I installed 42 solar panels, but before doing that I switch all energy uses to electric, including transportation. Now I have no gas or electric bill and buy no gasoline. Currently I have a $200 credit on my electric bill, but that my run down to a small bill during winter. Some months I sent over 1,000 kWh back to the grid on a net basis and that is with all of my car charging at home. It's amazing how much energy is available from the some. Only a very small part of my standard size lot is used for solar and that's at less then 20% panel efficiency.
@@always.elevate i guess different places receive ammount of sunlight, less daytime means less energy means longer payback time. At where I live, I receive 6.8191780822 hours of sunlight per day on average.
My 6.8 kW Monocrystalline system cost me approximately NZ$10,000, and about 1,500 of that was getting the electrical certification to connect into the grid. That was 5 years ago. It's already paid for itself. And I've been collecting additional good panels from an industrial upgrade (5 year old Monocrystalline ones) at NZ$0.50 / W. I now have an additional 1 kW simply connected to heater elements in the house for winter, and I'll be adding another kW to the grid shortly.
In India, 1 KW solar installation costs about 1400 USD (Without Subsidy) and the payback period is usually 6-7 years even with our very cheap electricity tariff which is flat throughout the day. If you buy everything(batteries, panels and structure) separately it will cost less than 1000 USD.
Great video! I live in Québec and our electricity is 99% hydro generated does it make a difference on my carbon footprint to go from hydro to solar? I guess that if i consume less power from de grid they can sell more energy to places that uses less clean energy production.
Yeah that, and maybe also consider the non-co2 emitting impact. Hydro is great, but has a MASSIVE ecological impact on the river ecosystem you put the dam in, it can be dampened, but there's no way around that river having much less water for a portion of its length. With solar you have to consider energy cost in producing the panels, and possible pollution by improper disposal (some panels have NASTY stuff inside them in order to work) So... it's complicated. If you do go solar make sure to dispose of the panels correctly once their operating lifespan runs out
Yes Converting to solar would indeed reduce your carbon imprint. Hydropower comes with steep environmental, and ecological costs and moreover has been shown to not carbon neutral as it creates conditions for anaerobic respiration which produces methane instead of CO2 a stronger greenhouse gas per carbon atom (i.e. decomposition of carbon based matter is per atom going into Methane CH4 instead of Carbon dioxide If this per atom effect is accounted for then Hydropower accounts for 1.3% of total anthropogenic emissions. www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/06/hydropower-hydroelectricity-methane-clean-climate-change-study earthjustice.org/blog/2014-december/coming-clean-hydropower-s-dirty-energy-secrets
SOLAR LEASE! How’d you leave that out? My 3.2kW array (16 panels) didn’t cost me a penny upfront. My monthly cost + tiny electric bill (additionally discounted the net energy I supply to the grid, albeit at commercial rate) means I’m spending about the same as I was before, I’m converting more photons to electrical energy than I use, and using virtually carbon free energy as well as supplying daily surpluses to the grid. My system would’ve cost $16k when I got it 7 yrs ago, and I know prices have come down a lot-the $20k you quoted seems pretty high as an average for home rooftop solar installations.
We don't have alternatives to energy based on simple logic. It's based on subsidies. Wind turbines spin because of subsidies not because of wind. We get Solar energy not because of the sun but because of subsidies. Building a solar and wind power plant creates more emmisions than you save.
What is the carbon footprint of manufacturing solar panels? The silicon wafers are purified by keeping them molten for days at a time until impurities separate. Maybe the payoff over the lifetime of the solar panel is worth it, maybe not. I would be interested to see some numbers
Why don't you look at numbers of fossils first? How many deaths per year from pollution/mining, how many burst pipelines/wrecked ships/Trucks, energy consumption in refining/logistics and yes carbon footprint.
Looking at a column in my university newspaper the manufacture of a square meter of solar panels costs 250 kWh and produces 100 kWh per year. Those numbers are probably estimates. If you use an other power source to supply your home, you will use those 100 kWh every year. How much CO2 is used during the manufacture is dependant on the source of the energy. Melting silicon is usually done with electricity. However, reducing the energy footprint will in turn reduce the carbon footprint. When looking at it with regards to energy use or carbon footprint then solar panels or other renewables are without a doubt the way to go. It's only the costs that are holding it back. (article in dutch: www.delta.tudelft.nl/article/column-kilowattuur-de-nieuwe-bitcoin)
I was hoping to see something about Homeowner's Associations and even local governments' overly burdensome restrictions on solar. That's the reason I had to remove my solar!
It has historically proven the more the human forms a bigger community the better the welfare of humans happens, Same for the electricity, I hope for the best for the humans that one day will come when nobody would kill anybody.
The problem is that the solar energy is not costant, in this moment it is impossible to produce all or a lot of elettricity whit sun, because during night or winter there isn't the same productivity that during the day or in summer. It is important to remember this, it is necessary more types of renewable energy or an accumulation sistem of energy.
the goal is clean energy, renewable does not always mean clean or environmentally friendly. likewise, clean does not always mean renewable. whale industry was "renewable", but it was an environmental disaster. similarly, a lot of bio-fuels are environmental disaster as well, even though they are renewable. some of this fuel is imported from huge fields of cleared rain forest and other important ecosystems. even in other places, the farming of the plant is not really environmentally friendly. and in general, cutting trees is a terrible idea, forest are carbon sinks and must stay. and the huge bio-fuel fields should be used for more important tasks our goal must be 100% clean energy (more than just electricity). this includes hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind and solar.
Surely it is important that the energy is clean and not only renewable. A speak about elettricity because it is the argument of the video, speaking about energy there are a lots of things to say, but my intention was to remember that is impossible to think to use only solar energy and invest only in this type of energy, like I see in last few years.
