This isn't supported by sales facts...it's just an opinion. My opinion (like most) would be that if I was buying two identical houses except that one had a functioning solar voltaic array, it certainly would be more valuable to me, at least after I was supplied with the energy-output figures. I rather think they're visually attractive...to say nothing about the future money saved, and the good feeling of personally being part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

Alexd
P.S. From an Article:


“In a study of home sales in eight states between 1999 and
2013, the Berkeley Lab found that a solar power system was worth about $15,000 to home buyers, or about $4 per watt. That’s a significant addition in value[.]… Just remember that solar panels could save you money every month and add value to your home, but owning the system may have the most impact and make your home even more attractive to potential buyers.”

With the increase in environmentally conscious buyers, adding a solar system to a home is also a great option for builders looking to sell an eco-friendly building.

When you purchase a solar system, the study in this article and others show on average you will make your investment back if you were to sell your home."

We all know about studies and polls. And 8 states is 16% of America. A small percentage for the home sales market. The study also doesn't codify the category of buyers likely to climb on board with solar power. I'm guessing this doesn't represent the "average" buyer. That said, I'm sure niche markets exist where a home's value would be enhanced by solar power. I know in our case, this wouldn't be true. Also implied in your response is those homes not powered by solar are somehow part of an environmental problem. Something I don't buy nor do I buy the legislation to make it so.

Ongoing maintenance of a solar array might be troublesome for certain people. Dust/dirt/grime/snow removal being a consideration. It's a big problem with remote arrays up in the mountains. Clogged panels mean reduced or no output. Efficiency is another concern. More information HERE on that. It's all about extracting the sun's energy falling per square meter. If I remember correctly, 1 kW falls on a square meter at the equator at solar noon. Where a vertical stick placed in the ground won't cast a shadow. Ideal conditions and certainly not typical. If a solar panel runs at 20% efficiency (80% wasted energy) that means 200 watts captured for that instant (less before & after that moment). Solar panels also lose efficiency as they heat up. In contrast, the efficiency of a generator is high 90%. Same for transformers. As for steam turbines, they run much better than any solar panels do. The point being is with Solar One, the sun's heat energy is used and conversion to electricity is done by much more efficient devices. And with the added bonus of being AC out of the generator.

Solar panels also produce DC not AC. Tesla and Edison battled the point about which is better. Tesla won hands down. Since we don't use DC in our homes, inverters need to come into play with their efficiency/power drawbacks. There's something called maximum power point transfer with solar panels. Panels usually need to be loaded to about 75% of their open circuit voltage to maintain maximum power transfer from the panel to downstream devices. This changes constantly with available light. Clouds, seasons, sun angle, etc. play a part. A solar controller is required to adjust the panel's loading to ensure maximum power transfer during normal and customary variations in the sun's strength. Yes it is complex but that's the nature of the beast.

I think solar is going to play an important part in electrical energy production. I'm not convinced, however, the future of solar is piece meal arrays on houses strung all over the country subsidized by government's vision of green. I think converting the sun's energy to a heat source first improves collection efficiency beyond any voltaic panels. That heat source can thus be used in a variety of ways.

Here's an example, we get a good amount of southern exposure on the front of our house. So much that during the day (clear skies) our heat won't come on. Even if it's in the teens outside. If I had to collect that energy via solar panels and convert it back to heat I'd need a hideous looking array, downstream circuity, controllers, converters, etc. The sun heats naturally and in a green way. So we are already "solar" to some extent. Air is dry here so we can use evaporative cooling to avoid running a compressor and using refrigerant. An energy savings. But that won't work in humid climates. Our place is small too. It has 6" insulation in all walls, 12" in ceiling and all windows are double glass. No cracks or leaks either. On the coldest days, a typical monthly gas bill is $30.

The point being is there are a lot of options to saving energy and producing it in more eco friendly ways. My position on solar is it's best left out of the hands of government and kept as a niche solution for those applications it works best for. A one size fits all attitude on solar isn't appropriate over the long haul.

