill into the grid if the grid has no power.
I dont understand. These people can just install more switches to solve this problem, right?
We were just dumb before and thought power was unidirectional. Now we have evolved into a decentralized grid. So we just need to add another switch to cut off power coming out of every room, building, etc. Right?
That seems like the obvious long-term, safest solution.
We have regulations here in Germany (EU wide even if I am not mistaken). The solar inverters used are required to shut off within I think 200ms of the 50hz grid power going down. The inverters sold here can't output anything without grid power being detected on the AC output.
Why is everyone in this thread making assumptions and spreading fear instead of actually looking up how it works?
And in addition to them backfeeding into the grid , they bypass all the fuses and GFCI protections your house might have and effectively require the use of a suicide cord. That part of a plug should never be providing power, only using it.
“The beauty of the solar balconies is they are flexible, cheap and plug straight into the domestic network via a converter,
How the fuck does that work??
they have a “micro inverter” you literally just plug them into a socket in your house.
that's so dangerous...
why? they put around 600w max. there are plenty of appliances in a home that put a higher load than that.
because they backfeed into the grid, and because that means you have live male plugs.
they are not live. before they feed the grid they need to synchronize to the grid’s phase
-they detect AC from the grid
-they sync the phase to it
-start feeding
That's so cool!
the panels could pay for themselves within six years.
Hard pass. I don’t trust it will work in 6 years. So, it’s not really an investment.
Average solar panels are warrantied to give 100% power for 25 years. After that, they still work but at roughly an 80% rate, with a small fall off each year.
A 6 year payoff is an excellent investment. I'd gladly hang something with zero negatives on a balcony that just made me money for the rest of my life.
They don't drop from 100% to 80% year 26. It's a gradual but accelerating slide, with 80% still warranted at the end of the timeframe.
That doesn't make PV a bad investment; overselling it puts people in the sceptic camp, though, which is what we're seeing in this thread.
Its a general estimate of viability, yes. I did point out that panels drop off a bit every year, but it looks like that wasn't clear if you feel like it needs a correction.
Every comment in here when I posted was skeptical about solar, with no stated reason. I added some general data about actual panels. If you want to add more up to date info, please do.
To be clear, I'm only wanting to clarify because I already live off solar. As such, I find it important to provide the correct information about expected panel longevity in general ... getting into the weeds about things like panel type and brand tend to make people's eyes glaze over while already skeptics, which doesn't sell a lot of people on the virtues.
The important takeaway is, yes, this is mature tech that continues to evolve. There's going to be loss each year, as there will be with LFP, so both can de viewed as depreciating assets when ignoring the cost savings accrued over time; however, price trends with both technologies suggest (thus far) that picking up an extra 25% of capacity in 20 years is not only doable but will actually lower the lifetime kWh cost of the system.
The real ongoing cost by then is going to be a few inverters.
Solar panels have been out for a long time, they definitely last more than 6 years. You can easily look this up.
The warranties are usually 25 years at this point.
Maybe do some research instead of using your feelings to make every decision, you'll get a better result.
The investment is the number of less people that will die in the climate catastrophe. Stop looking at just the $$. That's insane.
If you think this is going to help climate change at all, then you have been seriously made led by corporations trying to sell you shitty solar panels. insane is that you think a solar panel will have any microscopic impact.
1.5 m Germans using them definitely has an impact. It doesn't solve the climate crisis on its own obviously but you can say that about any and all measures combating climate change
There is no impact. The technology just isn’t there yet. Mostly because it’s being held back by oil companies.
So, on one hand, if it becomes a profitable business, maybe it will get more support.
But on the other hand, this is just filling landfills with more junk that is designed to sell, not be a solution.
There is no impact. The technology just isn’t there yet. Mostly because it’s being held back by oil companies.
Okay, I need a citation on that. How does big oil control solar panel technology?
you've been having a minor meltdown throughout this thread to anybody who asks you basic follow-up questions. take three days off and stop it
I.can't speak for these devices but rooftop solar is known to be pretty reliable. Our system is nearly 8 years old with zero - and I mean zero maintenance. We really should get the dust blown out of the inverter.
Do you expect a fridge to work in six years? Seems you're applying an unreasonable standard to solar in a vacuum.
Do you expect a fridge to work in six years?
Yes, I expect household appliances to last at least a decade. My current fridge is from 2004, and whilst it will probably need replacing soon, 20 years is not an unreasonable run.
Honestly, it depends on what you spend. Many high-end fridges in Europe come with 10 year manufacturer's warrantee. And EU law requires manufacturers to provide parts for 10 years on such goods. So honestly yeah.
That said, cheaper ones tend to make it past 5 (mine is 8 years old) without maintenance. And if I had to replace it 3 times in 10 years, it would still be cheaper than getting the expensive ones. (worse for the environment)
As for solar panels. I am about to replace the one on my boat. It is well over 5 years old and still works. I'm replacing it because I can get 2 410w huge panels for way less than the 100w one cost the past boat owner.
6 years really is nothing for a solar panel. My new ones came with a 20-year warrantee. (something like 85% after 20 year). High-end ones are better.
The 2 MPPTs are likely to need replacing first. But again, 6 years may be well beyond their warrantee. But is reasonable to expect. The lifepo4 battery should just manage 10 years. Before losing significant storage. But that is with the BMS set to keep them from 10-90% charge.
So no, 6 years is a very reasonable time to expect from solar.
EDIT: In a house setup. It is the inverter that is most likely to need replacing. But again, 6 years is more than likely for a quality one.
On my boat, the vast majority of the equipment is 12v, as it's just more efficient. But the cheap (very) Chinese inverter did not last a year. So yeah they can be cheap crap if you don't get good ones. But we don't really use it much. So haven't bother replacing it yet. Will do so this summer.
We agree for the most part ... people unaware of how an off-grid DC setup operates fixate on the parts least likely to fail (that was me, as well, when I first started looking into things). MPPT, fuse panels and various step converters should be the anticipated replacements. They're inexpensive compared to wholesale PV and LFP upgrades.