Hot Mess, I don’t hate Solar. Have thought of it. But it has a huge problem. Check my numbers here and see if I’m wrong. The real fatal flaw of Solar energy and other renewables isn’t storage. It’s the environmental impact. This may sound crazy to you, but hear me out. Environmental care is more than just CO2. Mankind Best minimizes his impact on the world by minimizing his footprint on the world. Not by covering the land with more solar panels. That’s the basic idea in what follows if you wanna skip the numbers. But the numbers show the scale so please read on even though it’s kinda long. I see all kinds of videos on you tube and websites online that try to show a very rosy picture of Solar panels or wind being able to meet our demands with relatively small amounts of land usage. They usually are way off for 2 reasons. One, they assume only converting our electricity sector which isn’t nearly enough when you consider we need to decarbonize our entire energy sector(comprising electricity, transportation, and industrial and home heating) at about 3 times the size of electricity alone. And two, they usually don’t account for the intermittent nature of renewables and the multiplication required for “capacity factor”. To see the numbers, let’s focus on solar and just the US. Typically videos use this faulty math to show an area for US energy needs of something that looks about the size of New Jersey or Massachusetts for Solar. Elon is even one of the culprits when he estimated an area of 10k square miles. How big really? The US used 100 quad BTUs of primary energy in 2019 according to the EIA. Convert that to gigawatt hours. That’s more than 29 million. Divide that by 365 days and then 24 hours to get the average constant gigawatt power rate of more than 3300. How much land is a gigawatt of peak solar you ask? Different numbers but somewhere between 7 and 15 square miles per gigawatt. The Pavagada plant in India is the largest and one of the newest plants out there and it uses a little over 10 square miles per gigawatt so let’s go in the middle for easy math with 10. So 3300 gigawatts times 10... more than 33,000 square miles!! Almost Half the size of Utah or Arizona. But wait, there’s more. Solar only works part of the day. You have to calculate that in with that capacity factor I spoke of earlier. In the US, average capacity factor is 24.7%. Be nice and round up to 25. So you need to multiply your area by 4 times to account for capacity factor of only being on 25% of the time. Now that area is more than 130,000 square miles!!!! That’s bigger than Utah. That’s bigger than Arizona. That’s almost as large as New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia combined! It’s about half the size of Texas! Have you ever driven across Texas? And I rounded in favor of Solar multiple times here. Oh, and that’s just primary energy! This doesn’t account for the energy we consume in the form of manufactured goods using the energy produced in other countries since we are a net importer. Just imagine the natural environment displaced by this stupidity. Currently the US has 106,000 square miles of Urban land. We would more than double that area to go fully solar!!! What a joke! And I haven’t even touched the cost or the other elephant in the room we already spoke about of the energy storage that would be required. Purely on cost, this may even be more cumbersome. Another video looked at the entire world’s energy needs and estimated an area the size of Spain. They started with a total worldwide energy usage of something like 670 quads estimated in the future. Currently the world is somewhere closer to 600. If you do similar math to what I did above, the area required isn’t the size of Spain. It’s almost 5 times the size of Spain! What portion of the US are we going to cover with half of Texas? What part of the World can we afford to carpet with 5 Spains worth of solar panels? A world who’s energy demand by some other projections may double in the near future. What portion of the environment are we ok with destroying to build such monstrous amounts of solar farms? I’m not anti Solar or renewables. I think they have a place. Really, I think they are great! They just aren’t nearly “great” enough. So what is? Nuclear is the best option for us. It is precisely because it is dense. Precisely because it has the least environmental footprint. Please look into these numbers. I challenge you to see if they aren’t correct in essence. We might squabble a bit on some of the numbers but in general, the scale is correct. I ask you to research and support a complete solution that recognizes the critical and central role of Nuclear in our future. Looking forward to your response.
Sadly I am missing one point here. You are more or less only focussing on the psitive free energy effect of running and well maintained solar cells. It costs a lot of evergy and a lot of resources which are beeing mined under environmentally unhealthy practices, mostly in china. After all, a solar cell requires refining silicone, mining rare earths like gallium and lots of glass and steel. Also, after an estimates lifespan of 15-25 years, the failure rate of solar cells rises and recycling these cells isn't cheap nor clean either. Sadly I am not sure if modern production leads to a net gain or net loss in emissions if you factor in the whole lifetime of a solar cell as my knowledge is outdated by ~5 year. Maybe you could make a video comparing the footprints and side effects of different renewable energy sources e.g. solar, wind, water, tidal waves or mirror power plants.
Actually modern solar cells do not require almost anything of that, that's precisely why they are cheaper by the day. IF instead of leaving the whole business of solar installation/maintenance to homeowners, it'd be managed by utilities, as happens in Germany, then it'd be much easier to install and maintain and people would only pay monthly fees (or even get paid if they provide enough space for solar panels).
The idea of using an otherwise perfectly good field just to fill it with solar panels is horrible to me. What a waste of space. Surely there's enough roof surface to supply that need.
My words. Fucks me up as well. So many roofs of industrial buildings or malls or whatever could be used for solar....but no. They put it on fields that could be used otherwise.
DoubleCrossed Swine, hence my qualification of 'an otherwise perfectly good field'. Cover the entire Saharan desert with solar panels and supply power for the whole world for all I care. Just don't put them in fields that could be used to grow food or some other useful purpose.
installing a small modular reactor would be a far better choice than "shared solar" or any similar scheme. once installed, they can provide 24/7 cheap, reliable, clean and abundant electricity for any small community.
actually many different companies entered very late stages of development, some experts think we'll see them on the market within the decade. may be the most promising is IMSR from Terrestrial, it entered the last stage of pre-licensing vendor review. their reactors can enter the market in 20s
nuclear has come a really long way, there has been a lot of development in last two decades. the market is already changing and will change way more in the upcoming decade.
To all the nuclear fanboys hating on solar in these comments...why? Nuclear and solar can and should be used in in tandem to address climate change. This winner take all talking point war between nuclear and renewables needs to end. This is the opinion of some of the most well respected energy wonks and climate bodies on that matter, we need an all of the above approach. It is a 10 trillion dollar energy game, more than enough for all the energy players we can think of. Just make policies that support low CO2 and let people and markets make their choices.
In some countries in Europe nuclear energy is attacked by "green" parties. They have a huge fear it's gonna explode for one reason or another, and they wanna close all nuclear plants and switch to 100% renewable no matter what. However nuclear fanboys don't wanna pay for that and they definitely don't want more CO2 either. This is just like a political clusterfuck.
I hear that "argument?" all too often, when it doesn't need to even be an issue. I suppose creating a universal system that can accept all forms of electricity would mean there is no job security for power companies, when individuals no longer need to buy power from public sources. I can see that being an issue if their lives are codependent on others & depend on money to survive. Self reliance can hurt the economy, but it will save the planet; what's more important?
Ya, Vince, I understand why this backlash evolved, it just needs to go away. Instead of returning fire, nuclear supporters should still continue to attempt to build bridges with their, for now, hostile stake holders. Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, as the saying goes. I am not sure I understand what you are getting at, Michael, though. I am not sure if self reliance will be a huge part of the energy equation or not, and the changing role of energy companies is complicated...I have no horse in that race :D
Nuclear is poisonous and there is just not enough uranium on Earth to power even a tiny fraction of what would be needed to provide the world of energy, never mind comissioning and decomissioning all those nuclear reactors every 20 years or so (they degrade fast). Nuclear is part of the problem, not of the solution.
@@LuisAldamiz Every scientific body that deals in energy and climate disagrees with that assessment, including the IPCC, the IEA and NREL. Plus, most reactors have lasted over 60 years, so basically every talking point here is incorrect and not the scientific consensus as we have enough uranium to last millennia. Nuclear is as clean as renewables, as most of the studies that have looked into the externalities of energy note, most recently the UN commissioned study from ExternE. Basically, it is talking points like this that make nuclear people frustrated...when you ignore the science when it disagrees you and listen to it when it does.
Step 1: remove tariffs. Chinese solar panels are way cheaper then american solar panels. Step 2: stop letting the power companies make laws that stop you from connecting your panels to the grid Step 3: loads of tax incentives Step 4: implement a carbon tax
And that carbon tax will be used for whom, as if it will really reverse global warming, lofl. It'd only accelerate the use of FFs at night. I believe the ONLY way to reduce the ppm CO2 is to employ MORE energy for things like awesome future cities, space programs, desalination plants - that water entire deserts, cycle the air through CO2 scrubbers, you know, and power to build the clean energy infra, oh, and power up the rest of the world! That means loads of tax incentives for some best version of the molten salt reactor which shall back solar and wind and _finally, after decades of wasted time_ replace FFs.
@@fireofenergy IMHO the money from a Carbon tax should go towards fixing the problem. It should be used to subsidize renewable energy production as well as upgrading and constructing new nuclear power plants. Fossil fuels are not the way of the future. Even if we do capture every last emision (which would be basically impossible and completely uneconomical) we will still run out of fossil fuels in 1 or 2 centuries. The way I see it, we should switch base load power over to nuclear until renewables take over fully. Unlike fossil fuels, we have more than enough Uranium and Thorium that can be used to generate power. Some new types of reactors can even run off unrefined nuclear fuel while others can run on nuclear waste.