Anyone thinking there is actually green energy out there is misinformed. All forms of energy production have a tailpipe. Some more than others, of course. What the greenies won't tell you about solar panels is arsenic, cadmium telluride, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride are just some of the chemicals used to manufacture various types of them. Now if America decided to install panels on everyone's house, what environmental impact does mass manufacturing have?? I'm all for environmentally conscience buyers but they need to see the complete and bigger picture. Just something to think about as we all try to throw our hat into the green arena.

There's too many things here that need correction or at least clarification.

If I just rephrase it...you would then agree with me that POPULATION excess is a problem...so, I'm reducing my "footprint," as part of the solution.

Yes, everything needs to be considered from start to finish (and collateral effects) as to it's economic and pollution impacts. These devices have lifetimes in excess of 30 years, dwarfing the original "costs" of manufacture.

Efficiency in Power Factor and DC to AC on-grid coupling is extremely high...numbers un-dreamed about by Tesla and Edison, with the technology of their day.

Dirty Solar panels might reduce output 1%. Rain tends to self-clean them.

Lifetime degradation is a few percent.

I agree that Solar HEATING is often very useful and cheap; I've done it two different ways previously. It's not without problems of it's own kind though.

If everyone's house was painted white, or reflective...an enormous effect would be achieved; that would be Green. However, your prior operating viewpoint of "Don't touch me Government" would include offense at that (actually, me too).

Alexd

First just pick 2 things that need correction and explain.

No one (with a brain) would argue that increases in population affect us on a global scale. We (personally) agree on this. The term "excess" is where the argument will go bad. Also how, why, where, when, how much, etc. will enlist as many opinions as mouths speaking them. Not with me but with others that think the population is fine but we're just not growing enough food. Perhaps we can just put an extra bedroom on the planet. Maybe that will come with future lunar expeditions. As for man's impact on the planet...... The planet has yet to make its long term response. No one (even experts) have any clue what this will be. My theory is infectious disease will get us long before CO2. And perhaps they are related. Who knows. I do what I can to conserve, not waste and/or junk up the planet. Let the chips fall where they may.


Tesla's first AC generating station. Still running. He's the genius that lit the world. (Ames, CO photo courtesy my archive)

The efficiency of the above equipment (circa 1905) was as good as it is today. Greenies fear not. This generator is hydro powered. CO2 = Zero.

BTW - International Rectifier put high power switching circuits on the map with their hexfet invention. HUGE. Insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs) are also HUGE in these applications. Inventions that came well beyond Edison and Tesla's time. Inverters use these semiconductors. Their efficiencies run well behind generators. As for inverters they come in 3 flavors, square wave, modified square wave and sine wave. All function differently with different efficiencies. Pure sine wave inverters are the most expensive of the three.

Dirty Solar panels might reduce output 1%. Rain tends to self-clean them. You left out snow. In my system it reduced power 100% and rain didn't clean it off. I had to go on the roof and do the job.


Not a fun job! No clean energy today.

Power factor refers to the cosine of the angle between voltage and current waveforms in AC circuits. It doesn't apply to DC or its conversion schemes. We can get into the concepts of true and apparent power if you'd like. Beyond the scope here I think.

Solar panel efficiency is well below that of AC generators, transformers and steam turbines. Heat can be the primary energy source with much greater electrical generating efficiency downstream. It's the generation of the heat (coal, nuclear, natural gas) that is of concern (for some) in power plants. If this heat source can be replaced with one producing less CO2 (like the sun) then we've made significant improvements. At least during the daytime. Nuclear is on this table providing we don't screw it up. Good track record in France and America but not Russia and Japan. Hollywood with its misguided film "The China Syndrome" effectively ended nuclear power in America from about 1972 forward.

As previously mentioned, consumer solar panel systems are DOA less subsidies. Anyone wish to hazard a guess as to why this is?

As for 30 year warranties, it will be interesting to see who collects on these. That being when the mood shifts and/or providers move onward to other profits.

Sure...but you're doing things backward: establishing a philosophy then trying to fill in "facts" to support it...rather than the other way around.



They're dying now...starvation and thirst. The beginning large-scale symptoms in the Equatorial belt.




NO...hysteresis loss, bearings...other smaller factors.
Tesla was a genius but he misinterpreted what he thought was Worldwide resonance that could be exploited. Maxwell's equations only go so far. Wave theory and propagation of electromagnetic energy was only beginning to be understood.