What about this thing which I think is called "solar lease"? You don't have to pay any money for the solar energy system install on your roof at all but instead you have to pay a monthly ammount (normally cheaper than grid energy). If it's cheap, I still don't get it why isn't anyone using it. The only drawback is you don't own the solar panel. But personally I payed for the entire system, about to install a solar energy system on my home in the next few months.
@@BartJBols it said here that you can save 10% to 30% on your electric bill using leasing www.energysage.com/solar/financing/solar-leases-and-solar-ppas/
Bart Bols Solar energy isn’t expensive, it’s capital intensive. If you can break even in 10 years (I can in Wisconsin) and get a solar panel warranty for 20 years (very common) then you end up with electricity that’s cheaper than grid energy. Except for the fact that all of the costs you pay for the day you pay to installer, instead of over the lifetime of the system. But a solar lease does allow you to pay for a system over the lifetime of the system. The only possible downside is that you do pay a little bit more to the leasing company for the use of their capital. Meaning leasing is more expensive than outright purchasing, but still cheaper than grid electricity.
To all those who are saying solar is not a good option , consider this that panel production might become more environment friendly through the never ending innovation and the same can be said about batteries. We cannot yet conclude that solar is not good .
I'm one of those, kinda, because you need about the inverse of its capacity factor and storage for _the world_ to stop using fossil fuels. So, I get "all molten salt nucleary" because it'd use less land, too. However, I come here to refresh my thoughts and see that, with solar (and wind) alone, we still _might be able to_ do all of the following: Power newly developing countries up to American standards. Make it possible for all countries to have the power needed to have space programs (without using methane reforming). Make it possible to desalinate enough water to water (almost) entire deserts, continuously, for extra crops and their natural CO2 sequestration. Make possible awesome 3d cities of the future! Will it? How much land required for solar (and storage) needed just for the world's health care programs? We need LOTS MORE ENERGY and if it's going to come from the diffuse and intermittent, then it had better cover a few percent of the land (it even has to build itself and storage and its recycle). Wouldn't we absolutely need a global grid (to best distribute across hemispheres, too, so that we wouldn't need so much storage)? But nuclear is soooo nasty... even molten salt nuclear, kinda. Here's more about the MSR, though. www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx
@@fireofenergy ok but what I advocate is that solar together with wind , hydro and geothermal can make fulfill the demand . See we need to not only increase generation but also decrease our consumption using smart devices . Optimising from both sides can help.
@@sascha5858 yeah exactly everything has some or the other adverse effects on the environment. But we should choose that resource which is the cleanest and more abundant.
Eventually, "fossil footprint" will be an obsolete word. But we still need to know the energy inputs required for all the (clean) energy sources. This is assuming battery powered "everything". However, we can become only so efficient because we can't break the laws of physics, i.e, 1.02 kWh is required to lift an acre foot of water 1 foot up (at 100% eff), rockets require tremendous amounts of energy, etc.
I put in 6.8kW myself - cost me approximately NZ$10,000 (panels from China, mounting brackets, 2 grid-tie inverters, and the most expensive: electrical certification). Eliminated my electric bill. Did it without any government programs. It paid for itself over the past 5 years, and it's basically free energy going forward. Had government been involved, it probably would have cost twice as much.
After watching this I spend like an hour or so to find out how I as a person with minimal income could be able to invest in renewable energy via crowdfunding or other means :D
I think it's great that a lot of affordable housing is being built with solar cells or solar heating already installed. Unfortunately it can have unforeseen negative consequences: for example in Cape Town, all new affordable housing designed to help people move out of townships are being built with Solar heating tank on the roof. This has meant that solar power and solar heating now has a bad image as something "only poor people have" and private take up of solar has declined. Hopefully we can still get the word out that solar is for everyone NO MATTER what your your background/income is
The ONLY policy that would force utilities to invest in and produce renewable energy are feed-in tariffs. This means you should be fighting for this policy in your municipality or state. All other polices will not make a significant difference to renewable energy investments except for economy of scale but that will not happen fast enough. Outside of wide policy changes if you have the money buy solar panels for your roof otherwise microgrids among households or add solar energy to your housing complex through what ever governance they have. In some circumstances like if your utility is a cooperative being a participating member and investing in renewable would be better. Thats about it sadly. Solar power purchase agreements or solar grid markets are doomed because the utility has no incentive to invest in solar energy. Effectively the customer pays the premium of investment while getting no benefits to economy of scale. In abcence of any other other polices this could help solar startups who are ALSO getting tax breaks or other incentives break into the market but it doesn't actually encourage investment. While Renewable Energy Certificates could encourage investment if enough customers bought them they also provide a way utilities can avoid costly investments by offloading to another state or municipality that has lower standards which means RECs only work if efficiency standards are universal and they are not. We need the entire industry to make across the board changes and RECs do the opposite. They make the transition smoother for investors but they don't actually provide an incentive on their own.
Ideally all the extra electricity produced in an area or country would be converted in hydrolisis hydrogen, then burnt in clean thermal power plants emitting only water as residue. The conversion ratio is low however but it could be done with enough political will, so a combo of solar, wind and other renewables (hydro, tidal, waves) with such storage systems would be fully autonomous and prescind 100% from fossil or any other type of dirty fuels like biomass or nuclear.
Look, I love solar. But I hate solar gardens. Seriously why should you install solar panels in nature when there is huge amount of space on roofs of industrial buildings and so on? You should first install it there, we dont need to put that impact into nature. I know it might seem like a little thing and quite unimportant, but when you think about it this is just crazy and stupid. It really fucks me up. Also, as I'm informed many solar installments pay back in less than 20, maybe even less than 10 years. Sometimes you have to add storage but it actually makes sense today already. And why didnt you mention leasing solar panels? Also a great opportunity^^ Still good video...
I bought 18x 270W (5kW) solar PV system last year and installed it on my roof, myself. I watched a few UA-cam videos and just did it, it was pretty easy. Total cost: $5k and my payback is: 2.5 years. My power bill is: $0. I suggest everyone do this. You need to buy your solar panels, inverter and racking from a distributor, to get the wholesale price. A local solar installer will double the price then more than double it again, to install the panels, which takes about 4-6 hours to do. No need to throw your money away, install them for free.
My 8kw array cost $29000. I got multiple bids for it. After federal credit, state tax savings, power generation savings, and a power company rebate, I will break even on year 8. It only made sense because my home was just built and I plan to live here the rest of my life as long as I can. If you take away the government funded rebates I would never break even and solar would be totally pointless.
One thing which is unacceptable is those places which are abundant in sunshine and wind are still using the coal powered electricity, I think it should be mandatory for every arid region to install solar panels.
Could someone maybe explain the down loan option to me on the link they give? It says 0$ out of pocket, so what exactly am I giving or paying back for it?
Just installed 4 solar efficiant panels(what´s needed for my energy consumption). My current daily energy consumption is 5.1-5.2 Kws. It cost me $1,660 Dls for the equipment & installation(my nephew gave me a discount). Normal price with installation was $2,333 Dls. They have a 25 year guarantee against defects & will amortize itself in 6 years(current consuption). Now looking at the possiblity of an electric car. Only requires 2 additional panels. I also installed a solar boiler in Feb 2017. It paid itself off 15 months & 0% carbon emissions(no need to turn on the gas boiler any more & water comes out almost boiling). I did it because I want to reduce my carbon footprint & help in not being part of the problem.
This only talks about photovoltaic solar panels, but what about water heating solar panels, for your shower or maybe home heating? Also I think some kind of photovoltaic and water heating systems already exists.
My city's power co-op (College Station Utilities) allows its customers to buy wind power instead of conventional power for a little more on the power bill.
It's not meant to be used on it's own, it is too unstable for that, it would supplement turbine power plants (ideally nuclear, hydroelectric or geothermal depending on geography)
our primary goal is combating climate change, it is decarbonization of energy, not just electricity. we have no luxury but to include all clean options. that means hydro, geothermal, nuclear, wind and solar. insisting on a single type won't work, we can't play favorites. we must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each type and use them properly to create the best clean energy sector we can
Well it's not safer but it's safer than most people think I guess. It's sort of cheaper at the moment. The biggest problem to use nuclear as the main way to mitigate climate change, for one is you cannot deal with serges on the electrical grid. Another problem is nuclear power plants take an immense amount of time to build (remember planning, objections etc) and it would actually take longer to build those nuclear power stations than the time for climate change to get above the 2 degree threshold and you would not be close to finishing.
@@LiveYourLifeWithJoy Nuclear electricity causes the least death per kiloWatt generated despite the terrible accidents like chernobyl and fukushima, because those incidents are so rare, while fossil energies cause death through air pollution and wind and solar cause death through falls from turbines and roofs. Plus the construction of wind and solar is pretty carbon intensive, from mining for materials to burning fossil fuels to smelt the metals it's not so green as we would think.
Fred Fèteira it is by far the safest form of energy available per twh of power, this is real hard science gathered through all the decades look at WHO's reports on Chernobyl and Fukushima, or any other highly credible scientific source
I'm getting *REALLY* aggravated by this channel inability to be unbiased. Solar panel are polluting to produce (yes, it can be offset, but it isn't yet if you compare to, say nuclear). You talk as if they are going to be there forever, but they decay overtime and current models decay pretty fast. You also don't talk about latitude, cloud coverage, dust and other issues that make solar panels often one of the worst choice of the "clean" family. And you have *yet* to acknowledge nuclear as being the safest, cheapest, most reliable and distribuable energy source we currently have access to.
solar life-cycle produces nearly 4 time more carbon than nuclear and release huge amounts of highly toxic materials both in their mining-production and in their disposal. this will stay toxic indefinitely nuclear "waste" on the other hand is well-handled problem. first, there is not much of it, i mean that is literally the selling point of nuclear. second, we know how to handle it safely. anyone afraid of waste should consider these two factors
I support your concerns towards the lifetime problems of solar power but I disagree on your points on nuclear power as it requires mining uranium, refining it and if an accient happens, the fallout is way more deadly than anything else, see tscherobyl, or fukushima. Also there is the problem of what to do with the nuclear waste? it will radiate for aeons and there hasn't been a good sollution for the waste problem so far. after all, if a solar panel, you just have an expensive pile of glass, metal and silicone, not a fallout wasteland.
Gemoron also, both solar and wind has highly toxic metals and materials in them, they are known to leak them after being disposed. this will become a huge problem in the upcoming decades as there is no infrastructure to handle all that waste and most expert think it won't be. *edit: grammar
Hey Dorth, we don't make a claim that *any* clean energy technology is superior to any others, because there a lot of variables at play depending on where a person lives and how much personal choice they have over their electricity source. This video explains how, if a person is interested in getting solar as all or part of their energy, they can do that if, for instance, they don't own their house. Again, we don't claim any non-fossil fuel energy source is better than another for everyone, because that's an impossible claim to make. We tackled some similar questions about nuclear power way back in our second video. Check it out!
Solar power is a bad joke comparing to other clean sources such as nuclear power. The power need of humanity is 0/24 while availability of solar power is not 24h. End of the story. The only thing why can solar PP-s in the grid the other PP-s which can keep stable the grid. It simply makes me angry the worship around solar and wind power.
Good point. Solar and wind as an electircal energy source becomes a very good business under cover of green thinking. It's just an easy money for some.
Too many times I heard this bullshit. Before solar and wind power all PPs used the same principle, every PP used the steam cycle with steam turbine even gas turbines uses the same principle just the working medium is different. You can choose different way to run a rotating generator (nuclear, natural gas, coal, water) but these are the only reliable and controllable PPs. Period. What is the pro for solar and wind power? Because I found none. The are just parasites on the grid and they always will be because they are inherently unstable PPs while the point of the grid is keep the 50 Hz (RU) grid FRQ. Wind and solar non controllable state means inequality in the system because their only was to operate to always accept their produced power regardless you need or not. This limits their percentage what you can build. Have you ever chanced the consequence of being way too worshipful towards to solar and wind and being anti nuclear? Check GER vs FRA. Power price is twice in GER while their CO2g/kWh is 8-12 times higher than FRA... www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false CO2g/kWh comp in May where you have lots of sunshine. Imagine in winter... data.electricitymap.org/?.org& It every superpower and med power followed the way of FRA the CO2 problem would be just a fraction what we experiences today. You do not need solar or wind. FRA can live without well while having clear and cheap power. And the NPPs of the future will be way better then 2nd gen PWR reactors. Only a very few people have the benefits of solar and wind who build these things and enjoy the subsidiaries from the grid and government. The rest of electricity consumers pay their income...
@@molnibalage83 you've got some good points there. Kurzgesagt made 3 really good videos about nuclear energy and focused on 3 pros and cons ua-cam.com/play/PLFs4vir_WsTxiWN00_TUeFqaWzuw4a4Pc.html Especially the cons give you the answer why it is not as popular as you wish it to be.
I installed 42 solar panels, but before doing that I switch all energy uses to electric, including transportation. Now I have no gas or electric bill and buy no gasoline. Currently I have a $200 credit on my electric bill, but that my run down to a small bill during winter. Some months I sent over 1,000 kWh back to the grid on a net basis and that is with all of my car charging at home. It's amazing how much energy is available from the some. Only a very small part of my standard size lot is used for solar and that's at less then 20% panel efficiency.
How much did it cost you for 42 solar panels?
*42*
The Answer to Everything
In Germany we got the "Mieterstrom" where you can install solar even if you are renting or just owning a flat in a bigger house.
1:46 what the hell? My 5.28kW system only cost less than $6000. Payback time slightly more than 5 years.
It really depends on what state you live in.
@@always.elevate i guess different places receive ammount of sunlight, less daytime means less energy means longer payback time. At where I live, I receive 6.8191780822 hours of sunlight per day on average.
or country.. in The Netherlands I filled my roof voor 2500 euro (granted the roof is smaller)
My 6.8 kW Monocrystalline system cost me approximately NZ$10,000, and about 1,500 of that was getting the electrical certification to connect into the grid. That was 5 years ago. It's already paid for itself. And I've been collecting additional good panels from an industrial upgrade (5 year old Monocrystalline ones) at NZ$0.50 / W. I now have an additional 1 kW simply connected to heater elements in the house for winter, and I'll be adding another kW to the grid shortly.
I wondered at that statistic as well. Heared otherwise.
In India, 1 KW solar installation costs about 1400 USD (Without Subsidy) and the payback period is usually 6-7 years even with our very cheap electricity tariff which is flat throughout the day. If you buy everything(batteries, panels and structure) separately it will cost less than 1000 USD.
Great video! I live in Québec and our electricity is 99% hydro generated does it make a difference on my carbon footprint to go from hydro to solar? I guess that if i consume less power from de grid they can sell more energy to places that uses less clean energy production.
Hydro electric is sorta solar as the sun evaporates the rain to replenish the reservoirs.
if you have hydro,then then you don't need solar.
@@dragonskunkstudio7582 if you think about it, all energy is solar. Uranium fused in supernovas so nuclear is too.