Yes and no. "Generators" also come in many "flavors."



That's true...and much easier on a RV (unlike my pitched roof)
Recently 5 inches fell and the subsequent weather here plummeted, causing a opaque surface. 10 days of low power (still a few Watts each day) before warming above freezing took care of things (automatically). RV and House electrical requirements differ, as do users within them. I typically use 20 KWhrs per day; I'm sure you don't even touch such a power level usage. On a good day, my array delivers nearly 60KWhrs.



Yes it does. Anything "attached" to the "Grid," better be delivering CLEAN, In SYNC waveforms. the invertor/controller must have specifications for that.



Commercial solar panels are not very efficient...but are becoming more so every year. But beyond that, once they're made they last a very long time without serious maintenance. Efficiency isn't always a big factor. There is a proposal to replace ROADS with panels that while very inefficient, would still hold up to the abuse and deliver power. Far-Fetched?; what an ARRAY that would be, across the country. Aaaaah, you just don't like Jane Fonda. And, what about the ever-increasing radioactive waste? Have you checked your area for Radon lately?



You know that nuclear plants can't be sued...don't you? Guess why?



As with anything...buyer beware. That said, if your break-even point is 6-7 years or so...it's a moot point.

Alexd

They don't have to look ugly. Solar shingles can look just fine:



I'm buying a 10-year old house next month, and considering installing Tesla shingles on the south facing roof in a few years.

Interesting. I gather the above is a computer generated concept rendering?

It's interesting how Tesla's name pops up as a marketing device with DC based systems. The Tesla battery powered car and now shingles, for example. Tesla gave the world the AC induction motor and transformer (AC). And also our AC powered generating and transmission systems. Edison, an advocate of DC systems, was a bitter rival of Tesla. Tesla, of course, won out with his AC designs. But few know of this history.

Free choices are good and facts help us make the best ones for our lifestyle. I don't much care for the government telling me I need to pay for someone else's solar panels. Nuclear, resonance, local radon (OK BTW), lawsuits, etc. off point. Nothing wrong with making an assumption and working facts in to support it (or test its validity). Nothing wrong with establishing facts and making a conclusion from them. Not sure who sets the rules of sequence here. And that one is better than the other. Here's a few "facts" to consider.

1) The photo of the Ames generating station shows a small hydro plant that is very much representative of how one form of energy is converted to electricity and transmitted to the consumption point. The AC generator's basic design shown in the photo is still used today. The transformers used there are also what's used today. Very little has changed. Bearing losses, hysteresis, eddy currents, etc. are cherry picks off point.

2) The efficiency of that old equipment to including a 10% estimated transmission loss is well above any solar panel, controller and inverter scheme. Plus 3 phase power is available at the generator terminals. An important factor when large amounts of power need to be delivered over a distance.

3) Generators, transformers, turbines and transmission wires don't emit CO2. It's the CO2 byproduct (burning gas & coal) of the heat source that is of concern in power plants. Not a factor in nuclear, hydro, geothermal or tidal. Those have other issues. If that heat source can be replaced with one emitting less CO2, that's an improvement.

4) The "old fashioned" generating equipment is very efficient, reliable and cost effective. Has a proven track record too. Can be used equally well in solar, nuclear and hydro power generation systems.

5) Solar is and will continue to be a part of supplying the world's growing energy needs. Whether this is best accomplished by single consumer voltaic home systems, a centralized approach like Solar One or both remains to be seen.

6) Currently government subsidies are required to make consumer solar systems affordable and competitive with traditional forms of electricity.

7) Solar panels must be installed on roofs in those areas where property isn't available around the building. Roof exposure other than south facing will reduce capture.

8) Solar tracking mechanisms aren't practical for home roof installations. They are practical for mirrors like those used in Solar One.

9) Sunlight needs to fall on a solar panel at right angles for maximum collection. A difficult/expensive problem to solve daily and seasonally.

10) Solar doesn't work at night so some supplemental power source will always be required. Or storage device to cover demand when the sun isn't shining. Or on heavily overcast days when output is below demand.

10) Green energy is a myth. All forms of it have some sort of environmental impacts. It's important we know what these are over the short and long terms. Also how these impacts are affected by demand(s).