Yeah that, and maybe also consider the non-co2 emitting impact. Hydro is great, but has a MASSIVE ecological impact on the river ecosystem you put the dam in, it can be dampened, but there's no way around that river having much less water for a portion of its length. With solar you have to consider energy cost in producing the panels, and possible pollution by improper disposal (some panels have NASTY stuff inside them in order to work) So... it's complicated. If you do go solar make sure to dispose of the panels correctly once their operating lifespan runs out
Yes Converting to solar would indeed reduce your carbon imprint. Hydropower comes with steep environmental, and ecological costs and moreover has been shown to not carbon neutral as it creates conditions for anaerobic respiration which produces methane instead of CO2 a stronger greenhouse gas per carbon atom (i.e. decomposition of carbon based matter is per atom going into Methane CH4 instead of Carbon dioxide If this per atom effect is accounted for then Hydropower accounts for 1.3% of total anthropogenic emissions.
www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/06/hydropower-hydroelectricity-methane-clean-climate-change-study
earthjustice.org/blog/2014-december/coming-clean-hydropower-s-dirty-energy-secrets
Great video! Solorpanel prices have come down even more. You can often get full coverage for about 10,000 dollars. And that is a very big difference!
How sustainable ist the production of solar panels ?
In yemen almost all houses use solar energy
I can’t believe I don’t have solar panels and I am researching about it and I have Enough money
SOLAR LEASE! How’d you leave that out? My 3.2kW array (16 panels) didn’t cost me a penny upfront. My monthly cost + tiny electric bill (additionally discounted the net energy I supply to the grid, albeit at commercial rate) means I’m spending about the same as I was before, I’m converting more photons to electrical energy than I use, and using virtually carbon free energy as well as supplying daily surpluses to the grid. My system would’ve cost $16k when I got it 7 yrs ago, and I know prices have come down a lot-the $20k you quoted seems pretty high as an average for home rooftop solar installations.
@HotMess: What are the environmental costs of making and using solar panels? What is the environmental cost for batteries?
We don't have alternatives to energy based on simple logic. It's based on subsidies. Wind turbines spin because of subsidies not because of wind. We get Solar energy not because of the sun but because of subsidies. Building a solar and wind power plant creates more emmisions than you save.
What is the carbon footprint of manufacturing solar panels? The silicon wafers are purified by keeping them molten for days at a time until impurities separate. Maybe the payoff over the lifetime of the solar panel is worth it, maybe not. I would be interested to see some numbers
Why don't you look at numbers of fossils first? How many deaths per year from pollution/mining, how many burst pipelines/wrecked ships/Trucks, energy consumption in refining/logistics and yes carbon footprint.
Looking at a column in my university newspaper the manufacture of a square meter of solar panels costs 250 kWh and produces 100 kWh per year. Those numbers are probably estimates. If you use an other power source to supply your home, you will use those 100 kWh every year. How much CO2 is used during the manufacture is dependant on the source of the energy. Melting silicon is usually done with electricity. However, reducing the energy footprint will in turn reduce the carbon footprint. When looking at it with regards to energy use or carbon footprint then solar panels or other renewables are without a doubt the way to go. It's only the costs that are holding it back.
(article in dutch: www.delta.tudelft.nl/article/column-kilowattuur-de-nieuwe-bitcoin)
Very low.
I was hoping to see something about Homeowner's Associations and even local governments' overly burdensome restrictions on solar. That's the reason I had to remove my solar!
It has historically proven the more the human forms a bigger community the better the welfare of humans happens, Same for the electricity, I hope for the best for the humans that one day will come when nobody would kill anybody.
4:19 Yes , i like what i saw :)
It's sad that companies are more worried about profit instead of environment. Solar could be a good thing but even it's based on greed
The problem is that the solar energy is not costant, in this moment it is impossible to produce all or a lot of elettricity whit sun, because during night or winter there isn't the same productivity that during the day or in summer. It is important to remember this, it is necessary more types of renewable energy or an accumulation sistem of energy.
the goal is clean energy, renewable does not always mean clean or environmentally friendly. likewise, clean does not always mean renewable. whale industry was "renewable", but it was an environmental disaster. similarly, a lot of bio-fuels are environmental disaster as well, even though they are renewable. some of this fuel is imported from huge fields of cleared rain forest and other important ecosystems. even in other places, the farming of the plant is not really environmentally friendly. and in general, cutting trees is a terrible idea, forest are carbon sinks and must stay. and the huge bio-fuel fields should be used for more important tasks
our goal must be 100% clean energy (more than just electricity). this includes hydro, nuclear, geothermal, wind and solar.
Surely it is important that the energy is clean and not only renewable. A speak about elettricity because it is the argument of the video, speaking about energy there are a lots of things to say, but my intention was to remember that is impossible to think to use only solar energy and invest only in this type of energy, like I see in last few years.
where are those links? you mentioned?
2:19
*DOOOOGE!!!*
very approve 👌
Hot Mess, I don’t hate Solar. Have thought of it. But it has a huge problem. Check my numbers here and see if I’m wrong.
The real fatal flaw of Solar energy and other renewables isn’t storage. It’s the environmental impact. This may sound crazy to you, but hear me out. Environmental care is more than just CO2. Mankind Best minimizes his impact on the world by minimizing his footprint on the world. Not by covering the land with more solar panels. That’s the basic idea in what follows if you wanna skip the numbers. But the numbers show the scale so please read on even though it’s kinda long.
I see all kinds of videos on you tube and websites online that try to show a very rosy picture of Solar panels or wind being able to meet our demands with relatively small amounts of land usage. They usually are way off for 2 reasons. One, they assume only converting our electricity sector which isn’t nearly enough when you consider we need to decarbonize our entire energy sector(comprising electricity, transportation, and industrial and home heating) at about 3 times the size of electricity alone. And two, they usually don’t account for the intermittent nature of renewables and the multiplication required for “capacity factor”. To see the numbers, let’s focus on solar and just the US. Typically videos use this faulty math to show an area for US energy needs of something that looks about the size of New Jersey or Massachusetts for Solar. Elon is even one of the culprits when he estimated an area of 10k square miles. How big really? The US used 100 quad BTUs of primary energy in 2019 according to the EIA. Convert that to gigawatt hours. That’s more than 29 million. Divide that by 365 days and then 24 hours to get the average constant gigawatt power rate of more than 3300. How much land is a gigawatt of peak solar you ask? Different numbers but somewhere between 7 and 15 square miles per gigawatt. The Pavagada plant in India is the largest and one of the newest plants out there and it uses a little over 10 square miles per gigawatt so let’s go in the middle for easy math with 10. So 3300 gigawatts times 10... more than 33,000 square miles!! Almost Half the size of Utah or Arizona. But wait, there’s more. Solar only works part of the day. You have to calculate that in with that capacity factor I spoke of earlier. In the US, average capacity factor is 24.7%. Be nice and round up to 25. So you need to multiply your area by 4 times to account for capacity factor of only being on 25% of the time. Now that area is more than 130,000 square miles!!!! That’s bigger than Utah. That’s bigger than Arizona. That’s almost as large as New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia combined! It’s about half the size of Texas! Have you ever driven across Texas? And I rounded in favor of Solar multiple times here. Oh, and that’s just primary energy! This doesn’t account for the energy we consume in the form of manufactured goods using the energy produced in other countries since we are a net importer. Just imagine the natural environment displaced by this stupidity. Currently the US has 106,000 square miles of Urban land. We would more than double that area to go fully solar!!! What a joke! And I haven’t even touched the cost or the other elephant in the room we already spoke about of the energy storage that would be required. Purely on cost, this may even be more cumbersome.
Another video looked at the entire world’s energy needs and estimated an area the size of Spain. They started with a total worldwide energy usage of something like 670 quads estimated in the future. Currently the world is somewhere closer to 600. If you do similar math to what I did above, the area required isn’t the size of Spain. It’s almost 5 times the size of Spain!
What portion of the US are we going to cover with half of Texas? What part of the World can we afford to carpet with 5 Spains worth of solar panels? A world who’s energy demand by some other projections may double in the near future. What portion of the environment are we ok with destroying to build such monstrous amounts of solar farms?
I’m not anti Solar or renewables. I think they have a place. Really, I think they are great! They just aren’t nearly “great” enough. So what is?
Nuclear is the best option for us. It is precisely because it is dense. Precisely because it has the least environmental footprint.
Please look into these numbers. I challenge you to see if they aren’t correct in essence. We might squabble a bit on some of the numbers but in general, the scale is correct.
I ask you to research and support a complete solution that recognizes the critical and central role of Nuclear in our future. Looking forward to your response.
$20000.... do ur research well... In Australia you get 5kW of solar setup with installation and all for $2500 after govt rebate....
Sadly I am missing one point here. You are more or less only focussing on the psitive free energy effect of running and well maintained solar cells. It costs a lot of evergy and a lot of resources which are beeing mined under environmentally unhealthy practices, mostly in china. After all, a solar cell requires refining silicone, mining rare earths like gallium and lots of glass and steel.
Also, after an estimates lifespan of 15-25 years, the failure rate of solar cells rises and recycling these cells isn't cheap nor clean either.
Sadly I am not sure if modern production leads to a net gain or net loss in emissions if you factor in the whole lifetime of a solar cell as my knowledge is outdated by ~5 year.
Maybe you could make a video comparing the footprints and side effects of different renewable energy sources e.g. solar, wind, water, tidal waves or mirror power plants.
I would love to see such a video as well. Good point.
Actually modern solar cells do not require almost anything of that, that's precisely why they are cheaper by the day.
IF instead of leaving the whole business of solar installation/maintenance to homeowners, it'd be managed by utilities, as happens in Germany, then it'd be much easier to install and maintain and people would only pay monthly fees (or even get paid if they provide enough space for solar panels).
The idea of using an otherwise perfectly good field just to fill it with solar panels is horrible to me. What a waste of space. Surely there's enough roof surface to supply that need.
Deserts fields are not particularly good for anything and they get lots of sun.
My words. Fucks me up as well. So many roofs of industrial buildings or malls or whatever could be used for solar....but no. They put it on fields that could be used otherwise.
DoubleCrossed Swine, hence my qualification of 'an otherwise perfectly good field'.
Cover the entire Saharan desert with solar panels and supply power for the whole world for all I care. Just don't put them in fields that could be used to grow food or some other useful purpose.
In germany almost every solar panel is on a buidling, home or otherwise. They beat records of solar energy production even if their climate is cloudy.
installing a small modular reactor would be a far better choice than "shared solar" or any similar scheme. once installed, they can provide 24/7 cheap, reliable, clean and abundant electricity for any small community.
actually many different companies entered very late stages of development, some experts think we'll see them on the market within the decade. may be the most promising is IMSR from Terrestrial, it entered the last stage of pre-licensing vendor review. their reactors can enter the market in 20s
that's just one company, many are getting very close to finally entering the market. 2020s will likely be the start of a new nuclear Renaissance.
nuclear has come a really long way, there has been a lot of development in last two decades. the market is already changing and will change way more in the upcoming decade.
Change the host ASAP sorry
Yash Patil Why?
Some states, including Arizona, have pro-solar initiatives on the ballot this November! #VoteSolar :)
Installing solar panels in india is way more easier and offcors cheaper. It's in trend is towns and b/w farmers,.
Arjun Goyal does the pollution affect the performance of the panels?
To all the nuclear fanboys hating on solar in these comments...why? Nuclear and solar can and should be used in in tandem to address climate change. This winner take all talking point war between nuclear and renewables needs to end. This is the opinion of some of the most well respected energy wonks and climate bodies on that matter, we need an all of the above approach. It is a 10 trillion dollar energy game, more than enough for all the energy players we can think of. Just make policies that support low CO2 and let people and markets make their choices.
In some countries in Europe nuclear energy is attacked by "green" parties. They have a huge fear it's gonna explode for one reason or another, and they wanna close all nuclear plants and switch to 100% renewable no matter what. However nuclear fanboys don't wanna pay for that and they definitely don't want more CO2 either. This is just like a political clusterfuck.
I hear that "argument?" all too often, when it doesn't need to even be an issue. I suppose creating a universal system that can accept all forms of electricity would mean there is no job security for power companies, when individuals no longer need to buy power from public sources. I can see that being an issue if their lives are codependent on others & depend on money to survive. Self reliance can hurt the economy, but it will save the planet; what's more important?
Ya, Vince, I understand why this backlash evolved, it just needs to go away. Instead of returning fire, nuclear supporters should still continue to attempt to build bridges with their, for now, hostile stake holders. Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, as the saying goes.
I am not sure I understand what you are getting at, Michael, though. I am not sure if self reliance will be a huge part of the energy equation or not, and the changing role of energy companies is complicated...I have no horse in that race :D
Nuclear is poisonous and there is just not enough uranium on Earth to power even a tiny fraction of what would be needed to provide the world of energy, never mind comissioning and decomissioning all those nuclear reactors every 20 years or so (they degrade fast). Nuclear is part of the problem, not of the solution.
@@LuisAldamiz Every scientific body that deals in energy and climate disagrees with that assessment, including the IPCC, the IEA and NREL. Plus, most reactors have lasted over 60 years, so basically every talking point here is incorrect and not the scientific consensus as we have enough uranium to last millennia. Nuclear is as clean as renewables, as most of the studies that have looked into the externalities of energy note, most recently the UN commissioned study from ExternE. Basically, it is talking points like this that make nuclear people frustrated...when you ignore the science when it disagrees you and listen to it when it does.
Step 1: remove tariffs. Chinese solar panels are way cheaper then american solar panels.
Step 2: stop letting the power companies make laws that stop you from connecting your panels to the grid
Step 3: loads of tax incentives
Step 4: implement a carbon tax
Problems solved. EASY
srsly good attempt i agree on that
And that carbon tax will be used for whom, as if it will really reverse global warming, lofl. It'd only accelerate the use of FFs at night.
I believe the ONLY way to reduce the ppm CO2 is to employ MORE energy for things like awesome future cities, space programs, desalination plants - that water entire deserts, cycle the air through CO2 scrubbers, you know, and power to build the clean energy infra, oh, and power up the rest of the world!
That means loads of tax incentives for some best version of the molten salt reactor which shall back solar and wind and _finally, after decades of wasted time_ replace FFs.
@@fireofenergy IMHO the money from a Carbon tax should go towards fixing the problem. It should be used to subsidize renewable energy production as well as upgrading and constructing new nuclear power plants. Fossil fuels are not the way of the future. Even if we do capture every last emision (which would be basically impossible and completely uneconomical) we will still run out of fossil fuels in 1 or 2 centuries. The way I see it, we should switch base load power over to nuclear until renewables take over fully. Unlike fossil fuels, we have more than enough Uranium and Thorium that can be used to generate power. Some new types of reactors can even run off unrefined nuclear fuel while others can run on nuclear waste.
@@brendansmith9677 I would agree but politicians are all crooks.