No one here is going to change anyone's mind. You're invested in a home solar system and believe in its benefits. Your choice. And I'm glad these options are available to those wanting to buy into the technology.

My beef is when the government steps in and tells me I need to pay for it. Forcing money out of my wallet to support a solution I don't believe in. Yes, I think solar can be used to reduce CO2. I just don't buy into the piece meal home array approach as practical for me. I prefer a centralized approach like Solar One less the voltaic panels.

I also have environmental concerns about mass production of solar panels. Given arsenic, cadmium telluride, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride are just some of the chemicals used to manufacture various types of them. But if they are made in China I guess that's OK. That part of the globe doesn't affect us.

I also find environmental pressure groups lobbying Washington with THEIR better way(s) both arrogant and misguided. That's fine up until they start climbing around in my wallet. A line is then crossed. If people want a solar system and believe in its benefits, just pay for it. Very simple. If it truly has value and is competitive then others will follow the lead by choice not force. I also don't think forcing the power companies to buy the energy back is a good idea.

As for Tesla's later years, he did do experiments with transmitting power through the air. It created many concerns and didn't lead to any practical "through the air" power transmission systems. This point has nothing to do with the AC power inventions he gave the world which are still in global use today. Some good did come out his eccentric work, however. See below:

A patent battle between Tesla and Marconi went on for years. Marconi died in 1937. Tesla died in 1943 and six months after his death the US Supreme Court ruled that all of Marconi’s radio patents were invalid and awarded the patents for radio to Tesla.

Tesla's story is a sad one. Few remember him and many don't even know his name. He died penniless in his NYC hotel and it took 3 days to discover the body. Certainly an unfitting end to a man that gave the world such great contributions. Every time you plug something into an AC outlet, remember Tesla's inventions made that possible.

No argument from me on that one. It's one of the things that annoys me about self-righteous Leaf and Prius drivers, among others. Where do they think the electricity that powers their cars came from? Not to mention the ancillary environmental costs of motors that require rare earth elements, lithium mining, etc. Opposition to nuclear energy is especially driven by a lack of understanding of basic science.

Everything has a cost. But, having ridden through Wyoming last summer, I saw what a scar strip mining leaves on the earth, not to mention the mile long coal trains.

As Pogo once said:

Why do otherwise reasonable people doubt science? Today all manner of scientifically supported knowledge, from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change, faces furious opposition. Doubters select favorite sources of false information and use these to empower their own private interpretations of peer reviewed scientific research, declaring war on science as if their views trump all else.

There are so many of these controversies these days that you’d think there had to be something in the water making people argumentative. There’s a constant stream of talk about this in books, articles, and academic conferences. Doubting scientific research and the scientific method has become a pop culture occupation.

In the movie 'Interstellar', set in a futuristic, downtrodden America where NASA has been forced into hiding, school kids are taught that the Apollo moon landings were faked, a pseudoscience hot topic in our day and age.

This isn't surprising. Life today is impacted by science and technology as never before. For many this new world is wondrous, comfortable, rich in rewards. For others it's way more complicated and unnerving than they can deal with, filled with risks they can't begin to grasp.

Most believe, for example, that GMO foods are safe to eat. Experts we've come to trust point out there’s no scientific evidence that it isn’t safe, and no reason to believe that altering genes in a precise manner in a lab is any more a risk than altering genes through traditional breeding programs.

Nevertheless the idea of modifying genes for specific purposes still conjures up images of 'Mad scientists running amok'. So, two centuries after Mary Shelley wrote 'Frankenstein', people talk about 'Frankenfood' as though that label conveyed real meaning.

We're faced with a world of real and imaginary threats. Distinguishing one from the other isn’t easy. We have to decide what to believe and how to act on it. That’s where science comes in. It provides insight and guidance as we separate fact from fiction, encouraging us to act accordingly.

Geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who headed the U.S. Geological Survey and is now the editor of the prestigious journal 'Science', says that "Science is not a body of facts. Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not."

Unfortunately the powerful logic behind the scientific method doesn’t come naturally to many. These find themselves constantly running into trouble with the belief choices they make and the way they act those choices out, simply because their choices are other than reality based.