@@fireofenergy many politicians are crooks who are only concerned with getting re elected, but I don't think they are all like that.
Why America, Irish's solar panels only cost 3600 euro and claim the money at end of the year
LOL, Doge meme! :D
What about this thing which I think is called "solar lease"? You don't have to pay any money for the solar energy system install on your roof at all but instead you have to pay a monthly ammount (normally cheaper than grid energy). If it's cheap, I still don't get it why isn't anyone using it. The only drawback is you don't own the solar panel.
But personally I payed for the entire system, about to install a solar energy system on my home in the next few months.
why would it be cheaper then grid engergy? solar is expensive, bulk power is cheap as f.
@@BartJBols it said here that you can save 10% to 30% on your electric bill using leasing www.energysage.com/solar/financing/solar-leases-and-solar-ppas/
Bart Bols Solar energy isn’t expensive, it’s capital intensive. If you can break even in 10 years (I can in Wisconsin) and get a solar panel warranty for 20 years (very common) then you end up with electricity that’s cheaper than grid energy. Except for the fact that all of the costs you pay for the day you pay to installer, instead of over the lifetime of the system. But a solar lease does allow you to pay for a system over the lifetime of the system. The only possible downside is that you do pay a little bit more to the leasing company for the use of their capital. Meaning leasing is more expensive than outright purchasing, but still cheaper than grid electricity.
That's what they do in avant-guard countries like Germany.
To all those who are saying solar is not a good option , consider this that panel production might become more environment friendly through the never ending innovation and the same can be said about batteries. We cannot yet conclude that solar is not good .
I'm one of those, kinda, because you need about the inverse of its capacity factor and storage for _the world_ to stop using fossil fuels. So, I get "all molten salt nucleary" because it'd use less land, too.
However, I come here to refresh my thoughts and see that, with solar (and wind) alone, we still _might be able to_ do all of the following:
Power newly developing countries up to American standards.
Make it possible for all countries to have the power needed to have space programs (without using methane reforming).
Make it possible to desalinate enough water to water (almost) entire deserts, continuously, for extra crops and their natural CO2 sequestration.
Make possible awesome 3d cities of the future!
Will it? How much land required for solar (and storage) needed just for the world's health care programs?
We need LOTS MORE ENERGY and if it's going to come from the diffuse and intermittent, then it had better cover a few percent of the land (it even has to build itself and storage and its recycle).
Wouldn't we absolutely need a global grid (to best distribute across hemispheres, too, so that we wouldn't need so much storage)?
But nuclear is soooo nasty... even molten salt nuclear, kinda.
Here's more about the MSR, though.
www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx
@@fireofenergy ok but what I advocate is that solar together with wind , hydro and geothermal can make fulfill the demand . See we need to not only increase generation but also decrease our consumption using smart devices . Optimising from both sides can help.
Most people who say that just haven't looked at the footprint of fossils...
Everything has an impact on environment, nothing is for free.
@@sascha5858 yeah exactly everything has some or the other adverse effects on the environment. But we should choose that resource which is the cleanest and more abundant.
Eventually, "fossil footprint" will be an obsolete word. But we still need to know the energy inputs required for all the (clean) energy sources. This is assuming battery powered "everything". However, we can become only so efficient because we can't break the laws of physics, i.e, 1.02 kWh is required to lift an acre foot of water 1 foot up (at 100% eff), rockets require tremendous amounts of energy, etc.
I put in 6.8kW myself - cost me approximately NZ$10,000 (panels from China, mounting brackets, 2 grid-tie inverters, and the most expensive: electrical certification). Eliminated my electric bill. Did it without any government programs. It paid for itself over the past 5 years, and it's basically free energy going forward. Had government been involved, it probably would have cost twice as much.
Rand Huso how long do solar panels last?
After watching this I spend like an hour or so to find out how I as a person with minimal income could be able to invest in renewable energy via crowdfunding or other means :D
I love your Chanel 😍
I think it's great that a lot of affordable housing is being built with solar cells or solar heating already installed. Unfortunately it can have unforeseen negative consequences: for example in Cape Town, all new affordable housing designed to help people move out of townships are being built with Solar heating tank on the roof. This has meant that solar power and solar heating now has a bad image as something "only poor people have" and private take up of solar has declined. Hopefully we can still get the word out that solar is for everyone NO MATTER what your your background/income is
The ONLY policy that would force utilities to invest in and produce renewable energy are feed-in tariffs. This means you should be fighting for this policy in your municipality or state. All other polices will not make a significant difference to renewable energy investments except for economy of scale but that will not happen fast enough.
Outside of wide policy changes if you have the money buy solar panels for your roof otherwise microgrids among households or add solar energy to your housing complex through what ever governance they have. In some circumstances like if your utility is a cooperative being a participating member and investing in renewable would be better. Thats about it sadly.
Solar power purchase agreements or solar grid markets are doomed because the utility has no incentive to invest in solar energy. Effectively the customer pays the premium of investment while getting no benefits to economy of scale. In abcence of any other other polices this could help solar startups who are ALSO getting tax breaks or other incentives break into the market but it doesn't actually encourage investment.
While Renewable Energy Certificates could encourage investment if enough customers bought them they also provide a way utilities can avoid costly investments by offloading to another state or municipality that has lower standards which means RECs only work if efficiency standards are universal and they are not. We need the entire industry to make across the board changes and RECs do the opposite. They make the transition smoother for investors but they don't actually provide an incentive on their own.
At night you need battery bank to be independent of grid
Ideally all the extra electricity produced in an area or country would be converted in hydrolisis hydrogen, then burnt in clean thermal power plants emitting only water as residue. The conversion ratio is low however but it could be done with enough political will, so a combo of solar, wind and other renewables (hydro, tidal, waves) with such storage systems would be fully autonomous and prescind 100% from fossil or any other type of dirty fuels like biomass or nuclear.
That chick is a hottie. Why can't all black chicks be like her?
@Hot Mess, please make one video about nuclear energy.
Look, I love solar. But I hate solar gardens. Seriously why should you install solar panels in nature when there is huge amount of space on roofs of industrial buildings and so on? You should first install it there, we dont need to put that impact into nature. I know it might seem like a little thing and quite unimportant, but when you think about it this is just crazy and stupid. It really fucks me up.
Also, as I'm informed many solar installments pay back in less than 20, maybe even less than 10 years. Sometimes you have to add storage but it actually makes sense today already. And why didnt you mention leasing solar panels? Also a great opportunity^^
Still good video...
I bought 18x 270W (5kW) solar PV system last year and installed it on my roof, myself. I watched a few UA-cam videos and just did it, it was pretty easy. Total cost: $5k and my payback is: 2.5 years. My power bill is: $0. I suggest everyone do this. You need to buy your solar panels, inverter and racking from a distributor, to get the wholesale price. A local solar installer will double the price then more than double it again, to install the panels, which takes about 4-6 hours to do. No need to throw your money away, install them for free.
My 8kw array cost $29000. I got multiple bids for it. After federal credit, state tax savings, power generation savings, and a power company rebate, I will break even on year 8. It only made sense because my home was just built and I plan to live here the rest of my life as long as I can. If you take away the government funded rebates I would never break even and solar would be totally pointless.
55 liker
Landlords will have to be forced to switch to solar power, because landlords never do the right thing without being forced to do so.
One thing which is unacceptable is those places which are abundant in sunshine and wind are still using the coal powered electricity, I think it should be mandatory for every arid region to install solar panels.
Could someone maybe explain the down loan option to me on the link they give? It says 0$ out of pocket, so what exactly am I giving or paying back for it?
We have too many trees in our yard for solar panels to be an option.
Duck curve?
pannels
Just installed 4 solar efficiant panels(what´s needed for my energy consumption). My current daily energy consumption is 5.1-5.2 Kws. It cost me $1,660 Dls for the equipment & installation(my nephew gave me a discount). Normal price with installation was $2,333 Dls. They have a 25 year guarantee against defects & will amortize itself in 6 years(current consuption). Now looking at the possiblity of an electric car. Only requires 2 additional panels. I also installed a solar boiler in Feb 2017. It paid itself off 15 months & 0% carbon emissions(no need to turn on the gas boiler any more & water comes out almost boiling). I did it because I want to reduce my carbon footprint & help in not being part of the problem.
What country?
This only talks about photovoltaic solar panels, but what about water heating solar panels, for your shower or maybe home heating? Also I think some kind of photovoltaic and water heating systems already exists.
My city's power co-op (College Station Utilities) allows its customers to buy wind power instead of conventional power for a little more on the power bill.
In ct they’ll put solar panels on your roof for free. Sadly, where I live they won’t for me bc there are too many trees and too much shade
$20k?? Mine is 5+ years old and cost $1,500 for a 1.5kw system. They are even cheaper now.
And EnergySage is not in Nebraska
In Brazil, where I live, solar panels gets more than 100% of taxes to buy one...
wtf
One person needs about 10 m² of solar panels. So it works for small houses, but not for any tall building in a city.
It's not meant to be used on it's own, it is too unstable for that, it would supplement turbine power plants (ideally nuclear, hydroelectric or geothermal depending on geography)
And some people were talking about the god like fission energy which would end every of these problems.
You can put solar panels even in windows these days, don't fret.
Those SOOLARS were distracting 😅
Khalid M.D. My man! lulz
Dirty turd.
our primary goal is combating climate change, it is decarbonization of energy, not just electricity. we have no luxury but to include all clean options. that means hydro, geothermal, nuclear, wind and solar. insisting on a single type won't work, we can't play favorites. we must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each type and use them properly to create the best clean energy sector we can
_"Hot Chest"_
I'm sorry
Not at 3% efficiency you can't. Unless you arrange for a Solar Power satellite and transmission system to harvest the energy from near earth space.
Nuclear is far far cheaper, safer and cleaner, and we are bringing it to everyone today.
Indeed, the nuclearophobia has really put brakes on the human ability to create clean energy.
Safer? How?
Well it's not safer but it's safer than most people think I guess. It's sort of cheaper at the moment. The biggest problem to use nuclear as the main way to mitigate climate change, for one is you cannot deal with serges on the electrical grid. Another problem is nuclear power plants take an immense amount of time to build (remember planning, objections etc) and it would actually take longer to build those nuclear power stations than the time for climate change to get above the 2 degree threshold and you would not be close to finishing.
@@LiveYourLifeWithJoy Nuclear electricity causes the least death per kiloWatt generated despite the terrible accidents like chernobyl and fukushima, because those incidents are so rare, while fossil energies cause death through air pollution and wind and solar cause death through falls from turbines and roofs. Plus the construction of wind and solar is pretty carbon intensive, from mining for materials to burning fossil fuels to smelt the metals it's not so green as we would think.
Fred Fèteira
it is by far the safest form of energy available per twh of power, this is real hard science gathered through all the decades look at WHO's reports on Chernobyl and Fukushima, or any other highly credible scientific source
I'm getting *REALLY* aggravated by this channel inability to be unbiased. Solar panel are polluting to produce (yes, it can be offset, but it isn't yet if you compare to, say nuclear). You talk as if they are going to be there forever, but they decay overtime and current models decay pretty fast. You also don't talk about latitude, cloud coverage, dust and other issues that make solar panels often one of the worst choice of the "clean" family. And you have *yet* to acknowledge nuclear as being the safest, cheapest, most reliable and distribuable energy source we currently have access to.
solar life-cycle produces nearly 4 time more carbon than nuclear and release huge amounts of highly toxic materials both in their mining-production and in their disposal. this will stay toxic indefinitely
nuclear "waste" on the other hand is well-handled problem. first, there is not much of it, i mean that is literally the selling point of nuclear. second, we know how to handle it safely. anyone afraid of waste should consider these two factors
I support your concerns towards the lifetime problems of solar power but I disagree on your points on nuclear power as it requires mining uranium, refining it and if an accient happens, the fallout is way more deadly than anything else, see tscherobyl, or fukushima. Also there is the problem of what to do with the nuclear waste? it will radiate for aeons and there hasn't been a good sollution for the waste problem so far. after all, if a solar panel, you just have an expensive pile of glass, metal and silicone, not a fallout wasteland.
Gemoron
also, both solar and wind has highly toxic metals and materials in them, they are known to leak them after being disposed. this will become a huge problem in the upcoming decades as there is no infrastructure to handle all that waste and most expert think it won't be.
*edit: grammar
THE SILENT GOD can you shed some light on what kind of toxic materials are in wind turbine?
Hey Dorth, we don't make a claim that *any* clean energy technology is superior to any others, because there a lot of variables at play depending on where a person lives and how much personal choice they have over their electricity source. This video explains how, if a person is interested in getting solar as all or part of their energy, they can do that if, for instance, they don't own their house. Again, we don't claim any non-fossil fuel energy source is better than another for everyone, because that's an impossible claim to make. We tackled some similar questions about nuclear power way back in our second video. Check it out!
Solar power is a bad joke comparing to other clean sources such as nuclear power. The power need of humanity is 0/24 while availability of solar power is not 24h. End of the story. The only thing why can solar PP-s in the grid the other PP-s which can keep stable the grid.
It simply makes me angry the worship around solar and wind power.
Everything has it's pros and cons, relying on just one is just wrong.
Good point. Solar and wind as an electircal energy source becomes a very good business under cover of green thinking. It's just an easy money for some.
relying on just one is wrong.
Too many times I heard this bullshit.
Before solar and wind power all PPs used the same principle, every PP used the steam cycle with steam turbine even gas turbines uses the same principle just the working medium is different. You can choose different way to run a rotating generator (nuclear, natural gas, coal, water) but these are the only reliable and controllable PPs. Period.
What is the pro for solar and wind power? Because I found none. The are just parasites on the grid and they always will be because they are inherently unstable PPs while the point of the grid is keep the 50 Hz (RU) grid FRQ. Wind and solar non controllable state means inequality in the system because their only was to operate to always accept their produced power regardless you need or not. This limits their percentage what you can build. Have you ever chanced the consequence of being way too worshipful towards to solar and wind and being anti nuclear? Check GER vs FRA.
Power price is twice in GER while their CO2g/kWh is 8-12 times higher than FRA...
www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false
CO2g/kWh comp in May where you have lots of sunshine. Imagine in winter...
data.electricitymap.org/?.org&
It every superpower and med power followed the way of FRA the CO2 problem would be just a fraction what we experiences today. You do not need solar or wind. FRA can live without well while having clear and cheap power. And the NPPs of the future will be way better then 2nd gen PWR reactors.
Only a very few people have the benefits of solar and wind who build these things and enjoy the subsidiaries from the grid and government. The rest of electricity consumers pay their income...
@@molnibalage83 you've got some good points there. Kurzgesagt made 3 really good videos about nuclear energy and focused on 3 pros and cons ua-cam.com/play/PLFs4vir_WsTxiWN00_TUeFqaWzuw4a4Pc.html
Especially the cons give you the answer why it is not as popular as you wish it to be.